Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Posted

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.
Posted (edited)

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 ?

Edited by sweetredwine
Posted (edited)

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. :coffee: and be willing to make a better future possible.

So far most of us have been living like this :bagoverhead:

but tragedies like the one in Japan give us a chance to either :wakeup:

or keep on :chickeddance:

and blaming others instead of fully comprehending the inherent complexity of the entire situation - social, physical, moral, psychological, emotional, etc.

Edited by sweetredwine
Posted

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.

Posted

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

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Silver Rider
Posted
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 :o :o :o

Posted

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.

Posted (edited)

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

Edited by sweetredwine
Posted

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????!:):):)

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted (edited)

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!!!!

Edited by spidersandsnakes

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...