« What Should We Learn from Fukushima? | Main | A Plea for Common Sense on Fukushima »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Nuclear Power Safety Record:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nuclear power seems viable but it really do make a disaster when used improperly.

The fear that is commonly exhibited by the public toward radiation has significant impacts on the opportunity of engineers to build nuclear power plants. You, Ted, have skillfully made the case in this post for why nuclear power should, by all rational standards, be viewed as the safest of large scale energy producing technologies. The sad facts are that irrational free floating fear (not supported by any evidence) dominates the perceptions of many Americans and this fear gets translated into advice from Congress to NRC which ultimately drives the ratcheting up of nuclear regulation. We are already at industry killing levels of obstruction in current nuclear regulation, yet the popular demand (a little more safety never hurts) is constantly to push those standards higher and yet higher . Dr. Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburg has estimated that current nuclear regulation is responsible for pricing up the real inflation adjusted cost of nuclear by 400% over the cost of nuclear as it existed in the US in 1973 [1].
[1] - Dr. Bernard Cohen, “Cost of Nuclear Power Plants - What went wrong?” –
(Regulatory ratcheting, quite aside from the effects of inflation, quadrupled the cost of a nuclear power plant).

You need to caveat your naval assertions with 'US'. There have been Russian disasters.

You're right, and I am adding "U.S." to my blog. Thanks! I appreciate your making the point.

There is quite a lot to be said on why the difference between U.S. and Russian safety experience. Each country spent about the same money and the quality of their people is judged by our naval people to be every bit as good.

So I will be doing a post (when I get a moment) on why the difference in safety results. It's an important subject. It needs to be more widely understood and discussed.

Ted Rockwell

It’s a nice blog you have over here! It’s very useful information for me and I just want to thank you for that! If you post more threads as this one, I’ll follow your blog active!

Think of a mobile app that uses real-time peer feedback from social networks to help business professionals resolve ethical dilemmas; an online portal serving as a repository of case studies tailored to users’ respective business contexts; a web-based Happiness Index that measures the happiness and well-being of employees on a regular basis; a data visualization tool that illustrates the unintended consequences or the externalities of decisions at a global level; an augmented reality app that maps out and archives decision-making paths; a web service that personalizes a company’s Code of Conduct, etc. If we can make the moral economy tangible for users, we can make it real.

Radiation is know as an invisible killer with long term hazardous effects. Should there be an advisory for relocation due to this, take the first flight out.

Fukushima and 9/11 have shown that we should design the plants to perform under even more extremes of conditions, and these improvements have been underway in America since immediately after 9/11.

So I will be doing a post (when I get a moment) on why the difference in safety results. It's an important subject. It needs to be more widely understood and discussed.

As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur.

The comments to this entry are closed.