>>>>>>> We need nukes <sob> and we need them ten years ago.

>>>>>> There are other ways of generating electricity. Almost
>>>>>> every single nuclear power station in Europe has something
>>>>>> wrong with it. I don't know what the situation is in the USA,
>>>>>> but then I doubt anyone would admit it.

>>>>> No operating nuke plants are fail safe, afaik.

>>>> That's not right. The CANDU nukes are.

>>> Reviewing the Wikipedia article, they seem safer, but are not
>>> failsafe.  There have been safer designs on paper for fifty years.  I
>>> think they are not built because they require a different fuel cycle
>>> infrastructure, and nobody wants to go first.

>>> Now before someone bothers, it's not like even the Fukashima plants
>>> actually blew up, even though everything possible went wrong.  Most
>>> newer designs are somewhat safer even than that.  So apparently
>>> requiring real failsafe is arguably not a critical issue.  As they
>>> say, close enough for government work.

>> Fine indeed for governments because governments usually refuse to pay
>> out for illnesses that take 50 years or more to show up.

> That's not correct. They have done that with the nuke weapon tests.

> And ours has done it for any illnesses that are the result of war
> service regardless of how long after the war they show up.

> The US does too and not just war service either, military service too.