Nuclear Power Plants are the future?

what does everbody think about nuclear energy and nuclear power plants?




http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/nukerelapse.htm

The Bush Administration just OK'd the building of new nuclear power plants, after 20 some years of not having any new ones... all this after we have been on Iran's case about THEIR nuclear activities.



personally nuclear power plants creep me out. i live about 200 miles from one, but i have driven past it a few times. everytime i get within about 5 miles of it, my ears start ringing, and the radio in my car gets bad reception as i drive past it. there's just not something normal about that.....
i am definitely not looking forward to more of these being built, with more toxic waste to deal with and more potential for nuclear meltdowns..... if you are within 200 miles from a plant that has a meltdown, depending on the wind direction, you can expect to get a lot of radiation particles coming your way.

i really don't care how some people say they are "clean" because they aren't considering the toxic waste, which has a half life of something like a billion years. in other words, the toxic waste doesn't decompose, it has to be stored indefinitely away from civilization. and there's always the chance that it can seep into the ground and contaminate the water table, etc.

what are everyone's thoughts about nuclear power and what Bush is doing?

further reading:
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/10.html
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/articles.cfm?ID=10389

 

Overall, it is less harmful than the oil-burning plants from which most of the United States gets its power.

 

indestructable nuclear waste that could make anyone ill who goes near it is not a better alternative than wind or solar or ethynol or other types of power that are available

 

i didn't say it was perfect. i merely said it was better than what you're currently using.

 

Noo. Nuclear power plants are extremely dangerous. Plus all the toxic waste. Remember Chernobyl?

Bush is insane.

 

You all too young to remember 3 Mile Island?

http://www.anbex.com/newpage_6.htm

 

I think nuclear energy is going to be the next big thing in energy, whether we like it or not. If people could learn to live using less energy, then I think wind power, solar power, ethanol, and other things would be great alternatives. I guess this is one of those things where we have to "think globally and act locally," and be responsible for our own energy by using solar power or something, and hope others follow that example.

~Nova

 

We are spoiled, hell Im using a 550HP engine right now that consumes about 1.5 gallons of fuel an hour for AC. We waste lots, conserve little. We just hate to be inconvienced in any way.

 

If you drive near a nuclear power plant,
and you get problems with the radio,
then I would get the fuck out of there.
If there is so much radiation to cause you radio to get screwed, then it will do more to you then to the radio.
I think, no offence, that you are just a bit paranoid because it IS a nuclear powerplant
Those things are not designed to leave radiation through the walls, so it would very most likely be in violence of the regulations if you would experience something like that due to the powerplants' radiation.

Nuclear energy is the best energy you can get at the moment in my opinion.
If you take a look at the so called "clean" energy things:

Windmills are clean, yes, but they dont offer alot of electricity, they are damn ugly, you need alot of them, and most of all, they kill ALOT of birds everytime a new one is placed, and the existing one's dont really keep much alive that come near either

Water power, like a dam, gives quite an ammount of energy, yet you depend on the speed of the water, you have to build a huge dam, usually royally fucking up nature area's like they do in china...

And then, you have nuclear powerplants which are marked as "bad" for most people.
But if you take a look, it is one of the cleanest energy kinds of what we have.
You need one building to get ALOT of energy, more then alot of windmills and a huge dam.
There are way more advantages altho I dont feel like typing all out.

Now, people keep complaining about the radioactive rests that come out of the powerplants, that is burried in huge concrete bunkers, that can even surive, how ironic, a nuclear attack
There is not alot of rests comming out, so seeing that it is clean, the radiation is stopped anyway ^o).
(Note: Radiation are parts of atoms that are being shot away (ion's) because the atoms are so instable that they are desperate to get stable, or actually they want to be like, for example, Helium, which wont bind with other atoms and doesnt want to ionise either because it's already 100% stable and "correct" I cant find the proper english words as they are already weird enough in Dutch)

So, less space, more energy, very clean...
What exactly is the problem? ^o)

 

yeah. its probably not the radiation doing that, but the large concentrations of electricity leaving through the wires.

 

Good example, ass. Chernobyl if I remember right was in Ukraine, and was ran even though they had a bad coolant pump, and the core wasn't properly sealed and contained. Now, look at U.S. standards, three mile island. Yes, there was a meltdown, but that big fucking slab of concrete kept it contained. So, if new plants are built like that, then the likelihood of a catastrophic meltdown is practically nil.

 

Folks were sayin' this decades ago...

