Quote:
Originally Posted by jwhcars
There was a run on the banks for cash , again this was before mass use of debit or ATM cards.
The news reports that I was hearing from people out of the area sounded worse than what we where being told locally at the time.
|
Do you have any links or anything to confirm this? This is something I haven't come across. I've seen the stories of the increased doctor visits, the increased psychiatry visits, businesses claiming that they used "pennsylvania-free milk", increased claims of rashes, nausea, etc and the studies that went along with those, but nothing about banks. It'd be neat to have that included in the paper somewhere.
also, regarding the news reports..this is THE point of the paper I'm writing -- that the reports were contradictory, incorrect, and that the lack of nuclear disaster preparation by the governments (federal and state) led to a panic that was greater than it should have been, and why 145,000 people evacuated even though only 12,000 were in the evacuation zone. I've come across newspaper reports, and pamphlets, and such. Very few first-hand reports though.
I'll have to contact my parents. They lived in Scranton at the time. I don't know anyone who lived near Harrisburg though.
The last half of the paper is regarding the attitude TODAY of the people towards nuclear power. S_Morrison said it best:
Quote:
|
...the public is just afraid of what they don't know
|
. There's FAR more danger from pollution from coal plants than nuclear plants, yet because of the invisibility of the dangers (long-term exposures, the inability to assess the direct immediate threat to their own lives), people fear the nuclear plants more. There's also a link to the atomic bombs on japan, that somehow the two technologies are related. It's the public's ignorance that needs to change. Economically, plants are far more expensive to maintain, staff, and protect (and clean up if there's an accident) than any other type of plant.
I don't want to get into the politics of it and have this end up in PARF where nothing good will come out of it. My question was not about the short-term place of nuclear plants in America, but the long term. Obama has virtually nothing to do with that. It's the attitudes of the public that will either accept or deny them in their backyards.