John F. Kerry

Could 'Chernobyl’ scaremongers cost our nuclear future? - Telegraph


ok, I really am just curious about this because I cant seem to wrap my head around why some people would be such strong proponents of nuclear power.


I can understand the facts. I understand the shortcommings of renewable power, at present. I understand the fact that nuclear is less polluting than coal or oil, but also understand that it produces waste that remains toxic for thousands of years, even when it works correctly, and when it fails, produces potentially catastrophic disasters.

So I could understand people saying, well, nuclear power is an evil, but a necessary evil... I can understand how people could come to the conclusion that they have to use it.... but I cant understand how anyone could be a really strong proponent of nuclear- its got so many drawbacks, in expense, danger, cost, problems with waste, potential for disaster. I totally can understand people who say- we need it now, and it is technically less polluting than oil and gas.... but I dont understand how anyone, without a vested interest in nuclear power in some way or another, could argue so strongly in favor of it like the guy in this article.... It may be neceesary, or the best option we presently have for a certain limited number of circumstances- but it is certainly not desireable simply because of all the drawbacks -its complicated, huge, expensive, dangerous, not pollution free, and always presents a looming potential for catastrophe.

I just don't understand , I think its partly because of a arrogance or feeling of inferiority that some have- nuclear still has this mystique of being a wonder , especially in places that dont have it yet- like iran, or arab countries, etc... they talk about nuclear power like its like the west's monopoly and its our reason for being so successful.... In fact, our nuclear plants dont really help us a god damn bit- they give us the same electricity that irans gas power plants give them - except our plants also give us tons of nuclear waste that we have no place to store, and that must be stored safely and totally unexposed to the environment for millenia.... but these places think of it like, well if they have it, so should we....

I really am worried about nuclear power. Not because of fukishima.... not because of the potential for another chernobyl...not because, like this guy seems to think, of fear mongering.... I am worried about it because it involves numerous unanswered questions, like , for one, what the fuck are we gonna do with all this waste.... in 500 years there will be a lot more fucking nuke waste, and the waste from 1968 is still going to be sitting in a dome, poisonous and damaging, just as it is today....and, if we still depend on it, the waste will keep piling up for centuries more..

Its easy today to talk about the small amout of waste produced , and how a tiny amount of uranium runs a huge plant for a year.... but in 500 years, that will have added up to a lot....even in 100 years it will be a huge amount, especially as more and more countries get reactors - not only do we have to worry about the waste itself, but we have to worry about the structures every country around teh world builds to hold it, and about potential attacks or terrorism against all those waste sites- add it up, and the reason I have a problem with it, is because IT SEEMS STUPID....we are spinning our wheels here, its not fear mongering that leads me to this conclusion, but a recognition of the various facts in play.... nuclear is not a perfect solution, it might be a necessary one at present, but the people who act like its great and easy and safe and to oppose it is to fear monger, I just cant understand why they would be so in favor of prolonging a system that has so many faults... unless they benefit financially from it.

maybe someone can help me understand this. I am relatively conservative and relatively republican, and even I think this way.... so I just cant understand where these nuclear proponents come from or why they seem to want to insist that its sooo safe when even without fear mongering we can see clearly all the various as yet unsolved problems with nuclear power. How can they just push full steam ahead on something when we dont even have the answers for what to do with the waste yet? Our "nuclear future" this guy laments losing....wtf, how does he have the idea that a nuclear future would be so wonderful.... nuclear medicine is useful, nuclear tech has many good applications, but why does fission nuclear power have to be a part of that future....and what makes it so wonderful that he is afraid to lose it. Lose tons of radioactive planet killing waste? oh what a shame.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

Peace seeker

because they think "they know it all"

SageTree

__________________

my_scatterheart

Is there more to that article or am I missing something?
Nothing about that read to me like "Nuclear is the only way."

__________________
Be mindful even if your mind is full. -J. De La Vega

Grieves

Why do some people only bandwagon onto alternative energies after major catastrophes...?

__________________

Captain Cannabis

fundamental misunderstanding of the current state of technology combined with hype/panic from media

__________________
fuck the monkeys

SageTree

^99% sure that's why the demineralized water leak made headlines no doubt.

__________________

John F. Kerry

well that was great. glad i bothered to write all that shit

__________________
Nasa under Obama

Captain Cannabis

why not write about how great coal is for generating electricity

__________________
fuck the monkeys

Sugar420

well heres the thing: i dont think that going back to older technology is going to save the environment now that we have a lot more people tryng to share (or trying not to share) the limited resources we have here on earth. i mean, the reason we dont use steam power for everything is because it just isnt practical anymore. wed have to burn crazy amounts of wood, coal, whatever... it just wont work. so since then, every power generating technology has been better and cleaner than previous technologies.

so nuclear power is way cleaner than using coal, which has to be got by mining, which is a very dirty/destructive thing to do, and even tho the burning of coal is cleaner than it usedto be, theres still coal ash to deal with, there is still air pollution and acid rain, and im pretty sure burning coal releases radioactivity, which is spread everywhere unlike nuclear waste that is kept contained.

but here is the other thing: people always expect new technology to fix all the problems, and even tho in the history of power production things have gotten more efficient and cleaner, there have always been (and there will always be) unintended consequences and compromises that make everyone have to scramble for the next solution.

so i dont believe that technology is going to save us any more than it ever has.



edit: this is pretty interesting: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html

The Don

This may be dumb question but whatever.

