Nuclear Energy?

[GoaThief]

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems.

You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants [http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/7/469.long] is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs.

Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.

Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.

Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.

You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.

We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?

 

[Henkie36]

Well, since we don't seem to have any other effective (that counts out wind and solar power) clean forms of energy and the world is quickly running out of gas, oil and coal, I suppose this is one of the best alternatives.

I know the argument of ''What to do with the waste?'', but I figured, as long as we don't leave it to the Germans or the British (Who trew it in a leaking salt mine and in the sea respectively) but bury it in specially designed holes in the ground, I think were fine. Plus, all the hippies who are trying to stop nuclear energy because of this waste problem, don't seem to realize that we are throwing the waste we have from regular energy into the atmosphere.

Also, there's countries like Iran, who are probably but not certainly using the technology they say is being used for energy, using it for nuclear weapons. This is a difficult one: What if Iran gets a nuke? Well, they can't use it, because none of the current members of the''Nuclear Club'' would accept that. Problem is we can't just bomb away at their research facilities, because, well, what if Iran is telling the truth?

Lastly, the point of danger formed by the power plants themselves (read: Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or combination). Of course, when they blow up, the damage is catastrophic. But they don't seem to have a habit of that, because they are well engineerd. We learned a lot from Chernobyl and TMI, and Fukushima was a combination of the worst circumstances possible and a lot of bad luck. Also, ask yourself this: How many people died because of these disasters, but how many people died while mining for the regular forms of energy?

All in all, I think we should use nuclear energy. It's clean and relatively safe, but more importantly, it doesn't seem to be running out any time soon. Or we just toss this whole concept aside and start looking into fusion energy, which is even cleaner, doesn't have any of the waste, and is safer. I don't feel like i'm making a strong point here, but you get the message.

 

[mb16]

Nuclear power is one of these things that the "everyman" doesn't really think of unless its mentioned by someone or its on TV. This means that the only time he/she will probably hear about nuclear power is when it goes wrong and its on the news, giving them the impression that "nuclear power is bad and unsafe".


Back at my old college we had the local political party members (lib-dem, labour, conservative) come round to do a debate/interview, where we asked questions and they gave their parties response. It eventually got to nuclear power and if we should be building more nuclear power stations. The conservative said that he was pro nuclear and wanted more, the labour representative said something about renewable resources (Both of these were about 1-3 minuets of talking). However the lib-dem woman started ranting about how unsafe nuclear power was and how we shouldn't have it in anyway, she was ranting for a good 5mins before my physics teacher (who use to work at a nuclear power station) stood up and basically said to her in front of everybody that she was talking rubbish. And that she should do a bit more research before telling everyone what to think.

PS: im pro nuclear (could you guess)

 

[satsujinka]

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

Meanwhile, 75% of France's energy demands are provided entirely by nuclear power, and they're having no problems.

You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants [http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/7/469.long] is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

There are 435 nuclear plants in the world, and only two of which have had a catastrophic problem, and those issues have been rectified by modern reactor designs.

Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.

Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.

Then, there's thorium nuclear power which is quite literally meltdown-proof.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Additionally, a wind farm is not nearly efficient enough to feasibly provide enough power to a large population.

You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.

We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?

You do realize that the study you point to makes no conclusion about the effects of nuclear reactors on children, right? That they only noticed a correlation?

I live near two different nuclear plants. So if anyone has knowledge on the subject, I think I trump you.

 

[thahat]

This is an interesting issue that I don't think gets discussed enough, escpecially because it doesn't seem to be aligned with one party or another.

What's your stance on it? Way or the future, or dangerous pipe-dream?

My thoughts: I think it's a great idea. As of now, when the most recent designs are used any plants completely safe. In a couple years it could easily surpass any other form of energy with the development of He3, which is already close. For those who don't know, He3 could be used for almost completely clean energy. It's rare on Earth due to the atmosphere, but the Moon is covered in it. A shuttle's worth of the stuff could be enough to power America for a year. It's basically like in the movie Moon, minus the cloning part.

Captcha: motorman's atmlil

and then there is also thorium, that is also nuclear energy. but without the waste, and it ven burns up the old waste we still have! so yaay nuclear

 

[MercurySteam]

As far as Fukushima goes, in my opinion that event is not a good argument against the use of nuclear power due to the extreme circumstances surrounding it. It took a staggeringly powerful 9.0 earthquake and a 26 foot tsunami to cause a problem with the plant, and even then it most likely would have survived without issue had the water not knocked out the power to the cooling systems.

