Why are the environmentalists against nuclear energy?

[Savij]

Originally posted by: Pantoot

Originally posted by: Savij
Find a single nuclear reactor based on that...what was the word positive coefficient system in the free world.

Ignalina in Lithuania. (Although it is scheduled to shut down #2 in 2009.)

Well, I suppose you can count an old Soviet reactor that's already slated to shutdown...

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

And the ignorance continues...

Meanwhile tens of thousands die each year from fossil fueled plant output.

Peer reviewed studies directly linking the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year to fossil fueled plant output?

Say what you like about people who are cautious about nuclear power, but there are unarguably still issues about long term storage (for starters, where? I hope you're happy to have it stored in your own backyard ), and undeniable (although remote) security issues relating to nuclear plants. Terrorists blow up one nuclear plant on mainland USA and can you imagine the impact?

Personally i don't mind if you build hundreds of nuclear plants, as long as you're happy dealing with your own waste rather than shipping it to us to deal with at the end of the day

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

And the ignorance continues...

Meanwhile tens of thousands die each year from fossil fueled plant output.

Oh, please teach me. Cure me of my ignorance. But please give me your home address so I can hire a hitman to take you out when Hanford dumps its load into my river.

I wish I was smart like you. While you're at it, how about something to backup your "tens of thousands" claim. Preferably a source that isn't Pro-nuke.

http://www.cleartheair.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=19080

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=11117

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

 

[mercanucaribe]

I'm an environmentalist, or more accurately a preservationist, and I'm all for nuclear energy. A major problem in America is special interests.. they are the reason that old growth forests are still logged despite sufficient wood producing capability of tree plantations, the reason oil and coal are used instead of nuclear power, the reason we still use high sulfur diesel, the reason I can't drive my Jeep on existing roads in National Forests while ATVs can, the reason etc etc. I could rant for hours.

 

[Vic]

It's just plain old NIMBY-istic ignorance. My favorite case in point. Oregon once had ONE (count 'em, ONE) nuclear power plant, aptly named Trojan. In the early '90s, after less than 20 years of service, it was discovered that design and construction flaws created a slight danger of radioactive steam leakage. The owner of the plant, Portland General Electric (PGE), a private utility, determined that the cost of repair exceeded ROI and thus decided not to pursue it. Whereupon the state utility commission (PUC) ordered that the plant be shut down the following year (1995 IIRC). So PGE sponsored and placed upon the fall election ballot a measure to force the plant to be shut down prior to the PUC date, the result of which would put the burden of the costs on the taxpayers as opposed to on PGE's shareholders. The dipsh!t ignorant supposedly anti-corporate enviro-lemmings NIMBY's jumped on the measure and got it passed, utterly clueless to what they were doing (as usual). The plant was shut down, decommissioned at extravagant taxpayer cost, and finally the cooling tower was demolished by CDI this year -- Pic

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: Vic
It's just plain old NIMBY-istic ignorance. My favorite case in point. Oregon once had ONE (count 'em, ONE) nuclear power plant, aptly named Trojan. In the early '90s, after less than 20 years of service, it was discovered that design and construction flaws created a slight danger of radioactive steam leakage. The owner of the plant, Portland General Electric (PGE), a private utility, determined that the cost of repair exceeded ROI and thus decided not to pursue it. Whereupon the state utility commission (PUC) ordered that the plant be shut down the following year (1995 IIRC). So PGE sponsored and placed upon the fall election ballot a measure to force the plant to be shut down prior to the PUC date, the result of which would put the burden of the costs on the taxpayers as opposed to on PGE's shareholders. The dipsh!t ignorant supposedly anti-corporate enviro-lemmings NIMBY's jumped on the measure and got it passed, utterly clueless to what they were doing (as usual). The plant was shut down, decommissioned at extravagant taxpayer cost, and finally the cooling tower was demolished by CDI this year -- Pic

-or-

Another view

Trojan: PGE's Nuclear Gamble

BY PAUL KOBERSTEIN

Of all the looming environmental disasters that have confronted this region in the past 30 years-the felling of old-growth forests, salmon extinction, the rape of the Willamette River-none can match the sheer catastrophic potential of the Trojan Nuclear Facility, whose atomic heart began to glow in 1975.

