What Do You Think About Nuclear Power?

[prosey parker]

I'm for nuclear power, at least in areas with low risk of sudden major catastrophes. (And even with those, well - Fukushima actually withstood the March 11 earthquake quite well, it was bad positioning of generators in case of massive tsunami that screwed it over.)

There's one about ten miles from where I am right now, and I've got no objections. If a tornado goes through (biggest threat in this area) it's actually where I'd want to be, given a choice in the matter. The plant's tornado-proofed out the freaking wazoo.

[Eveille]

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

[dxnobodyx]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

1/3 is actually a good estimate, but most of that you wont see effects above background radiation.

[Skyburn]

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

If 1/3 of the country is irradiated, you'll still get more radiation by eating a banana or working construction than you would by licking contaminated ground or drinking contaminated water.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

DXnobodyX

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

1/3 is actually a good estimate, but most of that you wont see effects above background radiation.

Well actually I meant that it wouldn't have exploded sense it has an internal melt down and we already have like 100 in the U.S. powering 20% of the nation's power but yes, that's true, the radioactive effects would be minimal in such an event. 3nodding

[Eveille]

Skyburn

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

If 1/3 of the country is irradiated, you'll still get more radiation by eating a banana or working construction than you would by licking contaminated ground or drinking contaminated water.

You asked why people were ready to throw it out the window. That is why.

Because radiation = Spideman and Godzilla.

Because Chernobyl still isn't safe to walk through for people and has oddly enough (for which I am thankful) become a nature preserve; after carpeting Europe.

Because the effects are sooooo long lasting, impossible to clean, and wide ranging.

Because the background radiation doesn't go away during a spill, it is just compounded with the new flow of radiation. (That is like saying CC isn't real because there are natural solar fluctuations. Yes there are, and on top of all the natural variations you can think of we are still burning up fossilized plants and releasing carbon that is millions upon millions of years old).

And mostly because of storing the waste. No one wants to live next to the stuff and quite frankly I can't blame them. It is a security hazard to live next to it. It is hubris to think the US as we know it will exist for anything more than 1000 years, and that is stretching it. It is not unreasonable, but it is unlikely that our language and our technology will survive until those wastes are completely inert (think it doesn't matter? Try figuring out how medieval artists created paints that don't fade in the sun for Cathedral glass, try figuring out what tech the pyramids were build with, or what language the people of Mojenjo Daro spoke).

Another thing I hadn't mentioned is that like all power plants and unwanted activities, they are put in poor minority neighborhoods. Not just poor neighborhoods, poor minority. 2 poor neighborhoods exist? It'll go the minority. A medium income minority and a poor white exist? It'll go to the minority. It's an environmental justice/racism issue as well.

No worries, it is far too powerful and efficient a tech for anyone to worry overly much about the risks of it, so it WILL be used. Doesn't mean I have to like it much.

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

O you and thorium.

Look at maps of the fallout from Chernobyl and Fukushima, the areas are huge. Does it actually matter mostly? No.

Does anyone check the radiation levels per concentric circle from ground 0? Nope. They just see a giant blob of radiation and that is all it takes to make them not want it.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

O you and thorium.

Look at maps of the fallout from Chernobyl and Fukushima, the areas are huge. Does it actually matter mostly? No.

Does anyone check the radiation levels per concentric circle from ground 0? Nope. They just see a giant blob of radiation and that is all it takes to make them not want it.

No chance of a melt down, more common than lead, 200 times more powerful than uranium...

There are 100 uranium reactors that supply 20% of the power, and only like 10 supply the majority of that, so 10 big ones supply 10% of the U.S.'s power!

Do you understand what this means? All we need is half of a big thorium reactor and we can power the whole U.S.!


FOR NOTHING!

NOTHING!


*grawwrrgglll foams are the mouth as the result of the insanity of mankind*

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

O you and thorium.

Look at maps of the fallout from Chernobyl and Fukushima, the areas are huge. Does it actually matter mostly? No.

Does anyone check the radiation levels per concentric circle from ground 0? Nope. They just see a giant blob of radiation and that is all it takes to make them not want it.

