Always potential for a catastrophe
I am getting a little tired of The Register publishing opinion as fact and conclusions before the story is even over.
I've seen three big stories now (probably all from the same pro-nuclear proponent) with absolutely no column space given to opposing opinions.
The articles are talking like this incident is already over and nothing happened or it is all good news, it's not and it isn't. All I see is that no matter how safe you *try* to make a nuclear power plant the fact is that there is always potential for a catastrophe (Ala Chernobyl) that can make large areas virtually uninhabitable for hundred's if not thousands of years and also negatively effect the whole planet in so many different ways.
Compare that to other power generation schemes that have very little or no ecological or human effect if they were to be destroyed by a catastrophic incident.
The fact that there is potential for these things is why I am against nuclear power. It only takes one terrorist with a big enough plane or an earth quake in just the right place. Only lucky escape (still to be determined) does not make it safe.