Sunday, August 19, 2007

The "blast zone" of a nuclear power plant?

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 confident
the area is safe.

"I wouldn't live in the blast zone if I didn't," he said.
The "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:
I still think I was set up!

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...
Sometimes it's interesting how reporters choose their quotations.

5 comments:

gunter said...

You can get "blasted" by a radiation dose, don't you think?

You think these things are chocolate factories?

Anonymous said...

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!)

gunter said...

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.

Brian said...

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 ....

Anonymous said...

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!