Nuclear power plants and The Bomb
malabogia
Posts: 59
I find it strange that all environmental activists rush to condemn nuclear power plants but nearly do nothing about The Bomb.
Nowadays we have the same debate going about nuclear power plants in my country and I started to think about it.
There are about 10.000 nuclear bombs in world's big powers(!!!) that can turn the earth to hell and in today's world, I don't see it impossible that one of them pushes the button to start the apocalypse or a terrorist acquiring a bomb and detonating it, starting the war.
On the other hand, nuclear power plants have their own risks of course. Nobody forgot Chernobyl but still when you look to the overall situation and check the statistics, you can see that these power plants are relatively safe, of course provided that they are looked after well.
A dilemma for the activists here is nuclear power is maybe one of the most stable, reliable and cost effective alternative for fossil fuels which are definitely spelling doomsday for earth in short to medium term.
I think the target here is misleaded since I believe we should be protesting and condemning nuclear states who use their bombs as Damocles's' sword upon us and the other nations.
I believe having the bomb should be considered one of the biggest crimes against humanity, especially after thinking hard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The only power that can end the civilization which is flourishing since the last 3,5 billion years is the bombs that we are sitting on.
Einstein foresaw the IV. World war to be fought with spears and bows but I think he just underrated the power of the bomb as probably nobody would be left on earth after a full scale III. World war.
So what do you think? Are nuclear power plants a real threat or just a scapegoat?
Nowadays we have the same debate going about nuclear power plants in my country and I started to think about it.
There are about 10.000 nuclear bombs in world's big powers(!!!) that can turn the earth to hell and in today's world, I don't see it impossible that one of them pushes the button to start the apocalypse or a terrorist acquiring a bomb and detonating it, starting the war.
On the other hand, nuclear power plants have their own risks of course. Nobody forgot Chernobyl but still when you look to the overall situation and check the statistics, you can see that these power plants are relatively safe, of course provided that they are looked after well.
A dilemma for the activists here is nuclear power is maybe one of the most stable, reliable and cost effective alternative for fossil fuels which are definitely spelling doomsday for earth in short to medium term.
I think the target here is misleaded since I believe we should be protesting and condemning nuclear states who use their bombs as Damocles's' sword upon us and the other nations.
I believe having the bomb should be considered one of the biggest crimes against humanity, especially after thinking hard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The only power that can end the civilization which is flourishing since the last 3,5 billion years is the bombs that we are sitting on.
Einstein foresaw the IV. World war to be fought with spears and bows but I think he just underrated the power of the bomb as probably nobody would be left on earth after a full scale III. World war.
So what do you think? Are nuclear power plants a real threat or just a scapegoat?
"when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." Robert Pirsig
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
You do realize that nuclear reactions (the same type that occur in a power plant) can also occur in nature when the uranium stays in the it is extremely rare but it has happened in the past when the amount of fissionable material has reached critical mass. Personally I think if this type of thing can happen on its own no reason not to take advantage of it.Check out this link.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021016.html
Very interesting. Thanks Kel.
But I don't think we should be wishing more tsunamis or hoping for more volcanic eruptions do you? What happens in nature has long been something that in many instances humans cannot harness effectively or control in any way shape or form. So if it happens again in nature so be it but I see no reason to hasten it along or attempt the process ourselves. CERTAINLY not when the potential for complete destruction of the planet exists.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I saw an Agenda debate along these lines. The census is, nuclear power is drastically different from nuclear bombs and coal, oil and gas contribute to more deaths per year than all the nuclear power catastrophes combined.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
You only need one to change that stat.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
But the same thing could be said for hydroelectric dams. All it would take would be for one major dam to burst and you could have massive casualties. Why aren't people as scared of hydroelectric dams, since I think a dam bursting is probably as a rare occurrence as a nuclear power plant accident.
The Plutonium Free Future project assessed that by the year 2000, the nuclear industry had "created 201,000 tons of highly radioactive irradiated (used) fuel rods. The plutonium in the waste will remain radioactive for up to 240,000 years (12,000 generations) or more."
This means that any living thing coming into contact with plutonium waste during this long period of time will be exposed to potentially harmful radiation, so, "for that entire time it must be isolated from all living organisms and from the water, land and air upon which they depend." However, there is no long-term solution for its disposal or storage. Short-term solutions do not address the grave health and environmental effects of nuclear waste that last for hundreds of thousands of years."
