NRC Study Lowers Hazard Estimate For Nuke Plants 168
JSBiff writes "With the incident at Fukushima causing much renewed concern about the risks of nuclear power this year, the NY Times brings news that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released the preliminary version of a safety report due out in April 2012, based upon new science about the behavior of Cesium-137. The report finds that the public health hazards of nuclear accidents at the types of reactor designs currently in common use are lower than previously thought, based upon a better understanding of the science behind earlier estimates."
Re:Surprisee, surprisee. Industry whoring. (Score:2, Informative)
The second was about British government PR campaign to contain uneducated hysteria about nuclear power generation. Yes, particularly important when you're looking to build a plant. Typical overstatement by press and (worse)
The third simply pointed out, with another ridiculously hyperbolic headline, the detectors hadn't been properly maintained in years. They (obviously) went and calibrated them when Fukushima happened... per the article. That calibration meant the readings went down. Per the article. Wow... another "conspiracy" to kill us with nuke plants headline... color me surprised.
Really... I could find bullshit FUD about nuclear power all day too. What I care about are facts.
Re:TFA (Score:4, Informative)
Chernobyl exploded - it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion, but it was sufficient to blow apart the building and throw pieces of the core everywhere. Really much worse than a nuclear bomb, since a bomb would burn more of its fuel.
And there might have been a small nuclear explosion too - there were 2 explosions, and the second might have been nuclear, although it certain isn't clear - the wikipedia article on the Chernobyl disaster discusses this. In any case, the damn thing exploded.