Nuclear Power For or Against?

Thoughts_Arrive

Against.
The Japan disaster is now becoming the new Chernobyl.
How many more cities and lives do we need to ruin.
This is a dangerous source of energy.
I heard some expert say on TV if the Japan plant has a meltdown it will wipe out most of Asia, not sure if this is correct but if true I am friken scared shitless because Australia is not far away.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/specia ... 6020747603

stargirl69

^^^^^^
Agree ... against ...

For the reasons you suggest Thoughts_Arrive ... but also there is a nuclear power station 10 miles from where I live.It went into commission in 1988,I was 19 at the time.The increase in cancers,birth defects,poor health in the region has increased tenfold.We are on the east coast of Scotland,the whole areas wealth and industry is based on fishing.
The nuclear power station is build right on the coast line,it pumps all it's sewage into the air and the water the effect on the fishing has been astronomical as well as the rich farm land further inland.

The tragic events in Japan and images are heartbreaking enough without the added horrors of nuclear problems.My heart bleeds for them.

The Juggler

for.

maybe they shouldn't be built so close to the ocean though? :? ......and maybe this should not have happened:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... FT20110313

Thoughts_Arrive

It is nice to see a thread which I deemed to have 5 plus page potential has only gotten 2 responses.

Anyways...

As smart as the Japanese people are they are just as stupid in having nuclear plants on a fault line.
I guess it is the reckless greeny groups getting their way again.
The same thing happens in Australia, they (Greens) cry and kick and scream when fire authorities want to conduct back burning operations before the bushfire season begins in order to minimise bushfire risk.
When they get their way we have a bushfire which turns fatal.
Stupid Greeny groups.

stargirl69

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

It is nice to see a thread which I deemed to have 5 plus page potential has only gotten 2 responses.

Anyways...

As smart as the Japanese people are they are just as stupid in having nuclear plants on a fault line.
I guess it is the reckless greeny groups getting their way again.
The same thing happens in Australia, they (Greens) cry and kick and scream when fire authorities want to conduct back burning operations before the bushfire season begins in order to minimise bushfire risk.
When they get their way we have a bushfire which turns fatal.
Stupid Greeny groups.

You are up against that ridiculous newbie thread ... we are all doomed :? It's amazing what a pretty passport photo and a breast photo can do to the feeble minds around here

redrock

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

FrankieG

For.

Yes they are dangerous. Yes accidents happen. But if they are taken care of and have the necessary precautions, they are safe.
Necessary from of energy.

vduboise

I am for, if a lot of theses power plants are updated. A lot of them are over 30 years old. We, as a society, need power, and there are not that many sources to keep up with demand.

If there was something a but more safer- to produce, operate and safe for the environment, then I'm all for it.

Kilgore_Trout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

bill's got some good ideas... and the money to get some of these changes happening

nuclear is gonna be a valuable part of our balanced energy resources in years to come... we just gotta get smarter about it... science is coming up with lots of ways to reduce/reuse the hazardous byproducts of nuclear energy

http://news.discovery.com/tech/nuclear- ... green.html

mickeyrat

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

It is nice to see a thread which I deemed to have 5 plus page potential has only gotten 2 responses.

Anyways...

As smart as the Japanese people are they are just as stupid in having nuclear plants on a fault line.
I guess it is the reckless greeny groups getting their way again.
The same thing happens in Australia, they (Greens) cry and kick and scream when fire authorities want to conduct back burning operations before the bushfire season begins in order to minimise bushfire risk.
When they get their way we have a bushfire which turns fatal.
Stupid Greeny groups.

perhaps a subject such as this would have gotten "5 page plus" attention on AMT.

CROJAM95

I can see many being for it, and I'm sure alot them would tell you in the same breath " not in my backyard" just like every issue you can think of.

Kilgore_Trout

CROJAM95 wrote:

I can see many being for it, and I'm sure alot them would tell you in the same breath " not in my backyard" just like every issue you can think of.

certainly not in my backyard... i don't want my dog being chased by mutated squirrels

on the bright side, i wouldn't need to build that new gazebo for shade with one of these towering over my place

arq

I'm absolutely pro-nuclear energy.

jmurray

So what do we do with the waste?

Kilgore_Trout

jmurray wrote:

So what do we do with the waste?

we could use subduction faults and burn it up in the earth's core, shoot it into the sun, or continue to improve nuclear reprocessing to make it a safer option

The Juggler

Kilgore_Trout wrote:

CROJAM95 wrote:

I can see many being for it, and I'm sure alot them would tell you in the same breath " not in my backyard" just like every issue you can think of.

certainly not in my backyard... i don't want my dog being chased by mutated squirrels

on the bright side, i wouldn't need to build that new gazebo for shade with one of these towering over my place

haha....i live about 10 minutes from the limerick power plant in pa. when i was looking at houses 5 years ago a few of them had the stack directly in view from the front of the house.....yeah, not quite the view i was looking for.

