Should we use nuclear power ?

Should we use nuclear energy?


  • Total voters
    29

Thread Starter

debjit625

Joined Apr 17, 2010
790
Have you all stopped voting,dont just only reply vote also

And yes as per the result of the votes so far ,the use of nuclear energy wins and it should because its too cheap and full-fills our needs ,but I dont think it is safe to say that nuclear reactors are safe atleast on 2011.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,087
As for safety, just look at the safety and efficiency we have attained in automobiles, airplanes, and medical procedures. All have dangers associated with their use, but you don't improve safety by not building them or by locking the design.

In the US, the last reactor came on line in 1996. It was designed several years before that.

John
 

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,686
Look at risk we are exposed to now,our warship are small cities.There is
no real bad history there.So we can choose our small risk in our back
yard.Some town could buy navy surplus when a ship is decommissioned.
What about all the childred born with unexplained unnormal births.As a
society we live with It.Only when outside money interest get involved
do we react. Think about the unexplained thing you deal with and life go on.
Small town engergy,small town kids in special classes for unexplained reasons.
We live with a lot of risk that is not given a second thought,we fight our personal
battles alone because no one can give us an answer. So again we have secret
areas,out of site out of mine applies.Would a small plant in your back yard change
your personal mortality.I don't think so,Its mine over matter,that big cancer ball
that give us light is in our back yard every day.There no getting away from it.
So what is the speed of controled radiation,any different than the sun.Food for
thought,the food that may be a slow death,like 90 years then being recycled
from bed to bed like trash,like poorly paid trash sorters.Trash bring more cash
than our bodies.So what about your back yard,you want to avoid that neighbor
the same as the power plant.The power plant will keep you cool your neighbor
will heat your blood and mine.
 

PackratKing

Joined Jul 13, 2008
847
Some will say that the earth is seriously overpopulated..........

I beg to differ...........do the math

Give each man / woman / child on earth one square yard of turf to stand on.

A mile is 5,280 feet. divide by 3, gives 1,760 yards / mile

For the sake of argument, the California / Nevada border is 900 miles long.

1,760 yards / mile x 900 = one line, 1,584,000 yards long....

make that line 1,760 yards wide......1,584,000 x 1,760 = 2,787,840,000

make that line 5,280 yards wide [ 3 miles ]

2,787,840,000 x 3 = 8,363,520,000 .......

That is....... Eight Billion, Three hundred sixty three million, Five hundred twenty thousand people..........far more than the number of living souls on the earth.

Paint a black line on a U.S. map 3 miles wide and 900 miles long on the Cal/ Nev border, [ or stick to map scale if you wish ] either way it doesn't amount to a hill of beans given the entire land mass on the planet.

The Corn /wheat fields of the world, in CONUS, Canada, Russia, [ with what in the Ukraine wasn't rendered useless by Chernobyl that is ] could easily feed the world, if only we could all stop fighting long enough to figure out the logistics.

Yes, Nuclear power is safe. Only in the hands of those willing to spend the necessary money to build them properly....... and certainly not on tectonic fault lines.

Given the severity of the debacle at Chernobyl, I am amazed that the entire string of reactors there did not go up with the first. What a helluva mess that would have been. And then Russia had the colossal GALL to think they could hide their mistakes from the rest of the world.

Irans reactor is Russian designed.....I find that frightening! I better shut up before this becomes a rant.
 
Last edited:

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,686
You got one life,one battle of your own,one concern your family.
You don't have voice,you don't have choice that big ball in your
back yard has defined Energy. Math has defined possibilities.
 

bribri

Joined Feb 20, 2011
143
Some will say that the earth is seriously overpopulated..........
I beg to differ........
i have to agree with you. i think that the notion of over-population is just kind of a kuldge to make 'developing-world' models fit.
if everyone on the planet is supposed to be livin'-large like us in the west... well that's a different story.

Look at risk we are exposed to now,our warship are small cities.There is
no real bad history there
to name a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19#Nuclear_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)#Sinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)#Loss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-11
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
23,415
One of the odd ironies is that a little radiation is needed for health. If you look at mortality charts it is not a line, there is a small but significant dip from zero radiation to ridiculous levels. I don't know if it is understood or not, just one of those odd facts you pick up reading.

It is a little like cyanide, an extremely small amount is a nutrient, more is poison.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
999
As Candu demostrates it's possible to make a fail-safe system using un-enriched, natural uranium, as the fuel. Light water high pressure system are not fail-safe as they always need power for cooling so you see what's happening in Japan. SO the problem is not nuclear power but the fact that most current power reactors are just sized up models of US sub reactors where the goal was max power in a small space and not safety as the primary goal, with the operator acting as the fail-safe.