Nuclear waste is particularly devastating since there is no long-term solution for its disposal or storage. Short-term solutions do not address the grave health and environmental effects of nuclear waste that last for for hundreds of thousands of years. Generally, nuclear waste is dumped in low-population areas of the world ranging from Australia to Kentucky. To see a map of U.S. states that have agreed to be nuclear waste disposal sites see: http://www.hsrd.ornl.gov/nrc/rulemaking.htm
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/factsheets/fuelcycle.html
deja vu.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
nuclear power plants produce waste which must be discarded somewhere; bombs don't produce waste. the us has proposed a nuclear waste dump site in nevada. the site is named YUCCA MOUNTAIN. the government plans to store this radioactive waste there even though it's on a major fault line. since our winds blow west to east; radioactivity will be spread accross the us; then into europe in the event of an earthquake. the attached link will show you the frequency of earthquakes in the area (nevada).
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm
although the earthquakes aren't "big"; they have been increasing in magnitude over the last 20 years.
but we are moving into a time of earthquake activity. in the 1980's; there were 89 earthquakes in that decade. in the 1990's; there were 212 (or close. i don't remember exactly). i heard somewhere that we've already beaten that record. these plants are usually built near water (for cooling purposes) and with waters rising worldwide; that presents another problem.
But the thing is a large portion of the waste created by a Nuclear Power plant can be reprocessed and used again (over 90%). Check out this link and scroll down to Reprocessing
http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
Unfortunately the reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel in the US has been banned since the 70's and Gerald Ford's presidency.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19455304.html
your links don't tell us WHY the us refuses to recycle waste. i'd like to know the reason.
secondly; what i got out of the links; is that disposal is still a problem. the yucca mountain project is within 100 miles (220 Km) of las vegas and lies on a fault line.
so the disposal of nuclear waste isn't any further than it was in the 70's.
I tried to find some info on the reasoning behind the ban on reprocessing, but being at work I couldn't spend too much time on it. What I remember from school was that a lot of it has to do with public perception of nuclear energy and the fact that spent fuel could theoretically be used in some sort of weapon. How it is any less dangerous in a storage facility is beyond me.
The basic point of my previous post is that there are solutions to help minimize spent fuel being used as waste, but the problem is a lot of people have an irrational fear when they hear the word "nuclear" (really how many people probably still think that a nuclear accident would lead to giant insects or other such fictional monsters attacking us?).
i respect your views and understand your position. i believe i'm open minded and if we could safely recycle; i think we should.
i understand being at work so don't sweat it. i'm just interested. they're trying to build a coal fired power plant in my county and i'm livid about it. california is renting land from us and has installed solar panels to help supply it's needs. and our politicians want to build a coal fired plant next to it. most of the country has wind power to some extent. i just think we're going backwards.
That’s cool I think solar and wind so have a lot of potential but I think if you combined them with nuclear you could probably get rid of a lot of coal plants, which I think are infinitely worse than any nuclear plant.
By the way please don't think I was suggesting that you or anyone on this board was the type that thinks that nuclear=mutant monsters, but I am sure that there is a big enough portion of the population (both in the US and other countries) where they can affect policy and lead to politicians not wanting to go anywhere near nuclear plants (hell there are probably some politicians who think if they walk into a nuclear plant they are going to grow a third arm or develop super powers).
On the other hand, how many years do you think we can go on using coal and fuel before we bring doom to ourselves. Unfortunately wind and solar systems are still not feasible for industry and china will be number 1 in consuming coal and fuel with the incredible increase on their consumption. So what we should do? Just hope that companies will limit their carbon footprint on planet's sake!!! I don't think they will do it.
And note that India is still not on this train. When they also begin to follow the path of China, think about another 1 billion (more actually) producing carbon...
I think instead of condemning nuclear plants, we people should focus on how to minimize their side effects in an efficient way.
that thought never occured to me. my activity on this subject is due to the YUCCA MOUNTAIN project; which will store nuclear waste 2 to 3 hours west of my property as the crow flys. the site is on a fault line and nobody involved officially has addressed this issue. i'm fighting the coal plant but i'm being shot down with talk of new technologies and scrubbers; etc. the politicians think it's a great idea to bring more industry and employment to the area; especially since we have a lot of coal in the area. but; in addition to the pollution you'd normally expect; nobody wants to address the mercury emmitted from coal fired plants. we already have lakes in pristine areas that are so poisoned with mercury from mining that you cannot eat the fish.
the water is too precious to waste too. i'm 100% solar because of my remote location but if i can be solar and have non-stop electricity without any problems; i don't see why everyone else can't. either individually or through their power companies. the sad part is; the power is not for us. they plan to sell it to california. the plant can't be built in california because of their emmission laws.
now don't that take the bisquit?