 

Two people have said 'remember Chernobyl'

The radiation from that has not caused the harm that is commonly believed. It HAS caused fear amongst those that live there and economical distress. Lets also not forget how long ago this happened and the technology used within the site.
I have read you have more chance of gaining 'radiation sickness' from background radiation' in certain parts of the world.

Not to devalue those on the ground at the time. Remeber this as you read on.

I am merely stateing the comparative scale and the amount of accidents within the nuclear industry. Comparativly the risks and effects are miniscule. They are ever reducing year on year.

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

I have no problems with nuclear power . I do see it as the future. A slight fear of haveing one near me. I have not gotten over that one yet. I think it is irrational though. Many dozens are quietly and safely ticking over all over the world. I suspect i have more chance of being in a car crash than seeing another nuclear accident in my lifetime.

What we have now is modernity and vastly more experiance and caution. Disposale is factored into New builds, of course people are scared of 'nuclear'.
A lot of people thoughts and information is slightly outdated though imho.

I have to say i would not live near chernobyl, i understand the fear factor. Though from what i have read and seen, it is teaming with 'nature' that moved in as people moved out. The damage caused to our biosphere was negligable infact i have read our biosphere benefited from the accident.

No comfort to us weak humans, i guess.

Is it moraly acceptable to put aside upto 9,000 attributable deaths ?.

A tendency to attribute all health problems to exposure to radiation have led local residents to assume that Chernobyl-related fatalities were much higher


Chernobyl Forum report, September 2005

Greenpeace suggests there will be 270,000 cases of cancer alone attributable to Chernobyl fallout, and that 93,000 of these will probably be fatal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4917526.stm


There will ALWAYS be Greenpeace knocking Nuclear power, to a degree that is there job. They always get cited in the nuclear debate, even if they are going to be the most sceptical and ignore the sience and facts in front of them.

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/

 

What ?. Future access ?. We may in the future be able to use the 'waste'.
I suspect that is s not what you are thinking about though.

 

Toni - you live in a dream world of confusion and irrationality... how can you say nuclear power is okay and, in the same post, admit to "A slight fear of haveing one near me" and " I have to say i would not live near chernobyl"??? Chernobyl is still a tragic wasteland of people dying - still - and children, newborn children, born with cancers and leukemias and deformities... and it will be a wasteland for thousands of years to come! Nuclear power is a definite NO.

I think NovaStarwind summed it up nicely by saying "If people could learn to live using less energy, then I think wind power, solar power, ethanol, and other things would be great alternatives. I guess this is one of those things where we have to "think globally and act locally," and be responsible for our own energy by using solar power or something, and hope others follow that example."

 

solar as an energy source is too easy. simple etc. nuclear is expensive complicated lethal etc. when the future of the world is left in the hands of mad men no wonder the world is ending. the one thing you can do is vote. one action once every four years is critical all our problems lie in the way people vote for people who are not accountable nor sane. the only renewable energy option is to vote.

 

Okay, so i live near a nuclear power plant, Sellafield to be exact, and it was the site of an accident in the fifties when I was a kid. People were sort of ignorant in those days about the effects of fall-out etc. but my parents were pretty informed, and I learned by listening to their conversations, and later by the death of my uncle, who was one of the men who went in to fight the fire. He died from leukemia...most who went into the plant died of some form of cancer.

I remember we were told not to drink milk, and as a gesture thousands of gallons were poured away. Laughable!
Today this plant is the major employer in the county, close it and the county closes. So we are to become the worlds dustbin, you got spent shit, we'll take it. Pretty much over a barrel when you don't have a major transport system, businesses won't come, too expensive, and then the only decent road you do have is downgraded. Smacks of conspiracy to me, might to others too, but hear them scream at the thought of losing their two, three cars, yep, you sure as hell sell your soul if you work there.
So to accommodate the waste, they reckon they're gonna bury it underground, a plan that was abandoned a few years back due to the fact, we do have minor earthquakes. And of course Blair is now talking of building more nuclear plants. I wonder where.
We had a mole work here, never caught him, and was he a thorn in their side, a great whistle-blower on their mal-practises.
As for Chernobyl, there are still contaminated sheep grazing on the fells from the fallout, and as someone said, land around the plant itself is laid waste.
The Irish government has been, and still is fighting for the closure of Sellafield, and I hope they succeed!

 

the last time i heard the irish sea was one of the worlds most radioactive thanks to places like sellafield . i swear i remember windscale used to be called seascale before it was called sellafield. they dumped a heap of nuclear waste on old munitions thrown into the sea there in think. i costs the uk billions of pounds to prop up the nuclear industry then again when everyone is taxed so heavily it becomes viable.