I was not trading them with YOU..sorry about that...it was meant to say that their are risks all over the place... something to read at least...i am sure you are aware of all the issues...i personaly can't see that 'at the end of the day' nuclear power is a bad thing.. throwing in when things go wrong ... why should that change my mind ???.. from what i looked at chernobyl was human error and a badly designed system.. when things go right and 99.9% (don't quote me on that ) of the time things do go right..its a beter solution than we have at present. And better for the enviroment ...
Of course other energy sources are dangerous. Any industry has it's dangers. However none of the disasters in traditional energy production will have the same long lasting environmental impact as a nuclear disaster. Yes there is the pollution aspect but this does not make it right to put the lives of countless people at risk from illness and genetic deformity.
Ummm.... like it's ability to decimate hundreds of miles of land rendering it uninhabitable? It's ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people? It's ability to cause birth defects and degenerative diseases in future generations???
PS. Your sig-pics leach files from other sites. This is considered extremely bad form because it effectively steals bandwidth from the hosts. Copy the images to your Hip Forums gallery if you have no other webspace, and link the files from there if you want to avoid pissing people off.
Its a risk i can accept....but your right when things go wrong thats not a nice thing....millions of people lives are affected in any form of energy production . If something like chernoblyl happened again..i would think have they not learnt anything...are these people mad. But lessons were learnt and changes have made the whole thing less down to human misjudgement. If i looked a bye- plane i may not want to fly ..but then i look at a boeing 777 and think well it sorta looks safe...its a level and acceptable risk with me...not bringing up accidents that happened some 20 years ago. What would be the ideal solution in your eyes .... no nuclear or coal based energy systems ???.
well sorry for pissing you off...i would hate to do that ... i know that you run a site..so you may be irked by it... a PM would have sorted that little grievance out ...
Well being against nuclear technology in all its forms is one thing..just being against it being used as a diffrent form of energy supply is another.
I think describing nuclear disasters as 'not a nice thing' is kind of an understatement! But not usually terminally. So you think we can abolish human misjudgement? You've not been reading your history books..... But there are still air accidents. And the analogy is bad, because they don't have the same consequences as a nuclear accident. What may be an acceptable risk for an aircraft would not be an acceptable risk for a nuclear power plant. We don't have an ideal energy solution at this point in time. That's the problem. If we did, we woudln't be having this conversation. You didn't piss me off. It's not my bandwidth you're stealing. But picture-leaching has caused an argument on this board at least once in the past, and it's generally considered bad form. Sorry if you would've preferred to hear that in private. I'll remember that in future I'm against any technology that puts hundreds of thousands of lives at risk, be it nuclear or any other.
I would like to live in that world as well..but i don't . The world i live in is ugly smelly and it hurts..but thats life. I was asking what your idea of an ideal energy solution was , thats all.
I realise that ...but like i said if no lessons were learnt i would question what the hell people were doing. As time goes on safety and effiency is improving exponentialy. My original thought was that if some one that was filling in a questionaire prejudices will filter through into the results .... You have to look at it all not just the bad side. Even if the good side sorta makes your point and your thoughts untrue. ( in general..i hasten too add . not having a go at anyone)
Well I agree that safety improves. But a miniscule risk is still too great a risk where nuclear power is concerned. Again, I agree with you. But the point is, different people will interpret the same information in different ways. You seem to assume prejudice when people don't reach the same conclusions as yourself. Or at least that was the implication of your original post, but I think we've moved on from there now....
Oh, and if you really believe lessons are learned and nuclear power is now safe, have a read below. This was sixteen years after Chernobyl, in 2002. American nearly had a meltdown of Chernobyl proportions and only escaped it through luck. </H1>
No i like people telling me i have no idea what i am talking about or that what i am saying is what they think as well....if the world was run by my logic and thoughts ...we would be up somewere with out something ... Ask a simple question if nuclear power is a good thing ...my answer is yes.... I would be intrested to see the results of the questionaire ...i don't know what questions they are asking but even so it would be intresting to see..The cynic in me is not expecting Friends of the earth to have anything positive to say about nuclear energy...apologies if they are balanced and fair..
I think the chances of it going pear shaped are irrelevant in this instance. If nuclear power could dispose of its waste in a sustainable fashion then it would be used because the risk of meltdown is less than the risk to civilisation of global warming. That might be a shitty trade off but that's the situation we find ourselves in because there are no other renewable energy sources that are economical at the moment. Sure there will be some that say that economics shouldn't come into it but when wind/wave are three times more expensive than fossil fuels and solar even more so you'd be taking alot of money from other essential sources (health, education etc.). The only viable option that I can see is for a) people to stop using as much energy and b) slowly increase renewable usage until they can be used in the mass market.
Why? Surley that's the key issue? Considering that a substantial number of people consider it to be highly unsafe?
As I said I think in the eyes of many there would be a trade off between the risk of a major nuclear accident and the consequences of global warming, with many of the view that global warming is a far greater risk. There is quite a good article on this issue here and I have to agree with many of the negative aspects of nuclear energy, especially since 9/11 and the increased risk of a terrorist landing a plane into Sellafield. I'm in no way in support of nuclear power myself, just trying to play devils advocat.
Whether we use nuclear power isn't down to me. The government are under pressure to reduce their reliance upon fossil fuels. We don't really have an efficient means of producing renewable energy. I think that with wind power proving very unpopular in many regions that the government are considering nuclear power as a viable alternative, probably using the arguments I've stated before. It would be cool if we could make a difference on here and on other websites but I don't think Tony's looking in. How do you think things will pan out realistically?