No chance of a melt down, more common than lead, 200 times more powerful than uranium...

There are 100 uranium reactors that supply 20% of the power, and only like 10 supply the majority of that, so 10 big ones supply 10% of the U.S.'s power!

Do you understand what this means? All we need is half of a big thorium reactor and we can power the whole U.S.!


FOR NOTHING!

NOTHING!


*grawwrrgglll foams are the mouth as the result of the insanity of mankind*

Are most snakes and spider venomous? No? And yet they are commonly phobia inducing in people. That is how nuclear is. Who cares about facts? No one. The bright green goo is gonna eat us all! Don't you know?!

I don't like it much for reasons of risk (because risk reduction depends on proper funding, and funding is politicized) and for justice reasons in their chosen locations, and for environmental reasons for what they do to local water supplies and thermal regimes.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I feel like it will be the future whether I want it or not. However I think it is irresponsible to future generations thousands of years in the future. The reason people freak out about the disasters is because they are outsized and their damage so long lasting directly to humans.

If a coal power plant blows it doesn't expose 1/3 of the country to radiation that will pop up for decades to come. It is instead a one time thing, with localized damages that don't last very long.

That said, I am against fossil fuels, vehemently against them, so don't take that as a promotion or acceptance, but instead an explanation for why nuclear disasters are so much more covered and publicized.

Nuclear provides about 20% of the nations current power supply, so about 5 times the amount (actually less, sense we use a bunch of small ones) would suffice with little issue and I doubt that 1/3 of the country would be covered in radiation.

Thorium however, has no way to melt down and as of now would produce 200+ times the electricity in a similar sized reactor.

O you and thorium.

Look at maps of the fallout from Chernobyl and Fukushima, the areas are huge. Does it actually matter mostly? No.

Does anyone check the radiation levels per concentric circle from ground 0? Nope. They just see a giant blob of radiation and that is all it takes to make them not want it.

No chance of a melt down, more common than lead, 200 times more powerful than uranium...

There are 100 uranium reactors that supply 20% of the power, and only like 10 supply the majority of that, so 10 big ones supply 10% of the U.S.'s power!

Do you understand what this means? All we need is half of a big thorium reactor and we can power the whole U.S.!


FOR NOTHING!

NOTHING!


*grawwrrgglll foams are the mouth as the result of the insanity of mankind*

Are most snakes and spider venomous? No? And yet they are commonly phobia inducing in people. That is how nuclear is. Who cares about facts? No one. The bright green goo is gonna eat us all! Don't you know?!

I don't like it much for reasons of risk (because risk reduction depends on proper funding, and funding is politicized) and for justice reasons in their chosen locations, and for environmental reasons for what they do to local water supplies and thermal regimes.

Coal is worse D:

Also, the impact would be less given it's raw power and the water can be recycled if done properly so this can be minimized.


Sense we only need half a thorium reactor the logistics of such an operation go down the toilet.

Even if it was 25 billion dollars for the reactors at most we'd need three, for reliability issues, so I mean even if it took 75 billion and 15 billion a year the government's electric bill would pay for that on it's own first year. O_o

[Skyburn]

Eveille

You asked why people were ready to throw it out the window. That is why.

Because radiation = Spideman and Godzilla.

Because Chernobyl still isn't safe to walk through for people and has oddly enough (for which I am thankful) become a nature preserve; after carpeting Europe.

Because the effects are sooooo long lasting, impossible to clean, and wide ranging.

Because the background radiation doesn't go away during a spill, it is just compounded with the new flow of radiation. (That is like saying CC isn't real because there are natural solar fluctuations. Yes there are, and on top of all the natural variations you can think of we are still burning up fossilized plants and releasing carbon that is millions upon millions of years old).

And mostly because of storing the waste. No one wants to live next to the stuff and quite frankly I can't blame them. It is a security hazard to live next to it. It is hubris to think the US as we know it will exist for anything more than 1000 years, and that is stretching it. It is not unreasonable, but it is unlikely that our language and our technology will survive until those wastes are completely inert (think it doesn't matter? Try figuring out how medieval artists created paints that don't fade in the sun for Cathedral glass, try figuring out what tech the pyramids were build with, or what language the people of Mojenjo Daro spoke).

