For more than three weeks after the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan causing major disasters, of which without a doubt the worst is the great loss of life. But the most talked since then has been that, sorry, but the central Fukushima.
But this debate has not been bad. Because thanks to the small incident of no importance Fukushima we have all learned a lot about nuclear energy. We discovered, for example, that Japanese is a town employee, to endeavor to send people to a central perfectly safe and that had the lowest risk of meltdown or anything. It is true that the central not supposed perfectly safe lower risk for these workers, but it is equally true that the water a nuclear power plant to which no anything could happen and help rebuild the devastated cities tsunami, authorities chose not very well ...
We have learned also that what you save harmless nuclear waste is a waste of time. In Japan it is pouring sea water radioactivity levels significantly higher than that we keep under tons concrete. So now we know that it is not necessary to build the nuclear graveyard Centralized Temporary Storage that had us all worried and we can throw everything Mediterránedo Sea without the cessation of the bluefin tuna.
We also learned that the radioactivity is in a town any of those who evacuated in time is significantly lower than that received by making a transoceanic voyage by plane, so it to evacuate in case a radius of 20 kilometers (1,200 square kilometers "?) almost came upon . That's what we have learned and possibly also those of nuclear plants now going to have to drop $ 12,000 to the families kicked out of their homes unnecessarily, so the next time will be careful not to disturb anyone when an earthquake does nothing in a nuclear plant.
In short, what we all have safe and clear is that nuclear energy is cleaner and safer . And the anti-nuclear, of course, they're all stuck in the past stale fighting progress. Have been protesting since the 40's of last century, so what more proof is needed to see that they really are a rancid? Nuclear power, however, although it is used seventy years (fifteen more than solar panels) can still be considered modern because ... ehm ... yes.
But this debate has not been bad. Because thanks to the small incident of no importance Fukushima we have all learned a lot about nuclear energy. We discovered, for example, that Japanese is a town employee, to endeavor to send people to a central perfectly safe and that had the lowest risk of meltdown or anything. It is true that the central not supposed perfectly safe lower risk for these workers, but it is equally true that the water a nuclear power plant to which no anything could happen and help rebuild the devastated cities tsunami, authorities chose not very well ...
We have learned also that what you save harmless nuclear waste is a waste of time. In Japan it is pouring sea water radioactivity levels significantly higher than that we keep under tons concrete. So now we know that it is not necessary to build the nuclear graveyard
We also learned that the radioactivity is in a town any of those who evacuated in time is significantly lower than that received by making a transoceanic voyage by plane, so it to evacuate in case a radius of 20 kilometers (1,200 square kilometers "?) almost came upon . That's what we have learned and possibly also those of nuclear plants now going to have to drop $ 12,000 to the families kicked out of their homes unnecessarily, so the next time will be careful not to disturb anyone when an earthquake does nothing in a nuclear plant.
In short, what we all have safe and clear is that nuclear energy is cleaner and safer . And the anti-nuclear, of course, they're all stuck in the past stale fighting progress. Have been protesting since the 40's of last century, so what more proof is needed to see that they really are a rancid? Nuclear power, however, although it is used seventy years (fifteen more than solar panels) can still be considered modern because ... ehm ... yes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment