The point is that this , like it or not , is the general perception of what can happen with a nuclear power plant.
To deal with that perception , you have to explain why it couldnt happen here , and this will take some doing? Large for profit organisations are generally not trusted by the general public.
People make mistakes , that is now and always will be the case , theres no such thing as an accident free site , people know this , so how do you convince them ?
If a plane goes down , does it render the crash site unusable for centuries ? Will there be birth deformities and cancer rate rises around the crash site , will it make people want to be as far away from the crash siteas possible ?
The problem or perceived problem , is that "if" it goes wrong ,the consequences are not a one time disaster , its a poisoning of the area for a very very long time.
From a statistical point of view that is one thing statistics fail to take into account
The issue is that the perception doesn't actual fit with the reality, nuclear is the safest form of power generation, that is a fact.
Its very unfortunate that one incident by a very irresponsible despotic government is tarring the one source of power generation that is mainly clean (no one seems to care about the uncontrolled pollution of extremely toxic and dangerous gases that coal power plants give out, but controlled nuclear waste that's bad ), provides tremendous amounts of power and over time there is a potential to recycle existing waste back into generate power for future generations.
I understand your position altohugh it seems like your playing more devils advocate, its good someone is answering the question of the OP.
A mix of coal and nuclear is the only sensible long term option. Wind farms are utterly useless.
You are surrounded by radioactivity taking millions of years to decompose, your microwave and mobile phone emit microwaves that are more damaging !!
It makes more sense to dump radioactive waste deep in the earth in old coal mines than to dig out more coal and poison the atmosphere any more..
Yes, I'm sorry, I did misunderstand your point. You are dead right about the perception, but to deal with it, you can't "explain why it couldn't happen here", because it could.
You have to convince people that it's a necessary development, and that everything possible is being done to mitigate the risks. Couple this with a campaign to show the statistics as objectively as possible. Properly presented, they will speak for themselves.
If necessary, governments have to grasp the nettle and force it in over public misgiving, as the French have done, possibly under public ownership. I think we are helped by the fact that, although those misgivings are very real, the majority of people are in fact in favour of, or at least neutral towards, nuclear power. There are fewer 'anti's living in the vicinity of existing nuclear power stations in proportion to the rest of the population, largely because they see the local economic benefits.
Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of difficulty reconciling that with my idea of democracy. Although it won't be the first government initiative that's been forced in against public opionion in this way, it may well be the one with the benefits and potential hazards the furthest apart.
The message to hammer home always is "There is no choice".
So, for those worried about nuclear waste from nuclear reactors, what about nuclear waste from coal fired power stations?
and...
Both quotes from this article in Scientific American
(Best to read the whole article as I cherry picked two passages to make the point.)
And then from this article (which is quite evangelical in its support of nuclear power, but raises some interesting points) (but seems to be a blog by any other name)
So, all in all, I'm not going to worry about nuclear waste and or reprocessing, any more than I worry about toxic emissions from coal fired power stations.
Destroy a train carrying coal and you get a sooty mess.
Take out a couple of nuclear flasks on the next train on their way to Sellafield and you've got a disaster.
There are over 1000 nuclear train journeys each year.
Sorry forgot to reply to the above
from Cravens - Home different part of the site I linked above.
How long it took to dissipate the radiation I don't know, but 1000's of years it isn't.
Is there any evidence of deformed babies beyond statistical norms?i.e unlike in Vietnam were agent orange is quite clearly responsible for an increase in deformed new borns.
I do agree that the issue is more perception than reality, the more you look at it the more nuclear is the best option.
Pound to a penny you knew I would reply with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M&feature=related
So, personally, no problem with rail transport (or road as the waste will be in the same containers)