ABC news calls nuclear power an alternative energy.

[wanderingbear]

There is no way that Nuclear power can be called a clean safe alternative energy.
nuclear power is the most dangerous form of power there is and creates tons of nuclear waste every year. And that waste has a half life of 50 million years.People who beleave in it are stupider than G.W. Bush.

[WinterBorn]

There is no way that Nuclear power can be called a clean safe alternative energy.
nuclear power is the most dangerous form of power there is and creates tons of nuclear waste every year. And that waste has a half life of 50 million years.People who beleave in it are stupider than G.W. Bush.

If the plants are build properly, they are safe. I have posted here questioning the wisdom of building them on faultlines, but that is the only issue I have.

Considering the number of operating nuclear power plants in the world, the track record is excellent for well-built plants. Chernobyl happened because of the shoddy construction, not because of any inherent dangers in nuclear power.

[cancel2 2022]

If the plants are build properly, they are safe. I have posted here questioning the wisdom of building them on faultlines, but that is the only issue I have.

Considering the number of operating nuclear power plants in the world, the track record is excellent for well-built plants. Chernobyl happened because of the shoddy construction, not because of any inherent dangers in nuclear power.

Chernobyl happened because the technicians were testing a scenario where the cooling power was deliberately removed, this went wrong. The reactor itself was an early 1950s design with no containment housing and should have been decommed years before. The reactors in Japan needed not just one of the largest earthquakes in modern times but a tsunami of over 10 metres high to knock out the backup generators.

[cancel2 2022]

There is no way that Nuclear power can be called a clean safe alternative energy.
nuclear power is the most dangerous form of power there is and creates tons of nuclear waste every year. And that waste has a half life of 50 million years.People who beleave in it are stupider than G.W. Bush.

Do you have a scientific background?

[wanderingbear]

Do you have a scientific background?

You don't have to be an expert to know when something is dangerous.And yes I read quite a bit on nuclear power.Nuclear power produces the most toxic waste in the world. Its very expensive, complex ,and the worst that can happen is what is happening in Japan right now. And they still don't know if they can keep the reactors from melting down or blowing up.

[Minister of Truth]

Tom, he's a fucking hippie. Don't pay attention to him unless you want to know where to score some good weed the next time you visit Oregon.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't have to be an expert to know when something is dangerous.And yes I read quite a bit on nuclear power.Nuclear power produces the most toxic waste in the world. Its very expensive, complex ,and the worst that can happen is what is happening in Japan right now. And they still don't know if they can keep the reactors from melting down or blowing up.

If you are familiar with nuclear power, then you should be aware of vitrification. You are aware of that, right? Vitrification is a process often used to refine nuclear waste for ultimate disposal. There are a host of other decontamination methods, and new ones are being tested everyday. We have desolate and isolated places in America, where all the nuclear waste ever produced in world history, could be stored. This is not a problem.

As for the expense, it's not very expensive at all, that is the major attraction to nuclear power. If it were something that cost more to do than it was worth, why in the hell would anyone want to do it? Just so we can play with nuclear materials? The fact of the matter is, it's the cheapest way to produce electric power, nothing else even comes close.

What is happening in Japan, would never apply here, we generally don't build nuclear power plants on two major fault lines, on islands out in the ocean, it's not something we have to do like Japan. See, they had no other option, that's what they have... an island in the ocean, on the convergence of two fault lines. But in the great vast United States, we have many places which have never recorded any kind of significant seismic activity, nor ever had to deal with a tsunami. So what happened in Japan, could just not ever realistically happen here. And they already know what the worst case scenario is in Japan, they bury the core in concrete and decontaminate the area. For about the next 40 years, no one will be able to live in the vicinity of the reactor, and that's about it. Yes, some people will probably die as a result... but how many people died as a result of mining coal last year? From a safety standpoint, even given the terrible tragedy in Japan, nuclear power is still the safest form of energy production.

