Walesdad Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 With the ongoing situation in Japan,should the world keep on developing and using nuclear power?Any opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'm for nuclear power/energy, because I think it would help wean us off our dependence of fossil fuels. Yes the situation in Japan is awful, and Chernobyl 25 years ago was equally if not more tragic, but those are relatively rare occurrences, and on the whole nuclear power is cleaner and safer. Also, the situation in Japan that is going on is a result of the earthquake and tsunami -- there's no evidence that this would have happened otherwise. Chernobyl happened because of bureaucratic issues, poor training of workers, and outmoded designs for the reactor. Had they been using the same reactors that had been built and were being used in the States, it more than likely wouldn't have happened. I think people scare too easily when it comes to this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabe Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Why Ms Electrophile, I designate a blue ribbon for your well written post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 No, I prefer solar, wind, or hydroelectric power if possible. The fewer side effects of the drug energy source, the better. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Germany's radioactive boars a legacy of Chernobyl By Juergen Baetz, Associated Press msnbc.msn.com BERLIN — For a look at just how long radioactivity can hang around, consider Germany's wild boars. A quarter century after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union carried a cloud of radiation across Europe, these animals are radioactive enough that people are urged not to eat them. And the mushrooms the pigs dine on aren't fit for consumption either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetredwine Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Nuclear power produces dangerous rubbish. Do we need dangerous rubbish? Must we consume and produce enormously, operate airports, factories and shopping centers after dark, and live to work? Couldn't we return to working to live and learn to restrain our desires and restrict our horizons, for the love of Mother Nature ... and ourselves ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetredwine Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 No, I prefer solar, wind, or hydroelectric power if possible. Seems to me this is the basic question that must be answered openly and honestly, what are we willing to make possible. Evidently most of our "modern values and expectations" must be turned upside-down and inside-out to force us to finally recognize our true basic needs. and be willing to make a better future possible. So far most of us have been living like this but tragedies like the one in Japan give us a chance to either or keep on and blaming others instead of fully comprehending the inherent complexity of the entire situation - social, physical, moral, psychological, emotional, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Well look at France. I've read and heard that roughly 80 % of their total power is generated by nuclear plants in that country. What has France done correctly that other nations haven't? I don't know but nuclear could work on a massive scale assuming the proper money gets spent for research and development and safety. That means by definition, the United States hasn't got a chance in hell of ever doing it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro59 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 no, man. Drill baby, drill. And when the last drop of oil is squeezed from the ground, everyone can say in unison "why didn't the government tell us!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Hi all, No, I prefer solar, wind, or hydroelectric power if possible. The fewer side effects of the drug energy source, the better. Which for past 40 years has not worked.Why?High capacity storage of the energy. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 It's SANELY NAY all the way of course, but if our BRAINchildren of the nuke world have thier way, let it be the "intelligent" nuke power, that is ....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion By blackglove at 2011-03-07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Rider Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Radioactivity can be deadly. Radioactive material can stay contaminated over a long period of years. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Missing workers found dead at Japan nuclear plant Effort to plug up leak of radioactive water into Pacific Ocean fails msnbc.msn.com RIKUZENTAKATA, Japan — Two missing Fukushima nuclear plant workers were found dead on Sunday as more highly radioactive water spilled into the sea and authorities struggled to seal the leak. The two workers — a 21-year-old and a 24-year-old — had been missing since a massive March 11 earthquake and tsunami, but their bodies were discovered only last week at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex. Damage to the plant from the tsunami has spiraled into the world's worst nuclear crisis since the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. "It pains me that these two young workers were trying to protect the power plant while being hit by the earthquake and tsunami," Tokyo Electric Power Co. Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata said in a statement. The announcement of the death was delayed out of consideration for the families, said Naoki Tsunoda, a spokesman for TEPCO. The men sustained multiple external injuries and are believed to have died from blood loss, Tsunoda said. Their bodies had to be decontaminated because radiation has been spewing from the plant over the past three weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 The latest I heard about Japan is that the radioactivity has shot to over 34,0000 times its normal value in the quake stricken areas..... :blink: :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Radioactivity can be deadly. Radioactive material can stay contaminated over a long period of years. