Quote Originally Posted by schulzte View Post
Stop this nonsense. Michigan has never had an earthquake over 6.0 that I've ever heard of. We're several hundred miles from the nearest area of earthquake activity, which is the New Madrid, Missouri fault. Rivers are more likely to flood than lakes, so why build a nuke plant on a river, when you can build one on a lake?
There has been continual earthquake activity in Lake Erie. While these rarely get above the 5.0 magnitude, it is not like it is unknown. Since the history of this continent is so short we do not have a records beyond a 2 or 3 of centuries, so no one knows if an event such at the 4 7.2 – 8.1 New Madrid quakes may or may not be possible. While I agree that a large scale quake with a resultant tsunami sweeping over Fermi is unlikely, it is not totally out of the question.

I find is puzzling how some like to adopt and 'it can never happen here' attitude then trot out the 'technology has improved since then' lines when it does.

Nuclear energy only exists because it is subsidized and given a liability waver. [look at your home owners insurance if you don't believe me]. The industry is not held responsible for the damage it can do nor for the impossible task of guaranteeing the long-term security of its waste which remains toxic for thousands of years and always will be a target for terrorist dirty bomb-making. Nuclear energy is only 'clean' and 'cheap' because it gets a pass the other industries do not.

Coal has its vices, as pointed out above, but if a coal-fired plant goes haywire, will it make thousands of square miles uninhabitable? Will people be sheltering in place for a 30KM radius? The problem with nukes is that there is no room for error. The Japanese with all their knowledge of earthquakes, tsunamis, experience with radiation, and precision know-how still screwed up.