Hacker News Reader

Comment by rimantas | Hacker News Reader

  > This is also why modern nuclear power plant design
  > seem so safe.

Have you got any proof thet it is not safe? Or are you talking about 40 years old reactors struck by once-in-millenia earthquake and cunami?

View on HN

A safe design for a device producing nuclear waste can't exclude once-in-millenia earthquakes and tsunamis parameters.

Okay, so once in 1,000 years isn't enough. I'll buy that, especially where an accident's effect can last for up to a century.

So, how about once in 10,000 years? Once in 100,000 years? That's on the level of meteor strikes, and I can't think of any power plant that could withstand those.

I think that "never" is as impractical as "two years from now."

I'd call it safe if it only failed when it no longer mattered - if your power plant does not contain the nuclear waste in case of collision with the moon, it's a non issue, because there is nobody left alive to matter.

Yep, nuclear power plants should go coal plants way: just scatter radioactive waste around and noone will complain.

Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com