Another thing I hadn't mentioned is that like all power plants and unwanted activities, they are put in poor minority neighborhoods. Not just poor neighborhoods, poor minority. 2 poor neighborhoods exist? It'll go the minority. A medium income minority and a poor white exist? It'll go to the minority. It's an environmental justice/racism issue as well.

No worries, it is far too powerful and efficient a tech for anyone to worry overly much about the risks of it, so it WILL be used. Doesn't mean I have to like it much.

Really, none of that is true, though.

You can clean up contamination with nothing more than a wet sponge or napkin (and we do), the effects are minimal, there is no evidence for genetic defects apart from cancer and the only oddities displayed were with those in unborn children.
It's incredibly easy to store the waste. Balls of Tungsten. Bottom of the ocean. Done deal.

Nuclear power, particularly modern nuclear plants, are incredibly safe. The ones built in the '50s? Not as much, but necessary upgrades are cheap.

Most nuclear plants actually produce their own neighborhoods, and are actually wonderful for the environment, as their tertiary cooling pools make wonderful ecosystems, hence one of the few safe areas for the wetland animals of the South.

And it doesn't matter if background radiation compounds with added radiation from contamination from nuclear power. You can't tell the difference. Seriously. Modern radiacs apart from those the size of coffins can't tell the difference.
Take, for instance, Fukushima. For the few following weeks, yes, background radiation was high in many parts of Japan. I myself was personally used for dose investigations and was placed in a machine sensitive enough to tell if you were wearing a watch, had a banana in your digestive system or were a smoker. My body was still shielding radiation, more than expected, at that, and I, along with several of my shipmates, were used as calibration-standard individuals for internal-dose radiacs.
To that point, the "lasting effects" from Fukushima are only going to be in the immediate vicinity of the plants themselves, to the point that workers are already returning to work on the unaffected plants.

[Eveille]

Skyburn

Eveille

You asked why people were ready to throw it out the window. That is why.

Because radiation = Spideman and Godzilla.

Because Chernobyl still isn't safe to walk through for people and has oddly enough (for which I am thankful) become a nature preserve; after carpeting Europe.

Because the effects are sooooo long lasting, impossible to clean, and wide ranging.

Because the background radiation doesn't go away during a spill, it is just compounded with the new flow of radiation. (That is like saying CC isn't real because there are natural solar fluctuations. Yes there are, and on top of all the natural variations you can think of we are still burning up fossilized plants and releasing carbon that is millions upon millions of years old).

And mostly because of storing the waste. No one wants to live next to the stuff and quite frankly I can't blame them. It is a security hazard to live next to it. It is hubris to think the US as we know it will exist for anything more than 1000 years, and that is stretching it. It is not unreasonable, but it is unlikely that our language and our technology will survive until those wastes are completely inert (think it doesn't matter? Try figuring out how medieval artists created paints that don't fade in the sun for Cathedral glass, try figuring out what tech the pyramids were build with, or what language the people of Mojenjo Daro spoke).

Another thing I hadn't mentioned is that like all power plants and unwanted activities, they are put in poor minority neighborhoods. Not just poor neighborhoods, poor minority. 2 poor neighborhoods exist? It'll go the minority. A medium income minority and a poor white exist? It'll go to the minority. It's an environmental justice/racism issue as well.

No worries, it is far too powerful and efficient a tech for anyone to worry overly much about the risks of it, so it WILL be used. Doesn't mean I have to like it much.

Really, none of that is true, though.

You can clean up contamination with nothing more than a wet sponge or napkin (and we do), the effects are minimal, there is no evidence for genetic defects apart from cancer and the only oddities displayed were with those in unborn children.
It's incredibly easy to store the waste. Balls of Tungsten. Bottom of the ocean. Done deal.

Nuclear power, particularly modern nuclear plants, are incredibly safe. The ones built in the '50s? Not as much, but necessary upgrades are cheap.

Most nuclear plants actually produce their own neighborhoods, and are actually wonderful for the environment, as their tertiary cooling pools make wonderful ecosystems, hence one of the few safe areas for the wetland animals of the South.

And it doesn't matter if background radiation compounds with added radiation from contamination from nuclear power. You can't tell the difference. Seriously. Modern radiacs apart from those the size of coffins can't tell the difference.
Take, for instance, Fukushima. For the few following weeks, yes, background radiation was high in many parts of Japan. I myself was personally used for dose investigations and was placed in a machine sensitive enough to tell if you were wearing a watch, had a banana in your digestive system or were a smoker. My body was still shielding radiation, more than expected, at that, and I, along with several of my shipmates, were used as calibration-standard individuals for internal-dose radiacs.
To that point, the "lasting effects" from Fukushima are only going to be in the immediate vicinity of the plants themselves, to the point that workers are already returning to work on the unaffected plants.

All the books I've read and the people I've talked to have never ever made the claim that nuclear facilities were wonderful for neighborhoods and the environment. I live in the south, next to a plant, it shelters manatees and crocodiles in its cooling canals. It's great in that sense. It is not great because those canals have elevated tritium levels in them and the company that owns them now wants to expand operations into panther habitat (we have less than 100 panthers, this is a serious problem).

Anywhere above FL or HI though? Those canals and towers mess up ecosystems, they heat up the water until nothing lives there, because the waters are supposed to be cool. It's the same thing that happens when dams get built.

Bottom of the ocean? >.> so much for the ecosystems down there then...I'm sure they'd love to have barrels that will invariably corrode away in the future.

I m not particularly convinced of the wet sponge cleanup, especially since there is a lot of research into how to actually clean up SuperFund sites in the US so that people can build homes on them, or at least businesses.

[Skyburn]

Eveille

All the books I've read and the people I've talked to have never ever made the claim that nuclear facilities were wonderful for neighborhoods and the environment. I live in the south, next to a plant, it shelters manatees and crocodiles in its cooling canals. It's great in that sense. It is not great because those canals have elevated tritium levels in them and the company that owns them now wants to expand operations into panther habitat (we have less than 100 panthers, this is a serious problem).

Anywhere above FL or HI though? Those canals and towers mess up ecosystems, they heat up the water until nothing lives there, because the waters are supposed to be cool. It's the same thing that happens when dams get built.

Bottom of the ocean? >.> so much for the ecosystems down there then...I'm sure they'd love to have barrels that will invariably corrode away in the future.

I m not particularly convinced of the wet sponge cleanup, especially since there is a lot of research into how to actually clean up SuperFund sites in the US so that people can build homes on them, or at least businesses.

The tritium is related to the water itself. The Tertiary Cooling water in those canals doesn't ever touch the reactor. The Secondary Coolant doesn't even touch the reactor, let alone the Tertiary.

As far as the ecosystems, it entirely depends. Some don't even use those type of cooling canals, they have other methods, and further north, where they would be more dangerous to the environment, they are more likely. The other obvious option is to get larger canals, therefore, the heat is dispersed. Many straight up use oceans or rivers, negating that matter entirely.

It's also not barrels on the bottom of the ocean. We'd be dropping balls of tungsten filled with the spent fuel down to environments already known to be inhospitable except to the few kinds of life that can actually live in such dangerous environments. Being in water, the fuel would begin to heat itself (that involves a more comprehensive knowledge of how nuclear reactions work), and would then melt the rock underneath it, and would begin to melt itself down to 5-7 miles underneath the crust of the earth, where it would fuse into the earth's crust. Being encased in tungsten, there is no risk of contamination spread to the ocean itself, and there will be no lasting effects except for any unfortunate thing it might have landed on - which we can actually prevent with UUVs.

Some contamination does seep into the earth when it itself gets wet, or is absorbed by plants. That's more difficult. Initially, though, contamination can be cleaned up easily. It's little more than dust.

[THE ULTIMATE DOOM]

A reactor can go for centuries generating cheap and clean energy. But long-term effects to the environment are a concern 'cause there really is no way to dispose of the by-product of nuclear material.