We never knew how lucky we were. No one knew that a vital backup safety system at the plant, located 40 miles north of the city, was not in working order. No one knew that in the event of overheating within the reactor core, the Emergency Core Cooling System could not reliably have been called upon to prevent meltdown.

In fact, the problem was not discovered until 1991, when the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined Trojan operator Portland General Electric $280,000 for the breach.

"We were one broken pipe away from Chernobyl," says Portland lawyer Greg Kafoury, who was an anti-Trojan activist for many years.

Trojan's problems began before the plant even began operating. In 1972, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Geological Survey had found a "concealed fault" running through the Columbia River next to the plant site. In the article, John Gofman, an Atomic Energy Commission scientist, compared Trojan to "locating 2,500 atomic bombs worth of radiation in Portland's back yard."

Even as Trojan went on line, WW was already pricking holes in it, criticizing the cost for a visitors center-a whopping $2.2 million. WW was wondering why PGE should be spending all that money ($6 from every ratepayer) to propagandize about nuclear power, given the emerging safety and waste problems at Trojan. PGE's response, in a call from spokesman Steve Loy to WW editor Ronald Buel: "Why don't you guys get off our back?"

By 1977 Trojan officials were not so imperious. Their plant had in fact been seriously compromised during construction. The earthquake risk was far greater than anyone had imagined: Walls in the containment building were missing crucial reinforcing rods and didn't comply with the Uniform Building Code. PGE sued the contractor, Bechtel, and shut down Trojan several months for rebuilding. "Considering the magnitude of the earthquake loads and the importance of the structure, it was the grossest kind of error," according to a 1981 review by consulting engineers Preece/Goudie of San Francisco.

When the extent of the errors was first discovered, Bechtel tried an engineering patch that actually weakened the building. Court records show this decision stemmed from pressure from PGE management to avoid construction delays and cost overruns.

In court testimony, PGE head Robert Short testified that "the Bechtel people described the problem as very severe. The direct quote was, 'This is the worst mistake we have ever seen in a construction project of this size.'"

PGE's lawsuit against Bechtel was settled out of court, and the full docket of briefs, depositions and engineering reports was sealed by a federal judge. The details would probably still be secret if someone hadn't leaked the documents to Kafoury in 1986.

While PGE was playing its high-stakes game of chance, scientists were taking a closer look at the potential risk. In 1987, U.S. Geological Survey researchers reported in Science magazine that a major quake on the order of 8 or 9 on the Richter scale would hit the Northwest-not a question of if, they said, but when.

Activist Lloyd Marbet devoted decades to killing Trojan. He put three initiatives on the ballot-in 1986, 1990 and 1992-only to be beaten each time by PGE's millions. Through legal and ballot maneuvers in the late '70s and early '80s, Marbet did manage to stop two proposed PGE nukes known as Pebble Springs. When PGE then tried to charge Oregon ratepayers for the hundreds of millions of dollars it lost on Pebble Springs, Portland lawyers Dan Meek and Linda Williams sued and won. They were awarded nearly $2 million in legal fees, paying to help get anti-Trojan initiatives on the ballot.

In 1992, PGE announced that the steam generators at Trojan were crumbling and would be replaced. The generators, which turn heat into electricity, had been built by Westinghouse and contained defects seen at other plants. Two last measures to close Trojan failed that year on the November ballot.

A week after Election Day, Trojan's tubes burst with a major leak, and the plant was shut down. Robert Pollard of the Union of Concerned Scientists released a Nuclear Regulatory Commission memo showing dissent within the agency regarding Trojan's safety. Pollard said the plant had "a high likelihood of an accident occurring with severe consequences to the public." While The Oregonian ran an editorial calling for immediate restart, opposition to restarting Trojan was growing within the NRC.