+1

Nuclear power, a priori, is not a bad thing. Bad implementations of nuclear power are a bad thing. Same can be said for coal or oil generation. If you think nuclear power is dirty, try living in London England in 1810. Of course that is now impossible, but history speaks volumes about the early industrial revolution. Folks just have to stop thinking in terms of maximizing short-term gain. I really hate the attitude of modern business, myopic panty wads! They will fornicate the world so as they can pile extra billions in their bank accounts.

Candu reactors, although initially expensive, are not only designed to be resistant to earth quakes, but are clean running and almost impossible to melt down. nsaspook's discussion is right on. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility. It is time the world stopped cheeping out on the building of nuclear reactors. There is existing technology that is safe and (relatively, to almost anything else) clean.

Problem is ‘radiation’ has become a hot button. Up here in Canada we have the Sierra club trying to get an injunction against shipping of several Candu reactor housings through the Great Lakes to Sweden where they will be re-built. The fact is, these are less radioactive than a typical 1960’s wristwatch or an ionization smoke detector. They are, however, ‘radio active’.

(Bill shakes his head and bangs it against the desk. This helps him forget that he is surrounded by idiots, or more accurately, those that are bent on furthering their own cause by appealing to idiots. He realizes that there is no shortage of idiots … on which the Sierra club has built strong foundations. Rice cakes, granola and soy milk anyone?):confused::mad::(

 

magnet18

Joined Dec 22, 2010
1,227
As for safety, just look at the safety and efficiency we have attained in automobiles, airplanes, and medical procedures. All have dangers associated with their use, but you don't improve safety by not building them or by locking the design.
I am confident that if the internal combustion engine were to be invented today, it would never be put into production due to the dangers associated.

Also, an interesting thing ford tried back when everyone was bathing in radiation was the nuclear car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
It never went into production for obvious reasons.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
439
While solar I think should be the choice for the future, it will never happen. Nuclear power is, sadly, our best alternative compared to all other resources. However I do not see anybody working towards implementing strict regulations on how to operate the plants or, and this is number one for me, manage nuclear waste. As far as overpopulation is concerned, it is not overblown, one has to look at it region by region and consider what is being done with each population's ability to sustain itself as it exports its goods to foreign nations. As it stands now, most of the world does want to live like the West, the West is its role model and when everyone in China and India gets a hold of a car... well, maybe its a good thing that Quebec is supplying them with asbestos...

no time to write, have to go buy iodine...
 

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,686
Did "Beck" do a good job of describeing the possible melt down
in Japan.No deaths at three mile Island,what about using a
pressure cooker to describe the last resort container and compared
heat to destory pressure cooker,that It could last for a while with
out water.Any comments on Becks explaination.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
439
Beck from Fox? Japanese don't have to worry about going to <snip>. Feel sorry that I missed his explanation, would have made for an amusing evening. Trying to understand right now why media is even comparing this to Chernobyl (at least on-line).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread Starter

debjit625

Joined Apr 17, 2010
790
Again another one....
ABC-Online said:
The Fukushima nuclear disaster has moved up the ladder from the third-worst civilian nuclear accident in history to the second, now behind only Chernobyl. With explosions at three of the plant's reactors, and now a fire in spent fuel at reactor number four; it's now a good deal worse than the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster.

The International Atomic Energy Agency says radiation levels around the plant are now 400 millisieverts an hour. That means that every six minutes eight times as much radiation are spewing out as nuclear workers are normally supposed to absorb in a year.

And the authorities are getting no help from the elements. Instead of blowing east and out to sea, as on most days, the smoke from the burning nuclear fuel is drifting south. About halfway to Tokyo at Utsunomiya, radiation is registering 33 times normal, still not a serious threat to health if things get better soon.

In the capital itself the level is less, 23 times normal. Earlier, the prime minister Naoto Kan briefly addressed the nation on television pleading for calm.
news source :- http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3164723.htm
 

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,686
What do you think of "Glen Beck" pressure cookers explaination,that If the last resort was the pressure cooker able to contain twice the heat without water and no explosion.Your opinion. Did he do his home work,that we are not hearing
from Japan,the American media is over doing the reporting using guys from private think tanks asociated with big
bond money,putting pressure on our dollar.Your opinion on retired thinkers. No deaths from three mile Island leak.
true or false
 
Last edited:
Top