nuclear power the facts and only the facts

Lets have the facts speaking for themselves with a list of all the nuclear accidents in the world and their impact on the environment
the list covers from 1947 - 1991 and includes all accidents
so the question is, "is nuclear power a viable option"

http://prop1.org/2000/accident/facts1.htm

heres a small sample taken from 1991

 

Nuclear power is utterly frightening, especially because of the fact that the waste created by its production has no real use (that I'm aware of at this time?) or place to go really. No one knows the impact it's going to have down the line.

The occurances stated above are frightening based on the knowledge of what happened in Chernobyl. The problem with all this is that the majority of the energy we use right now exists because of nuclear power, and I feel the majority of people use this energy ignorantly; buying large televisions, not turning out lights, not using energy efficient technology (if they can afford it) etc. The more power we are dependant on, the more we throw ourselves in to the mind-set that jobs (because nuclear plants employ a VAST amount of people) over rule human life and the future of it...the more we're going to sink.

Some people feel that putting more money in to Nuclear technology and research is a great option, considering we've come this far with it already. To be honest, there's really no way that nuclear energy is ever going to dissapear, unless there is a social uprise or complete disaster (in my opinion) so we're only left with thinking of viable, alternative options that could work to compete with some (SOME) of the benefits that it has seemed to give off.

 

I agree with you Whispering Winds

 

How many have been killed through the generation of electric power over it's lifetime?

Remember PCBs, ever think of why they were prevalent. They were used by the utility companies in the delivery of electricity.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html

That toxicity owes it's existence to electricity.

 

Yeah I still like how TMI isn't on that list, and another good thing about them, I live in the kill radius but I don't get electricity from them....

 

Today Chernobyl has abuntant plant and anmial life in the disaster zone. Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster in the world and what we have is the earth healing it self. I believe nuclear power is not only viable but necessary to stop the oil cartels grip on the industrial world.

 

Actually Chernobyl is still a disaster zone and the people there especially the children suffer enormously

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

In the former Soviet Union, the area of the Chernobyl disaster has become analogous to the Strugatskys' novel, Roadside Picnic. Humans are not supposed to live within 19 miles of the disaster site, giving rise to a 1,400 square mile region formally referred to as the Zone of alienation, informally known as "The Zone", hence the analogy. The Zone, straddling the Ukraine-Belarus border, contains a ghost city, Prypiat, Ukraine and many ghost villages. It has unwittingly become a major nature reserve. Like in the novel, the Zone attracts some illegal scavenging. Some scientists investigating the area nicknamed themselves "Stalkers".

 

Seems another thread people just complain about what is in place and demanding something different but no one offering a solution just screaming fix it for me!


I believe it had been brought up that the need to build new and upgrade old plants was addressed by the NRC.

The argument is only one sided here as you did not post the facts about other current methods of producing electricity such as burning coal as most do. Coal mine accidents, train accidents that trnsport the coal, plant accidents and lets not exclude the obvious constant envriomental impacts of all that coal on a daily basis. Now compared to the other current methods of getting the electrical thirst of the world quenched how does it stack up??

 

Nuclear waste can be used as material for tank penetrating bullets. The warthog plane for instance fires depleted uranium shells; troops (both iraqi & american) serving in the gulf war who were exposed to the radioactive dust have significantly higher rates of cancer and other symptons of exposure to radioactivity. the military vigorously denies these effects.

the amount of damage caused by other methods of energy production, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal, natural gas, etc) is far more damaging to the environment per watt/amp/volt than nuclear energy. and given the fact that although the waste remains radioactive for hundreds of years, it is utterly essential for the environment and the population that we embrace and research nuclear power, both fission and fusion. existing supplies of fossil fuels are greatly overexagerated, and evidence of this is obvious in the research data being gathered in most OPEC countries. many countries blatantly exaggerate their oil supplies in order to maintain current export levels. the only waste of actual quantity produced in nuclear fission is STEAM. boiling water returns to the atmosphere and is gone. there is no radioactivity (beyond normal amounts) in the emitted steam, as the coolant supply of water is kept seperate.