PGE finally shuttered Trojan in early 1993, but its legacy didn't end there. PGE tried to get ratepayers to pay it $550 million for its investment and profits it would have made if it had kept the plant running until 2011. When a court ruled the charge illegal, PGE went to the Legislature and pushed through a bill overriding the court's decision. Activists then forced a public referendum on the payment, and a whopping 88 percent of voters told PGE to dream on. PGE then sought a settlement with the Oregon Public Utility Commission for a mere $300 million. The issue is still tied up in litigation, although activists won the last round, with a Salem judge in 2003 comparing PGE's argument to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass.

Trojan's undead reactor core was barged up the Columbia River in 1999 to its final resting place at Hanford Nuclear Reservation, near Richland, Wash. Meanwhile, part of the site has been turned into a park, which features a 25-acre lake (no motorboats-wouldn't want any pollution, now, would we?). Today, the spot is known as Trojan Park, but we'd like to propose a name that summarizes its legacy of safety lapses and boneheaded engineering: Homer Simpson Park.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

its really sad. here you argue about something you really do not have a clue about.

Tell me how Nuclear power doesn't produce Nuclear waste. EVERY other minute aspect of Nuclear power I do not care about. The ONLY thing I care about with this technology is its negatives. Show me how the waste isn't bad or doesn't have the potential for bad and you'll convince me. Other than that concede defeat.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

Please provide a number on how many are killed in the US by nuclear waste each year.

Compare that to the tens of thousands killed each year by lung diseases caused by fossil fuel emissions.

Get a clue.

Read me edit. I'm against Coal as well.

Got a solution or are you just like all the other "environmentalists" in that you don't have a solution but you're against everything else?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Vic
It's just plain old NIMBY-istic ignorance. My favorite case in point. Oregon once had ONE (count 'em, ONE) nuclear power plant, aptly named Trojan. In the early '90s, after less than 20 years of service, it was discovered that design and construction flaws created a slight danger of radioactive steam leakage. The owner of the plant, Portland General Electric (PGE), a private utility, determined that the cost of repair exceeded ROI and thus decided not to pursue it. Whereupon the state utility commission (PUC) ordered that the plant be shut down the following year (1995 IIRC). So PGE sponsored and placed upon the fall election ballot a measure to force the plant to be shut down prior to the PUC date, the result of which would put the burden of the costs on the taxpayers as opposed to on PGE's shareholders. The dipsh!t ignorant supposedly anti-corporate enviro-lemmings NIMBY's jumped on the measure and got it passed, utterly clueless to what they were doing (as usual). The plant was shut down, decommissioned at extravagant taxpayer cost, and finally the cooling tower was demolished by CDI this year -- Pic

-or-

Another view

Trojan: PGE's Nuclear Gamble

BY PAUL KOBERSTEIN

Of all the looming environmental disasters that have confronted this region in the past 30 years-the felling of old-growth forests, salmon extinction, the rape of the Willamette River-none can match the sheer catastrophic potential of the Trojan Nuclear Facility, whose atomic heart began to glow in 1975.

We never knew how lucky we were. No one knew that a vital backup safety system at the plant, located 40 miles north of the city, was not in working order. No one knew that in the event of overheating within the reactor core, the Emergency Core Cooling System could not reliably have been called upon to prevent meltdown.

In fact, the problem was not discovered until 1991, when the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined Trojan operator Portland General Electric $280,000 for the breach.

"We were one broken pipe away from Chernobyl," says Portland lawyer Greg Kafoury, who was an anti-Trojan activist for many years.

Trojan's problems began before the plant even began operating. In 1972, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Geological Survey had found a "concealed fault" running through the Columbia River next to the plant site. In the article, John Gofman, an Atomic Energy Commission scientist, compared Trojan to "locating 2,500 atomic bombs worth of radiation in Portland's back yard."

