Nuclear power plants and The Bomb

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

Sure, nuclear waste is a problem. Storing it in hangars is a bad idea. However, it can be dealt with properly. If it can't be recycled, bury it deep in the ground where it came from. The emissions from fossil fuels can not be disposed of properly. They end up in the atmosphere. If the atmosphere collapses then we will have direct radiation for the sun to worry about. Yet, people bask in the radiation from nuclear fusion in the sun. They burn their skin with UV radiation and show off their scorched skin. The only thing protecting us from an unavoidable onslaught of killer radiation is the atmosphere, which we are damaging with coal, oil and gas.

No worries Ryan. We'll bury it at your place ok?

Ahnimus

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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)

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.

Kel Varnsen

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

No worries Ryan. We'll bury it at your place ok?

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.

Kel Varnsen

Jeanie wrote:

No worries Ryan. We'll bury it at your place ok?

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.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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!

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Of course it's serious. You want it then we'll mine it from canada, use it in canada and bury it in canada. I mean I'd still object but you take most of the risks.

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.

Jeanie

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

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.

onelongsong

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

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?

malabogia

Aren't we forgetting the big desserts and unpopulated areas that the big nations like USA, France, Russia are conducting nuclear bomb tests? Those places could prove useful by storing the waste instead of nuking them every now and then.

Jeanie

malabogia wrote:

Aren't we forgetting the big desserts and unpopulated areas that the big nations like USA, France, Russia are conducting nuclear bomb tests? Those places could prove useful by storing the waste instead of nuking them every now and then.

No I haven't forgotten them. I never forget the nuclear testing we were subjected to at Maralinga and the long term consquences of that and I'm quite sure it was on the minds of a lot of Australians and our pacific neighbours when the French decided to begin nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll

http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/mururoa.htm

http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/mururoa.htm

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch16.html

And I did mention earlier in the thread that deserts whilst not inhabited by a lot of humans are still vital ecosystems that are home to many native species of flora and fauna. All of which are part of the bigger picture for the environment. That is to say that what you do in your backyard may have far reaching consequences for other parts of the environment thousands of kilometres away.

The only safe place for uranium is in the ground where it already is and even that, as pointed out by Kel earlier is not without its issues.

Ahnimus

The alternative isn't any better.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

The alternative isn't any better.

I don't see that there is only ONE alternative Ahnimus.

And I agree that continuing the way we have with fossil fuel has been very dangerous also.

onelongsong

malabogia wrote:

Aren't we forgetting the big desserts and unpopulated areas that the big nations like USA, France, Russia are conducting nuclear bomb tests? Those places could prove useful by storing the waste instead of nuking them every now and then.

i live in those deserts. those areas you think are unpopulated have green communities living there. look in the back of MOTHER EARTH NEWS and you'll find ads selling land in places you never thought people would live. solar energy has opened up the world and people can live where they want; not just where the power companies will bring power. when the oceans rise; people will need to evacuate into those areas too. if; by some chance they don't; then population growth will require that land. every 15 minutes, someone is born in the us.