[WinterBorn]

What is happening in Japan, would never apply here, we generally don't build nuclear power plants on two major fault lines, on islands out in the ocean, it's not something we have to do like Japan. See, they had no other option, that's what they have... an island in the ocean, on the convergence of two fault lines. But in the great vast United States, we have many places which have never recorded any kind of significant seismic activity, nor ever had to deal with a tsunami. So what happened in Japan, could just not ever realistically happen here. And they already know what the worst case scenario is in Japan, they bury the core in concrete and decontaminate the area. For about the next 40 years, no one will be able to live in the vicinity of the reactor, and that's about it. Yes, some people will probably die as a result... but how many people died as a result of mining coal last year? From a safety standpoint, even given the terrible tragedy in Japan, nuclear power is still the safest form of energy production.

Dixie, this is certainly a change from your repeatedly asking "How many people have died in Japan from radiation" just a few weeks ago.

[cancel2 2022]

Dixie, this is certainly a change from your repeatedly asking "How many people have died in Japan from radiation" just a few weeks ago.

Maybe some of the workers at the plant will die prematurely but have you forgotten about the 25,000+ people who died in the earthquake?

[WinterBorn]

Maybe some of the workers at the plant will die prematurely but have you forgotten about the 25,000+ people who died in the earthquake?

I have forgotten about no one. That was not the point of my post at all. Just after the earthquake, Dixie kept posting "Exactly HOW MANY Japanese have died from radiation poisoning again?". I am simply reminding him of that error, and his ridicule of those of us who said "wait and see".

[Lowaicue]

If you are familiar with nuclear power, then you should be aware of vitrification. You are aware of that, right? Vitrification is a process often used to refine nuclear waste for ultimate disposal. There are a host of other decontamination methods, and new ones are being tested everyday. We have desolate and isolated places in America, where all the nuclear waste ever produced in world history, could be stored. This is not a problem.

As for the expense, it's not very expensive at all, that is the major attraction to nuclear power. If it were something that cost more to do than it was worth, why in the hell would anyone want to do it? Just so we can play with nuclear materials? The fact of the matter is, it's the cheapest way to produce electric power, nothing else even comes close.

What is happening in Japan, would never apply here, we generally don't build nuclear power plants on two major fault lines, on islands out in the ocean, it's not something we have to do like Japan. See, they had no other option, that's what they have... an island in the ocean, on the convergence of two fault lines. But in the great vast United States, we have many places which have never recorded any kind of significant seismic activity, nor ever had to deal with a tsunami. So what happened in Japan, could just not ever realistically happen here. And they already know what the worst case scenario is in Japan, they bury the core in concrete and decontaminate the area. For about the next 40 years, no one will be able to live in the vicinity of the reactor, and that's about it. Yes, some people will probably die as a result... but how many people died as a result of mining coal last year? From a safety standpoint, even given the terrible tragedy in Japan, nuclear power is still the safest form of energy production.

What? What? whatwhatwhatwhatwhat... WHAT??? Dixie taliking sense?? You been letting someone else use your computer, Dixie?

[cancel2 2022]

I have forgotten about no one. That was not the point of my post at all. Just after the earthquake, Dixie kept posting "Exactly HOW MANY Japanese have died from radiation poisoning again?". I am simply reminding him of that error, and his ridicule of those of us who said "wait and see".

Well, as of now nobody has died of radiation poisoning and I doubt there will be more than a handful, if that. Also bear in mind that it took one of the world's worst earthquakes coupled with a monstrous tsunami for that to happen at all.

[cancel2 2022]

Even a global warming zealot like George Monbiot has realised that there is no practical alternative to nuclear power.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...-nuclear-power

[Topspin]

other than dixie, non of you clowns wants a nuke in your backyard. And for good reason.

[WinterBorn]

other than dixie, non of you clowns wants a nuke in your backyard. And for good reason.

I am not a clown, but I lived with a nuclear reactor in my backyard for 3+ years. I have no problem with it. As long as I am not living on a major faultline.