Why is nuclear power such an emotive issue?

[dug777]

Which is fine, but if you really cared you'd understand how Chernobyl happened, at least on a basic level, and why it's not hard to prevent that happening again...

A relatively large number of yanks, europeans and japanese co-exist with reactors every day, and haven't blow up recently...

 

[elmer92413]

Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

 

[Vette73]

Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Why is it the same people that hail nuclear are the same ones that don;t want the waste in their state let alone when you ask people that are in favor of nuclear how about we build one in your city then all of a sudden they don;t want it?

The people there or the green movement and anti-nuclear movement mobilising them?

I'd be fine...

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

No, they're stupid, not just ignorant.

Scientists have known for years the age of the Earth and this simple fact has been taught in schools for decades, yet there's a movement to abandon all scientific knowledge and instead believe that the Earth is an incredibly young 5,000 years (or some ridiculous crap like that).

It's not an issue of lack of education, it's an issue of stupid people choosing to ignore science and instead believe in nonsense.

 

[2Xtreme21]

I'd say it's more about people being NIMBY's than anything.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

Yep. Chernobyl was bad, but it kills me when people cite TMI as a strike AGAINST nuclear power safety. TMI is a huge vote FOR the safety of nuclear power. It drives me nuts that more people don't support it.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: dug777
Which is fine, but if you really cared you'd understand how Chernobyl happened, at least on a basic level, and why it's not hard to prevent that happening again...

A relatively large number of yanks, europeans and japanese co-exist with reactors every day, and haven't blow up recently...

Just so you know, there are plenty of nuke plants in the south. No one seems to care around here.

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/united_states.html

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

No, they're stupid, not just ignorant.

Scientists have known for years the age of the Earth and this simple fact has been taught in schools for decades, yet there's a movement to abandon all scientific knowledge and instead believe that the Earth is an incredibly young 5,000 years (or some ridiculous crap like that).

It's not an issue of lack of education, it's an issue of stupid people choosing to ignore science and instead believe in nonsense.

At this juncture, your statement is correct on evolution, new earth stuff. But most of the fanatical Christians are also republicans. And republicans tend to support Nuclear Power.

 

[techs]

Simply put the potential for a cataclysmic disaster from a nuclear plant is so high and the failure of American business to adequately run nuke plants terrifies the hell out of me.
After all, we almost lost Detroit to a nuclear accident.

If our nuke plants weren't run by corporations that seek to build and run them at the lowest possible price, regardless of safety, I might be less afraid. But in America the corporations control the rules and regulations of nuke plants which is such a dangerous combination I would rather have the emissions from coal plants versus potential of massive devastation by nuclear accident.

And anyone who lives within a few miles of nuke plant like I do, is probably far more informed of the massive propaganda campaign that attempts to convince us how safe nuke plants are. Accidents are the norm, and its not a question of if there will be a nuke meltdown but when.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

No, they're stupid, not just ignorant.

Scientists have known for years the age of the Earth and this simple fact has been taught in schools for decades, yet there's a movement to abandon all scientific knowledge and instead believe that the Earth is an incredibly young 5,000 years (or some ridiculous crap like that).

It's not an issue of lack of education, it's an issue of stupid people choosing to ignore science and instead believe in nonsense.

At this juncture, your statement is correct on evolution, new earth stuff. But most of the fanatical Christians are also republicans. And republicans tend to support Nuclear Power.

lol

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: techs
Simply put the potential for a cataclysmic disaster from a nuclear plant is so high and the failure of American business to adequately run nuke plants terrifies the hell out of me.
After all, we almost lost Detroit to a nuclear accident.

No. No we didn't. That accident happened in 1966 with an experimental reactor whose cooling system failed. Two fuel assemblies melted but there was no contamination.

American business has been running Nuclear Plants for 5 decades without a major incident. Three Mile Island is the closest but even that was a mild event with no contamination and no fatalities.

Today's technology is more than adequate to keep Nuclear Power safe. France provides 80% of their energy through nuclear. Other nations are building more plants now to meet their future energy needs.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs
Simply put the potential for a cataclysmic disaster from a nuclear plant is so high and the failure of American business to adequately run nuke plants terrifies the hell out of me.
After all, we almost lost Detroit to a nuclear accident.

No. No we didn't. That accident happened in 1966 with an experimental reactor whose cooling system failed. Two fuel assemblies melted but there was no contamination.

American business has been running Nuclear Plants for 5 decades without a major incident. Three Mile Island is the closest but even that was a mild event with no contamination and no fatalities.

Today's technology is more than adequate to keep Nuclear Power safe. France provides 80% of their energy through nuclear. Other nations are building more plants now to meet their future energy needs.

yea france kicks ass on the Nuclear Power front, ive always woundered what do they do with the waste?


big issue in the country is the fucking tree humpers and their issues with waste disposial

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: techs
And anyone who lives within a few miles of nuke plant like I do, is probably far more informed of the massive propaganda campaign that attempts to convince us how safe nuke plants are. Accidents are the norm, and its not a question of if there will be a nuke meltdown but when.

I live within 15 miles of TMI and have non problem w/ nuclear power. I would much rather have a nuclear plant near me then a coal fired power plant.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs
Simply put the potential for a cataclysmic disaster from a nuclear plant is so high and the failure of American business to adequately run nuke plants terrifies the hell out of me.
After all, we almost lost Detroit to a nuclear accident.

No. No we didn't. That accident happened in 1966 with an experimental reactor whose cooling system failed. Two fuel assemblies melted but there was no contamination.

