Is Nuclear Power the solution to Middle East Oil dependency?

[BigBadBrian]

A tale of Nuclear Power

[FORD]

Nuclear power's not the solution to anything. At least not until they find a way to burn up the nuclear waste in the process, and eliminated risks of another Chernobyl/Three Mile Island/etc.

[knuckleboner]

3 mile island was NOTHING comparable to chernobyl.

if we have the proper safeguards (which, so far, we have in the U.S.) then nuclear fuel is much SAFER than normal power.

how many coal miners died mining coal?

and how much pollution (some of which has aggrevated and even killed the sick and the elderly) comes from coal-fired power plants?

and who in america has died from a nuclear power plant?

[FORD]

Originally posted by knuckleboner

and who in america has died from a nuclear power plant?

Ever heard of Hanford?

[knuckleboner]

it wasn't a commercial power plant. it was weapons-grade, right?

either way, include the 7 or so that died there and you have to increase that number by a factor of several hundred thousand to get to the deaths associated with coal-fired plants.



[edit: nope, i'm thinking of another nuclear-weapons reactor. how many people died from hanford? i can't find an official death toll at all...]

[Pink Spider]

Besides waste storage, I see nothing troubling about nuclear power. Accidents are rare and safeguards are better than the 80s.

If we could find some easy way to recycle it or render the waste harmless, then it would be an completly acceptable energy source.

Besides, normal exposure should be virtually safe. People within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant should only get .009 millirem of radiation absorbtion per year. While from cosmic rays alone they can get up to 27-45 millirem.

Again the major problem is waste storage, which evironmental solutions are still being worked on.

[John Ashcroft]

The only problem I've got is it's "Nucular"...

And Pinky, I'm proud of ya. That's what I'm talking about when throwing down around this place. Throw down the facts. You know that the EPA has set standards for nuclear waste storage facilities that require something like 500 time less radiation than the Capital building (which has a natural level of radiation due to all of the marble).

Anyway, storage is certainly the problem here (even if we have an over zealous EPA). But it doesn't change the fact that Nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest source of energy used by man.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
But it doesn't change the fact that Nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest source of energy used by man.

well...no...not quite cleaner than wind/hydro/solar power...

but hydro power screws up streams' ecosystems.

and solar and wind power can't provide enough energy yet.

and nuclear power (with proper safeguards and properly stored wastes) is safer and cleaner than any OTHER power source.



and mr. AG, you know what the MRI is? it's actually the NUCLEAR Magnetic Resonating Imager. only, the doctors (properly) realized that there are too many idiots who get terrified at the mere mention of the N-word.

despite the fact that we're all basking in glow of the solar system's largest nuclear reactor every day...

[FORD]

Originally posted by knuckleboner

despite the fact that we're all basking in glow of the solar system's largest nuclear reactor every day...

With 93 million miles of radiation filtering in between, although some of it (i.e. the ozone layer) doesn't work the way it used to.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
3 mile island was NOTHING comparable to chernobyl.

if we have the proper safeguards (which, so far, we have in the U.S.) then nuclear fuel is much SAFER than normal power.

how many coal miners died mining coal?

and how much pollution (some of which has aggrevated and even killed the sick and the elderly) comes from coal-fired power plants?

and who in america has died from a nuclear power plant?

Roll the bones.......

[NathanRay]

Nuclear Power is definately the answer Nuke 'em, turn the sand into glass and we'll know exactly where to drill.

[FORD]

Is that you Rick?

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Besides waste storage, I see nothing troubling about nuclear power. Accidents are rare and safeguards are better than the 80s.

If we could find some easy way to recycle it or render the waste harmless, then it would be an completly acceptable energy source.

Besides, normal exposure should be virtually safe. People within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant should only get .009 millirem of radiation absorbtion per year. While from cosmic rays alone they can get up to 27-45 millirem.

Again the major problem is waste storage, which evironmental solutions are still being worked on.

Correctomundo!

The problems are waste storage and eliminating human error. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were both caused by human error, there was nothing wrong with the technology just the way the operators used it.

The real benefits will come from sustainable nuclear fusion. At the moment the EU, US, Russia and Japan are arguing over where to build the first reactor (either France or Japan) that will actually produce more energy than it uses. When they finally sort themselves out... should be around the 25th century... we'll finally have a near limitless source of clean power.

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
the Capital building (which has a natural level of radiation due to all of the marble).

I used to have a Geology professor that blamed the marble for all the stuff that comes out of the Capitol.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
I used to have a Geology professor that blamed the marble for all the stuff that comes out of the Capitol.

I stand corrected! You're damn right here! Normal people don't act like the folks working in the Capitol building, that's for sure. Maybe this radiation thingy really is bad news...