> sirupdzija wrote:

>> how to make nuclear plants 99%% secured against catastrophies like the
>> one in Chernobyl?

>
> What catastrophe ?
>
> After 20 years we can say that the number of dead following Chernobyl
> are a lot less than the number of dead caused by a thermoelectric plant
> while it produces the same amount of electric energy.
>
> The nimby put it like it is "nuclear plant" against "green meadows" ...
>
> The real comparision is "nuclear plant" against "thermoelectric plant",
> 'cause if you need 1000 MW of electric power you don't have many choices.
>
> So, again, what catastrophe ?
>
> If the thermoelectric plant runs on coal, a coal mine implosion kills
> about the same number of workers, and the atmospheric emissions of the
> electric plant causes a lot more cases of cancer.
>
> In Italy, there is a province, Viterbo, that has made that experience.
> They cancelled the projected nuclear plant and built instead che biggest
> italian thermoelectric plant. After 20 years you only have to compare
> the death rate at Viterbo with any of the french cities near their
> biggest nuclear plants. It's not only a question of air quality, it's a
> higher death rate at Viterbo. Tens of thousand in 20 year, more than
> Chernobyl and Chernobyl was a disaster ...
>
> So where is the catastrophe ?
>
> Sometime I talk with someone that says that flying is dangerous than car
> driving. The truth is that car driving kills every day a lot of people,
> but scattered in many places. A plane crash kills a lot of people, but
> plane crashes are rare.
>
> And any way, who would build today a reactor like the one at Chernobyl ?
> What happened at Chernobyl was so dumb, with a plant so bad built, that
> hopefully il will not happen again.
>
> R.L.Deboni