But human error does happen. I accept that they're generally safe, but when the stakes are that high, can we really afford to take the risk? What terrorists attacked a nuclear power station? What if there was an earthquake? That might seem unrealistic, but Japan has 25% of its domestic energy provided by nuclear power, and it's a very geologically unstable country.Yesterday 06:10 PM Every thing has a risk...you can not stop progress just because this or that may happen.. aceptable risk almost???.
I agree with the essence of your sentiment, but when it comes to nuclear power, the risk is too great. We're talking about the possibility of accidents that can kill millions and render vast areas uninhabitable for hundreds, possibly thousands, of years. I don't consider that to be an 'acceptable' risk. If you do, then I guess it's just a difference of opinion on which we'll never agree.
Even if you don't have any kind of accident you still have alot of waste to somehow dispose of. Only so much can be buried deep underground
Well i could get worried about that ... but http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=NUCLEAR+WASTE+STORAGE you only have to read...i think i would rather have waste that i can see and erm touch than waste that i have no control over whats so ever...
I quite agree. It isn't the risk of accident that is the problem with nuclear energy but the by products created by the process. It is worrying that the government are considering using nuclear fuel to meet their Kyoto quota and potentially leaving a horrible legacy for future generations.
Well don't get me started on kyoto...but i do see that it is a big problem..not a problem that is unmountable though..what else is their ...????
Wind power seems to be popular with the government, although unpopular with many locals. Wave power is a possibility but one that is very much under explored at this time. Solar power hasn't really been looked at in any great depth, probably due to the British climate.
all 3 are good ...but are not completly cost effective yet..and may never be ... probaly good as a supplement ...but not as THE only source of pwer (IMHO)
That is the problem. The only renewable energy that could provide all of our needs at the moment is nuclear but that probably has more negatives than positives.
I think there's a few hundred thousand russians (dead and living) who'd kinda disagree with you on that point. Oh, not to mention a good few Welsh sheep farmers who had restrictions placed upon them due to fallout from Chernobyl being detectable in high areas of Wales.....
Clearly if things do go wrong then you have a major problem on your hands but I think that the chances are quite slim now that the industry has learnt from the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The waste issue on the other hand is still a major issue that is no nearer reaching a solution.
Well a 'quite slim' chance of an accident that would render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable for aeons is not a 'slim chance' that I want to take! Not to mention the entirely unpredictable impact of geological events such as earthquakes....
I am sure a few thousand don't think that negatively as well...if that happened were i live i might think diffrent , but i never try and think of it 'well its not happened to me so its all right'..but still i can see how people that 'live with it' may not share my thoughts. http://ecopsychology.athabascau.ca/Final/research.htm
Apart from Chernobyl, let us not forget the accidents at Three Mile Island and Windscale (Now renamed Sellafield)
This is a timeline of nearly all known nuclear accidents: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/nwa/
http://www.uic.com.au/nip14app.htm http://power.about.com/cs/coalmineaccident/ http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20020202/opinion/1574634.html http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
You should know by now that I ignore links when you post them. Trading links does not a conversation make. And the above quote doesn't really make sense. Would you care to be more specific?
