Setting up nuclear plants far away from human populations

[Repairman]

I live in Utah. There has been talk about building a reactor here, near Green River, which is pretty isolated. It was iffy before and now it probably won't happen. But the basic problem is, worldwide, where you have cooling water you have people. Moving the power a long distance isn't that big of a deal. There's a giant coal-fired power plant near Delta, Utah (Intermountain Power Project) that sends its juice to California.
And yeah, Nevada has no water.
The main problem is the NIMBYs. They will not let a plant be built. Of any kind. The next big political fights will be over wind and solar, which are already running into major resistance.
My take on this location thing is this, though: Fukushima is located in the middle of a huge population, and they are going to face immeasurably tiny health effects even if this gets a whole lot worse. If you could build a plant, you might as well build it in a populated area, because the last month has proven that in any natural disaster nasty enough to could cause a nuclear disaster, the nuclear plant will be the least of your problems and the least deadly factor.

 

[kocthu]

I can't understand you kocthu. Is english a second language for you? If not then you really need to work on your writing skills. What exactly do you mean by this?

May be English is my final language or I might missunderstand the Topic. This is the last reply for Fukushima, "Effects are done by causes". Thanks for your reading.