A recent article in the Washington Post discusses an NRC public meeting on new construction at Calvert Cliffs. It ends with the following backhanded endorsement:
Clyde Thomas, who works at the plant, said experience makes him feel confidentThe "blast zone" of a nuclear power plant? What's that? It seemed like a rather clumsy comment. But later I received an e-mail with this explanation from Mr. Thomas:
the area is safe.
"I wouldn't live in the blast zone if I didn't," he said.
I still think I was set up!Sometimes it's interesting how reporters choose their quotations.
I told the reporter I lived close to the plant and then he asked me if I didn't mind living in the "blast zone" and then I said "I wouldn't live in the blast zone if I did." I guess I shouldn't have repeated his "blast zone" comment...
5 comments:
You can get "blasted" by a radiation dose, don't you think?
You think these things are chocolate factories?
No I don't really think so. You get more radiation dose from emissions from coal-fired and some geothermal plants than you do from a nuclear plant. In fact, you might get more from chocolate. There's 40K in there. Ahhhhhhh! (We're all gonna die!)
Anon,
More radioactivity in a chocolate bar than a nuclear power plant?
You must be refering to Hershey's following the TMI accident---though luckily that was appartently a pretty narrow plume.
Well, gunter, if you mean to suggest that you plan to eat the entire nuclear plant (or just the highly radioactive parts, if you are on a diet), then I get your point. Otherwise ....
Gunter, you'd eat a Hershey's bar that dated back to 1979? Geez, I knew anti-nukes were a little kooky, but that's just plain gross.
Better stop eating bananas too, Gunter. Plenty of K-40 in those.
Radiation?! Omigod, we're all gonna die!
Post a Comment