Are more nuclear plants necessary for us to enjoy "clean" energy? Accidents will continue to occur because 100 percent safety, 100 percent of the time, is impossible.
When the deaths caused by fossil fuels are considered, nuclear reactors are deemed relatively safe. Realism, it is said, calls for accepting the collateral damage. The energy we need, we are told, cannot be met by anything other than from nuclear fission. Massive investment in safer ways to acquire genuinely clean energy is said to be will-o'-the-wisp.
As long as the challenge to find bona fide safe energy is relentlessly declared unattainable, we must treat the likelihood of the next nuclear accident as a question of "when," not "if."
michael g. driver