Nuclear fuel is found in nature right? Where it's allready radioactive?

What is that makes spent fuel so bad in comparison to that?

Does it undergo some process that changes it?

Also, the earth is a big fucking place, and as far as I know, there are pretty good methods of storing spent fuel. As in, safe, by any standards. So what if you use it forever? Today you still have to deal with huuuuge amounts of waste from existing power plants.

I used to work at a plant that made heat, by burning garbage. It produced what we called "slag". Slag is some nasty shit man, it get's sparyed with water mixed with some acid, and then a driver picks it up and drives it storage somewhere. Toxic, nasty shit. The amount of slag produced each day was unbelivable. Tons and tons of that shit.

__________________

SmokeaJoint

I'm Pro-Nuclear power because I'm racist against Middle Eastern oil. I'm even more Pro-Renewable/Sustainable energy though. Like, solar, wind, and wave power.

__________________
AMERICA: LAND OF THE FREE!
Some restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited

DdC

Push for No New Nukes

Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean."

If a meltdown were to occur, the accident could kill and injure tens of thousands of people, leaving large regions uninhabitable. And, more than 50 years after splitting the first atom, science has yet to devise a method for adequately handling long lived radioactive wastes.

For years nuclear plants have been leaking radioactive waste from underground pipes and radioactive waste pools into the ground water at sites across the nation.

In addition to being extremely dangerous, the continued greenwashing of nuclear power from industry-backed lobbyists diverts investments away from clean, renewable sources of energy. In contrast to nuclear power, renewable energy is both clean and safe. Technically accessible renewable energy sources are capable of producing six times more energy than current global demand.

In order to save the future of our planet, we must continue to fight the expansion of nuclear power and instead push for clean, renewable sources of energy. Over the next three years Greenpeace will continue to:

1. Debunk the myth that nuclear provides a “green” source of electricity and detail the threats posed by nuclear reactors and the radioactive wastes they produce.

2. Expose the abysmal economics of new nuclear power.

3. Advocate for the permanent closure of the old, leaky Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in 2012.

By working together to spread the truth, we can have a brighter, safer future.

To read more about our history and our work on nuclear energy visit our website at: greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

"Philip Radford, Greenpeace"

Stand with the people of Japan - join us March 28th
Blog by Phil Radford | March 18, 2011
The people of Japan are going through a terrible crisis. But they are not going it alone. There’s been an outpouring of support from people around the world and the situation has truly brought out the best in humankind. Here in... Read more >

New maps of nuclear power plants and seismic hazards in the United States
Blog by Michelle Frey | March 18, 2011
This map shows areas of equal seismic hazard and indicates the minimum peak horizontal ground acceleration value, a measure of the how hard the ground shakes in a given area. The map also shows locations of the 63 US nuclear power... Read more >



Benefits of Marijuana: Acute radiation syndrome

mothernature

Nuclear energy is cheap.

There are many radioactive dump sites in the US. Before the EPA, corporations dumped the barrels, willy-nilly, where ever they found a hole.

The one in my state, Ky., has been leaking for many, MANY years. Billions of gallons of ground water are polluted and the plumes of radioactivity have reached the Ohio River. Now, the government says this is ok, because the radioactive materials are getting diluted from all that water it's mixed with.

Understand that, this one here in Ky., is a minor one. There are worse places in other states. Let's see, from memory, they've been cleaning that site since the 60's. It's not half way done yet. They haven't even started on the worst part yet. Now they are saying around 2039, I think, but they are depending on technology that hasn't been developed yet. Every time the federal budget gets cut, these are the programs that get cut as well. I think the clean ups are under the Dept. of Energy budget.

I believe this is all a result of our buy now, pay later attitude we have in this country. It's all about the money. It always is.

Lloydy

At the minute nuclear power IS the only answer to our future energy problems, current renewable technology wont be able to cope with even the present demand for energy.

__________________
Keep the red flag flying high

Flamingnun

Got a nuclear powered car have you?

__________________

Lloydy

nuclear powered cars would be class. if you crash you dont die you simply get irradiated and become a transformer

__________________
Keep the red flag flying high

farmergiles

It does undergo changes as a result of fission but I think the main problem is normally it's buried underground out of harm's way, if we dig it up, concentrate it and spread it around it causes problems.

Population control is necessary regardless of the degree to which we clean up our energy, if we keep multiplying at the rate we are we won't be able to deal with the pollution we create regardless.
Is birth control technology?

__________________
Cultivate a stoic calmness

Lloydy

__________________
Keep the red flag flying high

SageTree

Population control you say?

__________________