But there wouldn't be continued casualities for years to come. I doubt animals in the area would start growing two heads. I mean aside from the flooding and the initial casualties what do you think would happen? It would be a tragic state of affairs but once it was over it would be over.
Nuclear accidents are the "gift that keeps giving".
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
That’s cool that you are using solar. I guess you use batteries to power your house at night? What kind of batteries are they? (please don't think I am being sarcastic I am actually interested). What do you do with the batteries when they can no longer hold a charge, are they recyclable.
There is no way I would ever want to live next to a coal fired plant, I would rather take the off chance of some possible radiation exposure than the much more likely respiratory illness caused by coal plant emissions. (Especially since I am pretty sure radiation unless you receive a fatal does radiation really does the most damage if you are exposed to it over a long period of time)
No worries Ryan. We'll bury it at your place ok?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I used to live in Powell River, B.C. which had, at one time, the largest pulp and paper mill in the world. The soot from the mill would rain down on occasion leaving a black film on everything. Especially in the neighbourhoods closest to the mill. I imagine a coal plant would be very similar in effect.
Thats gross, I used to live in Prince George which had 3 pulp mills (one of which I worked at) and a ton of sawmills. I was there for about 8 months and in that time I got 3 sinus infections.
A coal plant would probably be worse than a pulp mill since the boiler in a pulp mill is usually burning wood waste for power instead of coal.
Uh... sure.
Is this a serious rebuttal?
If you look at the pros and cons you can easily see that nuclear power is better.
I don't think it's a realistic or ideal long-term solution. But it's needed for todays societies. They produce massive amounts of energy. Especially Christmas time *cough*.
Have you ever experience a blackout that lasted for days? I remember the blackout of 2003 here in Northeast North America. 50 million people without electricity. All because some trees hit some power lines and a bug in the monitoring software failed to alarm the grid monitors. 100 power plants in Ontario and the United States went off-line.
I would personally like to see hydrogen power instead. Water in, water out.
Why does it have to be buried at someones house. Evertime I fly over Canada I am amazed by how many places there are where no one is living. I am sure it is fairly similar in the United States.
but bury the shit in your own back yards. if you create the waste; you should deal with it.
i'm solar so i don't have black-outs. when the town has a power outage; those of us outside of town all have electricity. i don't produce "massive" amounts of electricity; but i produce more than i need.
i still say bury the waste in your own state. don't ship it to the remote areas because PEOPLE LIVE HERE!
Of course it's serious.
We've had blackouts, we had 10 days there a few years ago where there was no gas when the Longford explosion happened. Meant no hot showers, no gas for cooking, no restaurants, shops closed, supermarkets shut, people fought in the aisles for bread and water. The loss of gas meant an increase in electricty usage which also brought on black outs. All kinds of shit went on.
I'm not disputing that we need to find clean energy solutions and quickly. I just don't think this is an option.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Is there really anywhere in the world that isn't someone's back yard?
There's been big plans afoot to ship all the nuclear waste here to Australia and bury it in the outback. Yeah right! :rolleyes:
I'm assuming that by no one you mean, no humans?
Because as far as I can see the earth is fully populated either by humans, animals, or plant life. Bury this shit in the ground anywhere and there will be repercussions for the ecosystem. You only have to look at the damage it's doing where they're mining it already. That's even before we get into accidents, spent fuel rods, and what to do with the waste. If they're presenting it as a viable option now then I'd suggest that there's some big wig somewhere paying for scientists to change the science and present a more user friendly view to the world because there's money to be made. But this stuff is the same stuff it's always been and so far no one's been able to say that it isn't toxic or poisonous to humans so not in my backyard.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
i wish it was kel. the YUCCA MOUNTAIN site is 100 miles from las vegas and lies on a fault line.
places you think no one will ever live are green communities living with solar power and producing their own food. my nevada ranch is the only privately held property for miles in all directions. most is national forrest.
they say there is a person born every 15 minutes in the us. considering that population growth; people will have to be living in those "God forsaken" areas they plan on burying that waste. say the earth does survive global warming; who are we to say who will be living where 400 years from now?
when i had my plane; i flew into some remote places on my hunting or fishing trips. many of those places are now built up with houses and retirement areas.
it's hard to predict where we'll be living in the future. if the ocean level rises 200 feet; 2/3 of the population will be driven inland. what do we do then?