Donna Reed Quotes

With its present organization, staff and attitudes, the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] is unable to fulfill its responsibility for providing an acceptable level of safety for nuclear power plants.

Since the 17th century, insurance agents have been the foremost experts on risk.

I think we should stop using nuclear power plants because it's an old system that we can't control.

More than 30 of America's 100 nuclear power reactors have the same brand of General Electric reactors or containment system used in Fukushima.

The question arises whether private companies can bear responsibility when considering the large risks involved with nuclear business.

While many technological measures can be taken to secure safety at nuclear power plants, such measures on their own cannot cover great risks.

Hopefully, nations will refuse to accept a situation in which nuclear accidents actually do occur, and, if at all possible, they will do something to correct a system which makes them likely.

Nearly one third of Japan would have had to evacuate from their communities…. I came to believe that we should halt further operations of nuclear energy that entail such huge risks…. Japan can supply its energy needs without nuclear power

Before Chernobyl or without Chernobyl the nuclear power was the safe thing.

We must not let ourselves be swept off our feet in horror at the danger of nuclear power. Nuclear power is not infinitely dangerous. It's just dangerous, much as coal mines, petrol repositories, fossil-fuel burning and wind turbines are dangerous.

Sports betting is all about money management, so the most money won on one event is not the most important thing.

We should remember that there are nations which meet more than 30 to 60% of their power requirements through the nuclear power system.

Nuclear power plants must be prepared to withstand everything from earthquakes to tsunamis, from fires to floods to acts of terrorism.

I make money using my brains and lose money listening to my heart. But in the long run my books balance pretty well.

Eight years involved with the nuclear industry have taught me that when nothing can possible go wrong and every avenue has been covered, then is the time to buy a house on the next continent.

We have every interest in seeing that the military use of nuclear power will be contained.

If I finance a bank and I know if the bank will get in trouble, I will be hit and I will lose money, I will put a price on that.

We don't take on Google Glass or the self-driving car project or Project Loon unless we think that on a risk-adjusted basis, it's worth Google's money to do it.

The second thing we did was said, OK, we've now identified the risk, but what do you want to do with the money? Because it's not enough to have risk; you've got to have a meaningful use for the money we give you.

Today, nuclear power provides 20 percent of power in the United States.

For 50 years, nuclear power stations have produced three products which only a lunatic could want: bomb-explosive plutonium, lethal radioactive waste and electricity so dear it has to be heavily subsidised. They leave to future generations the task, and most of the cost, of making safe sites that have been polluted half-way to eternity.

The insurance industry communicates through codes and check-off boxes. If there's no check-off box for you, you don't exist.

Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide, yet nuclear power plants that produce no such emissions are so mired in objections and obstruction that, despite renewed interest on every continent, it is unlikely another will be built in the United States.

When the world has 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 nuclear plants, can we call that a safe world? I think we need to properly have this debate.

We're always doing a lot of user studies on health and safety. We take it super seriously. But if you look back at the history of most new big technology breakthroughs, there is some element of controversy around what impact is it going to have.