I'm surprised that the plant survived with all the punishment it took. It just shows how far we've come since Chernobyl.

As long as containment isn't breached and they can keep it cooled properly, the only other issue is leaks which do happen but can be easily rectified if caught fast enough. Nuclear power may not be the best option, but considering how much coal we go through, it's not exactly a worse alternative.

But personally, I think our reliance on oil is much, much worse.

 

[spectrenihlus]

Nuclear power is one of these things that the "everyman" doesn't really think of unless its mentioned by someone or its on TV. This means that the only time he/she will probably hear about nuclear power is when it goes wrong and its on the news, giving them the impression that "nuclear power is bad and unsafe".


Back at my old college we had the local political party members (lib-dem, labour, conservative) come round to do a debate/interview, where we asked questions and they gave their parties response. It eventually got to nuclear power and if we should be building more nuclear power stations. The conservative said that he was pro nuclear and wanted more, the labour representative said something about renewable resources (Both of these were about 1-3 minuets of talking). However the lib-dem woman started ranting about how unsafe nuclear power was and how we shouldn't have it in anyway, she was ranting for a good 5mins before my physics teacher (who use to work at a nuclear power station) stood up and basically said to her in front of everybody that she was talking rubbish. And that she should do a bit more research before telling everyone what to think.

PS: im pro nuclear (could you guess)

What was the woman's response?

 

[Vivi22]

Are there other possible environmental factors that could be causing the high cancer rates?

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Unless your local plant is experiencing radiation leaks, whether they be airborne or through groundwater, the plant shouldn't be affecting that.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

What you're talking about here is a correlation. Correlations can be strong or weak, and be used to develop a hypothesis, but they never prove cause and effect. They merely hint at it at best. Unless you know of studies which show, at the very least, a strong correlation between living near a nuclear plant and cancer and which managed to control the variables to some degree (pretty much impossible in an observational study) then your little statistic isn't worth much. And you'll excuse me if I don't simply take your word on there being no other contributing factors without evidence.

Besides, what's the alternative to nuclear here? Coal is most common for power generation, but there's evidence out there that it's far more radioactive: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

They're both terrible examples because A: they were both old reactor designs which are in no way indicative of the safety of modern designs, and B: not every plant near water is at risk of being hit by a tsunami or flooding within it's lifetime (such a suggestion is absurd), and it would be foolish to think future reactors built which were at risk wouldn't plan for that now.

The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

People protesting nuclear within a year of a major incident at a nuclear plant? Colour me not shocked in the slightest. It also doesn't mean diddly since you'll always have people with no clue about the advancements in nuclear protesting it simply because it's nuclear.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Thing is, any research they publish can be independently reviewed and critiqued by anyone. And if you're going to not use power generation thought up by people backed by other people who clearly have an agenda then you'll go without electricity for a long time.

 

[minimacker]

It's actually one of the cleanest and environmentally safest methods.

Chernobyl was a piece of shit. It didn't have shielding, no knowledge of radiation and it's been debated if energy production was only a secondary objective of the plant. (Research about nukes, anyone?)

And the Japanese reactor failure after ONE OF THE BIGGEST EARTHQUAKES. It went rather smoothly. The fallout that went into the air was rather minimal.


Now you're thinking: "BUT SEXY TEACHER, NATURAL DISASTERS HAPPEN EVERYWHAR! WE CAN'T PROTECT THE PLANTS AGAINST THAT STUFF!"

O'rly? Because there are plenty of countries that AREN'T affected by Earthquakes, seasonal hurricanes, volcanoes and so forth.

Sweden, Finland, Russia to name a few.

"BUT SEXY TEACHER, WON'T THOSE COUNTRIES EXPLOIT THE NUCLEAR STATIONS TO PRODUCE NUKES?!"

Nope, because MODERN Nuclear power plants uses a more docile form of plutonium that isn't as destructive as the stuff used in nuclear bombs.

Also, those countries already have mines that dig for radioactive materials. They could get more nukes if they so wanted to. Except they can't. Because of the UN.

Hmm.
What about the bi-product?

It can be re-used in the plant a few times. It'll last about 500 years until you have to get more.

 

[Abize]

No.

The pattern is repeated elsewhere but these things tend to get brushed under the carpet.