American business has been running Nuclear Plants for 5 decades without a major incident. Three Mile Island is the closest but even that was a mild event with no contamination and no fatalities.

Today's technology is more than adequate to keep Nuclear Power safe. France provides 80% of their energy through nuclear. Other nations are building more plants now to meet their future energy needs.

yea france kicks ass on the Nuclear Power front, ive always woundered what do they do with the waste?


big issue in the country is the fucking tree humpers and their issues with waste disposial

They recycle their rods so their waste is reduced tremendously. I believe it also cuts down on the half-life of the waste itself, so its safe after 200 years, as opposed to the 10k years currently.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: techs
And anyone who lives within a few miles of nuke plant like I do, is probably far more informed of the massive propaganda campaign that attempts to convince us how safe nuke plants are. Accidents are the norm, and its not a question of if there will be a nuke meltdown but when.

I grew up within a few miles of Davis-Besse and the only thing that was the "norm" was local media blowing things far out of proportion to feed into the irrational paranoia surrounding nuclear power.

ZV

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs
Simply put the potential for a cataclysmic disaster from a nuclear plant is so high and the failure of American business to adequately run nuke plants terrifies the hell out of me.
After all, we almost lost Detroit to a nuclear accident.

No. No we didn't. That accident happened in 1966 with an experimental reactor whose cooling system failed. Two fuel assemblies melted but there was no contamination.

American business has been running Nuclear Plants for 5 decades without a major incident. Three Mile Island is the closest but even that was a mild event with no contamination and no fatalities.

Today's technology is more than adequate to keep Nuclear Power safe. France provides 80% of their energy through nuclear. Other nations are building more plants now to meet their future energy needs.

yea france kicks ass on the Nuclear Power front, ive always woundered what do they do with the waste?


big issue in the country is the fucking tree humpers and their issues with waste disposial

They recycle their rods so their waste is reduced tremendously. I believe it also cuts down on the half-life of the waste itself, so its safe after 200 years, as opposed to the 10k years currently.

awsome

 

[Codewiz]

I am sorry, I currently live near the Navy Nuclear Sub school. If these 18 year olds can learn how to safely run a nuclear sub, so can a power company. We have TONS of nuclear power plans in this country and there are no bad accidents in recent times.

I lived near nuclear power plants all my life and there has never been an issue.

 

[Modelworks]

I live near a reactor. It has been there for the last 20 years. The issue I have with reactors is waste and transporting that waste. Even if you recycle it, 200 years is a very long time to have to store something. I do not think nuclear fission is the solution, fusion maybe. I think that geothermal would be a much better option overall.

 

[Paperdoc]

I'm ambivalent about nuclear power, but not because I fear a Chernobyl cataclysm. I want to know how the wastes are going to be stored safely. Some of those have high levels of gamma radiation output with a half-life of 10,000 years, meaning that the storage site must be secure for about 100,000 years. We have absolutely no engineering experience pertinent to creating such a design, and of course it's not possible to build and test. So we are really operating on faith and, more recently, desperation. As in, 50,000 years from now will our species be damaged by radioactive wastes, or by freezing in the dark? Or maybe that choice of disaster scenarions happens sooner.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs
Simply put the potential for a cataclysmic disaster from a nuclear plant is so high and the failure of American business to adequately run nuke plants terrifies the hell out of me.
After all, we almost lost Detroit to a nuclear accident.

If our nuke plants weren't run by corporations that seek to build and run them at the lowest possible price, regardless of safety, I might be less afraid. But in America the corporations control the rules and regulations of nuke plants which is such a dangerous combination I would rather have the emissions from coal plants versus potential of massive devastation by nuclear accident.

And anyone who lives within a few miles of nuke plant like I do, is probably far more informed of the massive propaganda campaign that attempts to convince us how safe nuke plants are. Accidents are the norm, and its not a question of if there will be a nuke meltdown but when.

You are such an ignorant troll. How many accidents can you name off the top of your head?

 

[amddude]

I heard recently that all the waste we've created in the US since 1950 wouldn't even fill a high school gym...I don't think we really generate THAT much.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I am sorry, I currently live near the Navy Nuclear Sub school. If these 18 year olds can learn how to safely run a nuclear sub, so can a power company. We have TONS of nuclear power plans in this country and there are no bad accidents in recent times.

I lived near nuclear power plants all my life and there has never been an issue.

Yea, everyone has nuclear thread craps and 3 eyes where I live, too.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: amddude
I heard recently that all the waste we've created in the US since 1950 wouldn't even fill a high school gym...I don't think we really generate THAT much.

Actually it is thousands of times more than that.
We are currently finishing up on the Yukka Mountain storage facility to store waste. We already have so much waste that it will be completely filled.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
I'm ambivalent about nuclear power, but not because I fear a Chernobyl cataclysm. I want to know how the wastes are going to be stored safely. Some of those have high levels of gamma radiation output with a half-life of 10,000 years, meaning that the storage site must be secure for about 100,000 years. We have absolutely no engineering experience pertinent to creating such a design, and of course it's not possible to build and test. So we are really operating on faith and, more recently, desperation. As in, 50,000 years from now will our species be damaged by radioactive wastes, or by freezing in the dark? Or maybe that choice of disaster scenarions happens sooner.

We cant test the viability of containers and consult hundreds of experts from every scientific field to find a good place to store the waste.

If we did all that we would... oh wait, Yucca Mountain.