tinkerbell

I and my whole country are against! We are a nuclear free country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand's_nuclear-free_zone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeHTziiFVx0 speech starts at 0.34

81

stargirl69 wrote:

You are up against that ridiculous newbie thread ... we are all doomed :? It's amazing what a pretty passport photo and a breast photo can do to the feeble minds around here

pretty entertaining thread, even with out the boob discussion.



anybody else see what they are doing out in AZ? They are going to generate electirc with gas and capture all or most of the emissions to feed algea. the algea will then turn the co2 into o and keep the c for themsleves.

the algea than can be harvested and used for such things as bio diesel, cattle feed or fuel for the power plant.

cool stuff

Thoughts_Arrive

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

Thoughts_Arrive

mickeyrat wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

It is nice to see a thread which I deemed to have 5 plus page potential has only gotten 2 responses.

Anyways...

As smart as the Japanese people are they are just as stupid in having nuclear plants on a fault line.
I guess it is the reckless greeny groups getting their way again.
The same thing happens in Australia, they (Greens) cry and kick and scream when fire authorities want to conduct back burning operations before the bushfire season begins in order to minimise bushfire risk.
When they get their way we have a bushfire which turns fatal.
Stupid Greeny groups.

perhaps a subject such as this would have gotten "5 page plus" attention on AMT.

I don't like it there.

Kilgore_Trout

81 wrote:

anybody else see what they are doing out in AZ? They are going to generate electirc with gas and capture all or most of the emissions to feed algea. the algea will then turn the co2 into o and keep the c for themsleves.

the algea than can be harvested and used for such things as bio diesel, cattle feed or fuel for the power plant.

cool stuff

yeah that shit sounds pretty amazing... i hope it catches on

fueling our homes and the byproduct can then fuel our cars?? THATS NUTS

vduboise

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

Coal is the most polluting energy source in the world. The amount of carbon dioxide they emit is very high. And coal power plante emit low levels of radiation. So it's not as clean or safe.

Hydro can damage the environment. Flooded areas behind the dam can release co2 when the vegetation rots. And if the dam was to fail, it would be a huge disaster

The thing about wind is that it's very costly to install, has low power and inconsistent output

there needs to be a combination of things that can work. And nuclear can be one of them. There is new technology now that has multiple redundant fail safes that make it safer.

kenny olav

Have been AGAINST it since I was old enough to understand what it was. Anyone who is for it should be forced to have nuclear waste buried in their back yard.

vduboise

kenny olav wrote:

Have been AGAINST it since I was old enough to understand what it was. Anyone who is for it should be forced to have nuclear waste buried in their back yard.

As a continuing growing society with new technologies that need power, we can look at other options. If nuclear can be made safer, updating older plants, and stricter regulations, its one answer to our growing needs.

Thoughts_Arrive

All of you that are for it, would you live close to a nuclear plant?
I don't care how much more pollution comes out of a coal plant or the risk associated with hydro, they do not cause as much damage as a nuclear plant when it fails.
Where does the radioactive by-product go? They dump it somewhere right?

Kilgore_Trout

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

All of you that are for it, would you live close to a nuclear plant?
I don't care how much more pollution comes out of a coal plant or the risk associated with hydro, they do not cause as much damage as a nuclear plant when it fails.
Where does the radioactive by-product go? They dump it somewhere right?

how many big nuclear meltdowns have you heard of?

would i live near one? yes, assuming it wasn't a total eyesore. i have a 50% chance of dying of cancer. an airplane can land on my house without warning at any second. i can get into a car accident on my way to work. should we base our life decisions on hindsight and worst case scenarios? no. i honestly doubt you would want a fuckin coal plant in your backyard either.

the waste is stored deep below ground in rock bed deemed tectonically safe. its a stupid system and we will run out of space unless we think of a better disposal method, but at least it's not blowing immediately into our atmosphere and causing instant damage like coal

Thoughts_Arrive

Chernobyl
Three Mile Island
Japan 2011
That episode on the Simpsons where Homer saves the day

4 That I can think of.
Look how bad Chernobyl was, they don't have to happen often to be devastating.
Chernobyl won't be safe for another 2000 years.

DinghyDog

-

vduboise

When oil gets to $200 per barrel, peoples opinion against nuclear energy will change.

redrock

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

redrock wrote:

And what would you propose these countries replace their nuclear energy with (obviously any replacement would need to provide the same amount of energy)?

There are other sources of energy like hydro, wind, or coal.

Coal :shock: As I said... any replacement would have to be able to provide the same amount of energy. All these sources you mention can only provide a tiny fraction, even if their use was upped many-fold.

threefish10

stargirl69 wrote:

You are up against that ridiculous newbie thread ... we are all doomed :? It's amazing what a pretty passport photo and a breast photo can do to the feeble minds around here

wait what?

breast photo?

do i have to trawl through 44 pages to see some boobies?

oh and to add to the conversation, without nuclear power we wouldn't have movies like the china syndrome