Even as Trojan went on line, WW was already pricking holes in it, criticizing the cost for a visitors center-a whopping $2.2 million. WW was wondering why PGE should be spending all that money ($6 from every ratepayer) to propagandize about nuclear power, given the emerging safety and waste problems at Trojan. PGE's response, in a call from spokesman Steve Loy to WW editor Ronald Buel: "Why don't you guys get off our back?"

By 1977 Trojan officials were not so imperious. Their plant had in fact been seriously compromised during construction. The earthquake risk was far greater than anyone had imagined: Walls in the containment building were missing crucial reinforcing rods and didn't comply with the Uniform Building Code. PGE sued the contractor, Bechtel, and shut down Trojan several months for rebuilding. "Considering the magnitude of the earthquake loads and the importance of the structure, it was the grossest kind of error," according to a 1981 review by consulting engineers Preece/Goudie of San Francisco.

When the extent of the errors was first discovered, Bechtel tried an engineering patch that actually weakened the building. Court records show this decision stemmed from pressure from PGE management to avoid construction delays and cost overruns.

In court testimony, PGE head Robert Short testified that "the Bechtel people described the problem as very severe. The direct quote was, 'This is the worst mistake we have ever seen in a construction project of this size.'"

PGE's lawsuit against Bechtel was settled out of court, and the full docket of briefs, depositions and engineering reports was sealed by a federal judge. The details would probably still be secret if someone hadn't leaked the documents to Kafoury in 1986.

While PGE was playing its high-stakes game of chance, scientists were taking a closer look at the potential risk. In 1987, U.S. Geological Survey researchers reported in Science magazine that a major quake on the order of 8 or 9 on the Richter scale would hit the Northwest-not a question of if, they said, but when.

Activist Lloyd Marbet devoted decades to killing Trojan. He put three initiatives on the ballot-in 1986, 1990 and 1992-only to be beaten each time by PGE's millions. Through legal and ballot maneuvers in the late '70s and early '80s, Marbet did manage to stop two proposed PGE nukes known as Pebble Springs. When PGE then tried to charge Oregon ratepayers for the hundreds of millions of dollars it lost on Pebble Springs, Portland lawyers Dan Meek and Linda Williams sued and won. They were awarded nearly $2 million in legal fees, paying to help get anti-Trojan initiatives on the ballot.

In 1992, PGE announced that the steam generators at Trojan were crumbling and would be replaced. The generators, which turn heat into electricity, had been built by Westinghouse and contained defects seen at other plants. Two last measures to close Trojan failed that year on the November ballot.

A week after Election Day, Trojan's tubes burst with a major leak, and the plant was shut down. Robert Pollard of the Union of Concerned Scientists released a Nuclear Regulatory Commission memo showing dissent within the agency regarding Trojan's safety. Pollard said the plant had "a high likelihood of an accident occurring with severe consequences to the public." While The Oregonian ran an editorial calling for immediate restart, opposition to restarting Trojan was growing within the NRC.

PGE finally shuttered Trojan in early 1993, but its legacy didn't end there. PGE tried to get ratepayers to pay it $550 million for its investment and profits it would have made if it had kept the plant running until 2011. When a court ruled the charge illegal, PGE went to the Legislature and pushed through a bill overriding the court's decision. Activists then forced a public referendum on the payment, and a whopping 88 percent of voters told PGE to dream on. PGE then sought a settlement with the Oregon Public Utility Commission for a mere $300 million. The issue is still tied up in litigation, although activists won the last round, with a Salem judge in 2003 comparing PGE's argument to Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass.

Trojan's undead reactor core was barged up the Columbia River in 1999 to its final resting place at Hanford Nuclear Reservation, near Richland, Wash. Meanwhile, part of the site has been turned into a park, which features a 25-acre lake (no motorboats-wouldn't want any pollution, now, would we?). Today, the spot is known as Trojan Park, but we'd like to propose a name that summarizes its legacy of safety lapses and boneheaded engineering: Homer Simpson Park.

