Ploy to stop building nuclear plants?
I don't follow your thinking, no one is trying to STOP the construction of nuclear facilities EXCEPT where there is an identified problem.
First off, there has never been a catastrophic failure of a NAVAL nuclear facility on a ship, PERIOD.
This implies perhaps the lack of proper safeguards during construction and planning.
BUT, even though the fact that there has never been radiation accident on a ship they still have to dispose of the spent rods SOMEHOW. The Hanford facility was built to not contain spent rods for storage forever but to simply hold the rods until they were converted in bomb grade plutonium. Since they stopped building bombs from the spent rods it still left almost all of the rods from nuclear reactors to be stored in the tanks at Hanford.
Over a very long period the tank structure has deteriorated and now leaks, BIG DEAL, they all knew it was going to happen sometime UNLESS a more practicle means of disposal was found and used. The tanks were never designed to be there FOREVER.
In the early 1970's me and my associates presented a "fool proof" method of PERMANENTLY disposing of hazzardous waste including nuclear but was "shot down" by the U.S. Govt. NOT for practicle physical reasons but because of POLITICS and political CORRECTNESS. The project involved the Govt. of South Africa and because of APARTIDE the U.S. Govt. shot themselves in the foot and denied permits to facilitate the project. To this day the technology is valid, not overly expensive and above all SAFE.
There is a defined line between political acceptance and practicle application, guess which one I harbour. I became too old and tired to fight IDIOCY and retired.
Governments in general have done more to destroy civilization than all of the Army's worldwide.
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
|Thunderheads With Egret by Buzz Lightyear|
|Double Rainbow; Abiquiu, NM, USA. by abiquiuense|
from After the Rain