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Missing workers found dead at Japan nuclear plant Effort to plug up leak of radioactive water into Pacific Ocean fails radioactive isotopes of plutonium can "live" up to 300 years and more....now they're trying to plub it all up with....polyurethane???????? :o :o :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 No shit radiation can be deadly. However how many times must it be said that what's going on Japan right now is not a result of nuclear power/energy being dangerous, but because an earthquake and resulting tsunami damaged the reactor? It's like some of you are intentionally forgetting that part. We have nuclear power plants in this country right now, and I don't hear anything in the news about any of them killing mass scores of people. Japan, Chernobyl.....these are exceptions, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetredwine Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 No shit radiation can be deadly. However how many times must it be said that what's going on Japan right now is not a result of nuclear power/energy being dangerous, but because an earthquake and resulting tsunami damaged the reactor? It's like some of you are intentionally forgetting that part. We have nuclear power plants in this country right now, and I don't hear anything in the news about any of them killing mass scores of people. well, maybe not yet ... Unearthing Ancient Tsunamis Japan, Chernobyl.....these are exceptions, not the rule. well, they're not the rule ... so far ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22O8kAyAkzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 No shit radiation can be deadly. However how many times must it be said that what's going on Japan right now is not a result of nuclear power/energy being dangerous, but because an earthquake and resulting tsunami damaged the reactor? It's like some of you are intentionally forgetting that part. We have nuclear power plants in this country right now, and I don't hear anything in the news about any of them killing mass scores of people. Japan, Chernobyl.....these are exceptions, not the rule. You have forgotten that most of the former pro-nuke plant countries are rethinking the matter MUCH MORE seriously and reconsidering the whole NUKE SHIT all over.....which they shold have done many moons ago. Why wait for a major quake/tsunami to hit before TAKING SERIOUS action against nuke plants....isn't prevention BETTER than the cure????!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ugh. Can't have rational discussion around here anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ugh. Can't have rational discussion around here anymore. I was thinking the same bloody thing you know!!!:)(:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walesdad Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Some interesting replies,myself I pretty much agree word for word with Electrophile's first posting on this topic.On top of this,I just do not see the alternatives that are usually trotted out (wind,tidal or solar power) fulfilling the world's energy needs.Of course what's happened in Japan is awful,it could be argued that maybe country's that are earthquake prone should take much greater care where they site nuclear power plants,but for a country with almost no natural resources of its own,Japan has to be a nuclear power.Spidersandsnakes mentioned a cold reactor or something like that which is apparently safer so maybe this would be an alternative to full on nuclear power.Either way,for me and with serious reservations,it has to be nuclear or something similiar if we are to be able to keep the lights on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 LOL~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Reluctantly, I vote for nukes. Truth is, we are crack addicts, boys and girls. We need the dealers to keep our lights on, and our cars on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetredwine Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Reluctantly, I vote for nukes. Truth is, we are crack addicts, boys and girls. We need the dealers to keep our lights on, and our cars on the road. ... but ... how long can we continue like this ? http://tv.repubblica.it/mondo/londra-mega-tamponamento-a-catena/65564?video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Some interesting replies,myself I pretty much agree word for word with Electrophile's first posting on this topic.On top of this,I just do not see the alternatives that are usually trotted out (wind,tidal or solar power) fulfilling the world's energy needs.Of course what's happened in Japan is awful,it could be argued that maybe country's that are earthquake prone should take much greater care where they site nuclear power plants,but for a country with almost no natural resources of its own,Japan has to be a nuclear power.Spidersandsnakes mentioned a cold reactor or something like that which is apparently safer so maybe this would be an alternative to full on nuclear power.Either way,for me and with serious reservations,it has to be nuclear or something similiar if we are to be able to keep the lights on. The major European nuke physicists agree that the SAFEST future for energy in the world is in COLD FUSION.....yes, BUT WHO'S BUYING??! Evidently, there are some musterious manouvres among the heads of govts that would like to keep this clean nuke power away....is it the "cars can be powered by simple water...." saga all over again....WAKE UP PEOPLE......the nuke nay or yay thing is JUST NOT that simple:):)...and I wouldn't US, the simple people, to be the guinea pigs of the nuke situation!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidersandsnakes Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 ... but ... how long can we continue like this ? http://tv.repubblica.it/mondo/londra-mega-tamponamento-a-catena/65564?video Long enuff to blow us all away...sooner or later :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Nuke the middle east now, ask questions later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.