If you can't tell that is an extremely biased article written by activists, I feel sorry for you. Hell, it's only sources are activists. It's only quotes are from activists.

:roll:

 

[Vic]

The Willamette Week? Surely you jest.

 

[iroast]

Nuclear waste & meltdown. Other than those two issues, I'm all for it.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Feldenak


<me whining>


Got a solution or are you just like all the other "environmentalists" in that you don't have a solution but you're against everything else?

The latter.

 

[FoBoT]

environmentalists want you to live in a cave and eat dirt
environmentalists are anti-technology

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

This is your answer OP, ignorant people - usually liberals.

Oops, now this belongs in P&N. Sorry

not necessarily. i consider myself a liberal, but I'm all for nuclear powerplants

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: quentinterintino

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

If you think that they transport HLW or SNF across the country un-checked....

Oh, I feel better now.

there have been no accidents to date with nuclear reactors, or transportation of nuclear fuel (clean or spent) since TMI.

History Channel's "Dangerous Cargo" </thread>



and for those who claim terrorist attack - you'd have to destroy the cooling and control systems so that an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction would occur. but nevermind that there's less than 5% U 235 in nuclear fuel (i think it's 1-2%), whereas the uranium found in nuclear bombs is over 95% U 235.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Savij
There is more radioactive waste generated by coffee brewing than by all nuclear energy production. In fact your spent coffee grounds couldn't be allowed in a low level waste storage area because they are too highly radioactive.

WTF?

The total volume of waste from coffee production probably does exceed the total volume of radwaste produced by the nuclear industry. However, the total radioactivity doesn't (in fact, it's not even close).

But, yes, coffee is naturally radioactive (the coffee plants concentrate natural radioactive materials in the soil like uranium - plus artificial fertilisers contain uranium as well). Indeed, coffee's radioactivity (most studies suggest between 1-2 Bq/g, but in some circumstances this could be higher) far exceeds the level which has to be classed as radioactive waste (and must go to designated disposal sites). However, because coffee is a natural product it is exempt from special handling and labelling requirements.

It also wouldn't be turned away from Low-level waste sites (as they are able to accept signficiantly more radioactive material) - but, if the coffee was artificially radioactive, some 'very-low level' rad waste sites may be unable to accept it (but I think this, too, is unlikely).

 

[quentinterintino]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Vic
It's just plain old NIMBY-istic ignorance. My favorite case in point. Oregon once had ONE (count 'em, ONE) nuclear power plant, aptly named Trojan. In the early '90s, after less than 20 years of service, it was discovered that design and construction flaws created a slight danger of radioactive steam leakage.
SNIP
Pic

-or-

Another view

Trojan: PGE's Nuclear Gamble

BY PAUL KOBERSTEIN

Of all the looming environmental disasters that have confronted this region in the past 30 years-

SNIP

name that summarizes its legacy of safety lapses and boneheaded engineering: Homer Simpson Park.

Damn you're dense.

 

[sandorski]

Not all Environmentalists are against it.

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: Fausto
I'm a tree-hugger and I'm all for it.

Me too.

The biggest problem with energy needs is how much people waste. Noone can be bothered enough to turn off a light or do all erands in one trip. Basically, people are creating the problem because of stupidity.

 

[91TTZ]

I used to work at a nuclear power plant. I was a computer guy, but I got to see the plant inside and out.

It was at Limerick in PA, and each of the two reactors was producing 1,100 megawatts of electricity. Walking outside in front of the main power block, the lines overhead crackled with electricity. It was kind of eerie, I was afraid that a big lightning bolt was going to jump out of the lines and zap me. I think they said that the lines carried 400,000 volts.

The towers were very impressive in size- I think they were 490 feet tall. They were just huge. At the base of them, there's a radiator surrounding them with a waterfall. There was a pretty strong wind blowing into the towers at the bottom, which cools the reactors. The radiators were all that's really going on in the towers, they're just hollow cones.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

its really sad. here you argue about something you really do not have a clue about.

