ext_20840 ([identity profile] miss-next.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] monk222 2011-06-29 02:46 pm (UTC)

No, indeed it wasn't. In the same way, in America, you wouldn't build your nuclear power plants in geologically unstable areas, such as Yellowstone or the San Andreas Fault.

To be honest, you have so much space over there that there's no sensible reason why anyone should have to live within 200 miles of a reactor if they'd rather not. It's not like this country, where I grew up within about 30 miles of a reactor (incidentally with no ill effects). Seriously, you could take some of your most unpleasantly uninhabitable regions, and as long as they weren't also prone to earthquakes you could stuff them chock-full of reactors if you wanted and move everyone out of the area. We don't have that option, but then again it doesn't appear to be a problem.

I think one problem you have got in the USA is the knock-on effects resulting from not having a proper health service. When public health is everyone's responsibility, there's a lot more compassion around for people who suffer from industrial diseases or injuries, and therefore an incentive to make people's work safer. I suppose many people become less compassionate when they think it's only the duty of the employer to look after such people.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting