Just a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, President Bush’s adviser on homeland security, was called into a meeting with the president. As described by Ridge in his biography “The Test of Our Times,” Bush was concerned that moves taken in response to 9/11 at the borders — essentially, they were closed — were undermining trade and thus an economic recovery.
After any disaster, the tendency is to stop everything: Close the borders in the case of terrorism, shut down offshore oil drilling after an oil spill, or decommission all nuclear plants in the case of an accident. But that instinct is always offset, and more often than not supplanted by, a greater desire: the desire to rebound. By October 2001, Bush recognized that America had to start to get back to normal. Loosen up at the border, he said, and “find a better way, Tom.”
Comments
Sadly, as the Fukushima reactor diasaster, the Challenger diaster, the Titanic sinking, the Dreamliner fires, etc., etc., have shown, it's not that we don't forsee potential problems, we almost always do, the problem is when we make choices, we often come down on the side of profits rather than human safety. Our codes and regulations have done much to minimize the frequency and severity of disasters, but given chance, and human nature, more tragedies will inevitably occur. All we, as individuals, can do, is be certain that we do what we can every day to ensure we can sleep at night.
Fukushima--put the plant on the shore when tidal waves are common. Challenger---push the launch when its too cold because Reagan wants the show to go on. Titanic---keep speeding to assure the record when you know there's icebergs near. Dreamliner---put untested batteries on the plane to get it out the door.
Fukushima - Fail to protect back-up generators from salt water flooding. Titanic - Fail to extend watertight bulkheads to the top deck.
This article totally avoids even acknowledging the vastness of the argument against using nuclear power at all. To limit it to the question of filters grossly understates the entire debate. Nuclear power is one part of a large discussion that has to sensitively address the balance between sustainability and progress. This article gives progress a primacy which was appropriate for 1950, not for 2013.
And I think she underestimates the organizing ability of the Japanese people. They are going to be like Germany, and get rid of nukes altogether, no matter what their politicians may say.
Japanese will not likely throw away trillions in investments, plus they need the power. Nuclear power has issues, but so do all other forms of energy generation, even water, wind, and solar. The issue not blindly prohibiting one source or the other, it is balancing the potential risks with the real benefits.