Tell me how Nuclear power doesn't produce Nuclear waste. EVERY other minute aspect of Nuclear power I do not care about. The ONLY thing I care about with this technology is its negatives. Show me how the waste isn't bad or doesn't have the potential for bad and you'll convince me. Other than that concede defeat.

You're really fixated, aren't you?

Yes, nuclear power produces nuclear waste. If you stop reading there, fine, I "concede defeat", go ahead and live in ignorance.

But here's the kicker...nuclear waste really isn't as bad as you think. If you reprocess the stuff, the load of waste that actually has to sit underground for centuries isn't huge, and by the time another century rolls around, we'll have better energy sources anyway. At any rate, storing some nuclear waste underground isn't nearly as big of an environmental problem as burning gigatons of fossil fuels. I think what really does it for me is that the real experts in the field...people who actually KNOW the specifics...think that nukes are quite reasonable, and that waste storage isn't an insurmountable problem.

And before you go on about how "experts aren't always right"...true, but they're right a LOT more than non-experts, and someone has to make the decision.

 

[DrPizza]

It's pretty simple:

Go to any rally attended by a bunch of environmentalists, and you can easily convince the majority of them to sign a petition banning the use of dihydrogen monoxide... The only ones who won't, are the ones who recognize it as a joke. This indicates the biggest part of most public policy problems: people who aren't experts believe they are expert enough to form an opinion based only on small pieces of evidence.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Why are the environmentalists against nuclear energy?

I didn't think any of the informed ones are. I certainly consider myself an environmentalist, and I'm all for the benefits of nuclear energy.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Correct the title OP, Why are the stupid environmentalists against nuclear energy?

I'm all for reducing polution and nasty emissions, but only a close-minded idiot would honestly see nuclear energy as more harmful than coal energy. Smog is alot more dangerous than nuclear waste could ever be; nuclear waste can be properly disposed of or better yet, even reused, smoke and emissions from burning fossil fuels will make Earth nice and toasty soon if everyone isn't already dead from lung cancer.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I'm an environmentalist, or more accurately a preservationist, and I'm all for nuclear energy. A major problem in America is special interests.. they are the reason that old growth forests are still logged despite sufficient wood producing capability of tree plantations, the reason oil and coal are used instead of nuclear power, the reason we still use high sulfur diesel, the reason I can't drive my Jeep on existing roads in National Forests while ATVs can, the reason etc etc. I could rant for hours.

If tree plantations are sufficiently meeting demand for lumber, then why do we import so much of our lumber from Canada at a higher price? It's because logging in America is insufficient to meet demand due to various unnecessary restrictions on logging. Although many of the logging problems come from the logging companies themselves. There are prime regions for logging that are untapped and unprotected.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Mark R

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Savij
There is more radioactive waste generated by coffee brewing than by all nuclear energy production. In fact your spent coffee grounds couldn't be allowed in a low level waste storage area because they are too highly radioactive.

WTF?

The total volume of waste from coffee production probably does exceed the total volume of radwaste produced by the nuclear industry. However, the total radioactivity doesn't (in fact, it's not even close).

But, yes, coffee is naturally radioactive (the coffee plants concentrate natural radioactive materials in the soil like uranium - plus artificial fertilisers contain uranium as well). Indeed, coffee's radioactivity (most studies suggest between 1-2 Bq/g, but in some circumstances this could be higher) far exceeds the level which has to be classed as radioactive waste (and must go to designated disposal sites). However, because coffee is a natural product it is exempt from special handling and labelling requirements.

It also wouldn't be turned away from Low-level waste sites (as they are able to accept signficiantly more radioactive material) - but, if the coffee was artificially radioactive, some 'very-low level' rad waste sites may be unable to accept it (but I think this, too, is unlikely).

Bananas are radioactive too, I believe it's K-40. I was thinking of doing a senior project around this, but chose to study cosmic ray flux instead.