Nuclear Power - your thoughts? (survey)

Actually it is the water leaking from the plant that is 10,000 times higher than normal levels, as the water is used to cool radioactive materials it's radioactivity is usually well above the normal natural levels. Seeing as 10 times the natural levels of radiation is considered a health risk, the radiation levels in the water being 10,000 times normal operating levels is an extreme concern. Unless every official source is lying to us, that article you linked to has no credibility.

 

Bananas are .1 micro sievert (μSv), and the water running off of the plant is 1000 mili sieverts (mSv) per hour. 1000 mSv is enough to make you sick - literally and figuratively. That's one hell of a difference no matter who's holding the degree in science.

Even the article you posted said they got burns from standing in the water. Sure, not "noticeable until they were done doing their job" but really? That's disgusting - and then the article compared it to a sunburn! Very strange analogies from the pro-nuke crowd all around. I'll bet even pro-nuke people put on sunscreen now and again.

 

I agree that using cost-benefit analysis is a rational approach. But in the particular case of nuclear power, I think it is immoral. Why? Because it is the nature of cost-benefit analysis to discount costs that occur in the distant future.

So, consider a scenario where the present cost of building a nuclear plant is being calculated. Because of the intractable difficulties of keeping nuclear waste separated from the biosphere, it may be likely that the nuke plant operates safely for its entire lifetime, but then, say, 500 years in the future, its waste contaminates the environment and 100,000 people die of cancer. Even if this is taken into account (unlikely) the discount rate will make this cost so low because it is so far in the future as to not really affect the calculation.

Yet, if this happens, it is a tragedy of a high degree.

In cases where huge environmental impacts happen in the distant future, cost-benefit analyses are the wrong tool to use, unless we use a zero or negative discount rate.

 

For the distant future generations of Man should use the humanistic approach with philosophy, ignoring psychology. It gets me off the hook and I can vote conservative without a bad conscience.


But man is an animal only if in His ideas He confronts cost-benefit analysis with the economics of scarcity and growth. Only if his cognition is for the devil that way and he must decide in advance what is scarce to the social equality.

 

The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards).- - I looked it up, or asked Homer Simpson I dont remember- -


Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always be there The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human beings & nature - We only saw a small portion of what damage could go down from Chernobyl, 3Mile Island- and now Japan
- - Of course nuclear weapons- are a different story- -
The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) that are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world.

Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world.
During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. Im not a scientist but I gotta figure the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons .
The source for nuclear energy >Uranium, is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is about 25 yrs in western democracies.
In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.

Uranium as fuel, is a scarce resource. The supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual demand). Therefore nuclear energy is not even a renewable energy->
We must not any longer shut our eyes to the consequences of our being on earth. Besides moral, ethical and spiritual reasons, at least for the pure will to survive we should consequently strive for a sustainable living and realize it in our personal life.
It's time for change, :banghead:
Jack

 

Radioactive waste? I thought they understood that. Instead they don't know about the meaning of total meltdown. Any partial meltdown can really change the nature of the world and the people in it to disgraceful ignorance for the intolerant developments to follow. Is Fukushima a total meltdown or anything resembling the one unit total meltdown of Chernobyl? mind us all, Fukushima had four units to total inoperativeness.

 

Some think it pretty neat to produce nuclear fusion on the earth.

Pfftt, I would would be more impressed if we produced nuclear fission on the sun.

 

Everything must change. But (a) that wasn't the view of Bacon for the scientific method, and (b) the ultimate changing was the act of empirical philosophy I don't proceed about here. Francis Bacon was deeply wondering when and if we would be lead to do that.

I look forward to the age of the wind turbine for and through new scientific methods.

 

The value of a nuclear power plant outweighs the proposed risks considerably. The factors that decide the end viability is decided by the human administration. Nuclear power is sustainable, there has been significant research on plant design that minimizes spent fuel rod waste, and if properly stored the nuclear waste would have minimal environmental impact.

As with any power source, there will never be a cessation of mining activity. That is one common reason I have been presented with. "Something" will still need to be mined. And currently the power sources that can rely primarily on recycled tools, parts, fuels, have a very small power output.

Contrary to popular belief, nuclear is very safe. And again, contrary to popular belief, nuclear is, over all, the best non-pollutive power source.

We will never do away with fossil fuels. There are so many by-products from coal, oil and gas production, by-products that we use in everyday life, that it would essentially be the same as cutting our proverbial throats.

This is already known. Under worst conditions, look at Cherynoble. Under the best of conditions, no health risk that I can see.

The American nuclear power industry is so "held back", it's not funny. With plant designs that could decrease the overall risk factor, decrease health issues, and increase the power output. The problem is almost no foresight for what COULD happen, and the no desire to implement any of the alternatives they may have found.

A really good example is placing the power plants in a more stable region. This means away from the ocean. Away from the mountains. And away from active fault zone. Build them in a region, and then concentrate on transmitting the power economically. This has been discussed before, but ultimately cost is always the deciding factor.

Sorry I was late.

You have my permission to use what I stated and you may contact me for more specific information if you wish.

 

The main way it is "held back" is by Wall Street's refusal to invest in it. Even after huge taxpayer subsidies and almost all the potential liability transferred to the American people (Price-Anderson Act), investors recognize that nuclear power is the riskiest and most expensive way to add more generating capacity to our grid.

The idea that it is "held back" by fear and ignorance and environmentalists is false. Face it, it's a very bad investment compared to investing in wind and solar.

 

...which is why the builders opt for cheaper and less reliable materials and equipment. Had the Japanese nuclear plant been built to specs I am doubtful they would have these problems

 

uranium mining
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/uranium.html

 

We have isotopes from uranium mining. But the claim of many American people in the media that the Nuclear Energy industry for the general public is 'sustainable development' thinking is ludicrous. What (how?) is sustainable development thinking in geographic regions? That is a matter that now shows to be totally out of order in any thermodynamic consideration of the mechanically diffused into Negative formal productivity (beyond money) attitudes. :baby:

 

But do we have to have the office systematic form of communication with the level approach to printing and billing for serious technological ethics for the mere thinking and working uranium in the human contact with Nature?:sultan:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXvpWoHzeE"]YouTube - You won't hear this on any mainstream news!!! (Nuclear Fallout)

 

Well, you see, in all fairness to the chemistry systems analysts, much more monistic attempts at the over-all chemical process, do leave the trust to corporeality in the dust bin of time; the future is ours to aspire to with medically developed Care. I don't really care for the truth about Fukoshima's pumping archive of totality totalized.

 

It's wasteful and better technology is on the way.

 

If you want cost effective and efficient, then you want oil products. But for every rose you must deal with the thorns. The biggest one is the environment. The next one is greed. Like Exxon-Mobil. This last quarter they pulled a nice profit. Sure, everyone wants to make money, but the fuel crisis is intentional, to raise the price of fuel. There ya go. Greed.

 

My view, though it must be ignorant, was always that cost effective and efficient would and indeed is dependent ultimately upon changing consumer habits.

Now chemical preferences in the new consumer market are much to refer to the improvement of health, the improvement of property development, and to the improvement of communication for the private living. Either that OR let's be against chemical products all across the board.