Citation needed, surely there would be a heap of peer-reviewed scientific papers discussing this and calling for stricter zoneing plans for areas around a nuclear plant.

Says you with absolutely no first hand experience. On paper everything is made to be kosher but the reality is radiation always gets into the surrounding area, "venting" happens on nearly every single plant and is often not even covered in the news, even local. There are other methods too, strange how the surrounding seawater is devoid of much life and sits at a few degrees higher than elsewhere in the estuary.

Do you have accurate background radiation readings for your area and an exactly identical area without a nuclear plant? If not, you cant really prove it was the nuclear plant.

Any nuclear plant built around water (all of them) has the potential to be struck by tsunamis and flooding of various kinds, to assume it's not going to happen just because it hasn't already is folly in the extreme. Nuclear energy has only been around for a blink of an eye, Fukushima is a fine example as is Chernobyl. These things will happen again and in greater numbers if these plants are continued to be built.

Maybe you need to read up on Chernobyl or maybe actually research where nuclear power stations actually are. Chernobyl was caused human error and cheap USSR standards and in no way did a flood or tsunami cause or worsen the situation. As for Fukishima, it's in Japan, a long narrow island, it's going to be hard to build a nuclear plant anywhere but near water.

You're joking, right? Twice the rate of childhood leukaemia around French nuclear plants [http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/7/469.long] is just one random example. The country has seen many thousands protest against nuclear power within the last year alone.

Did you actually read that? Firstly it is talking about a nuclear waste reprocessing plant, not a nuclear reactor and secondly it isn't exactly a recent study, it started in 1978 and finished in 1998.

Catastrophic problems are not the only problems, aside from which ONE is too many as it is. If you were born around the immediate area of a disaster you might well be saying otherwise, if you were still living of course.

Most nuclear plants are still using outdated technology, this is all due to money. They aren't cheap and corner-cutting happens all the time. Humans are not infallible either and mistakes will be made and you can bet your ass that terrorist groups are eyeing up nuclear reactors with glee.

Well most cars are using outdated technology, does that automatically make them unsafe? Technology advances quickly in this day and age, of course it is going to be outdated, it was probably outdated a year after completion. I assume you don't update your car everytime a new model is out, because it's not cheap right? Well why would you expect a nuclear plant to do the same? They do maintain their tech, and it will be replaced when it becomes a safety risk.

I guess you missed the key part about "scientific" groups and thinktanks backed by some of the richest corporations on the planet responsible for some of, if not the worst man-made disasters the world has seen. Let that sink in for a minute.

Do you have proof of this? Do you have specific groups you'd like to share with us? Or are you just making stuff up?

You must have glazed over the key tidal barrage part, which accounts for a lot more and is definitely powerful enough to power large populations. As I previously stated, the plans are there it's just the simple fact that energy giants are more interested in making a bigger profit, aka nuclear. Don't try to tell me it's impossible as even the biased media and politicians around here agree it's feasible yet finance plays a big role.

Yeah but sadly that's how the world works, nothing happens without money. With high production costs and slow returns, few people are willing to fund a tidal barrage. They also cause changes in the immediate enviroment either by changing the area salinity (salt levels), sedimentation movement (ie sand banks disappearing) and changes in turbidity (water clarity).

We haven't even touched upon the transport and disposal of nuclear material yet, another big problem that inevitably gets sidelined in these discussions. But hey, what does a guy who has lived in the shadow of a large nuclear plant for years know anyway?

You don't plan where you are putting your trophy before you've won the tournament? Why would you plan that far ahead if you aren't even sure if the Nuclear power station is going in. Im sure that that would be worked out before the plant is even started to be built.


EDIT: wow I was slow typing that out 5+ responses since I started typing, they popped up and covered pretty much what I did =.='
Il just go back to lurking now *disappears in a smoke cloud*

 

[FireAza]

Throwing my hat in for the awesomeness of nuclear power. A form of power that is insanely efficient, and the only thing it spews out into the atmosphere is steam? Yes please!

It always shocks me how little people know about how safe nuclear actually is. They always use Chernobyl is an example of how "dangerous" nuclear power is. Really? A poorly built plant, based on an out-dated design (even by 50s standards), with what little safety features it had disabled, and the staff, who were practically untrained were intentionally pushing the plant beyond all reasonable safe levels, is an example of how dangerous nuclear power is? You gotta be joking.

 

[willsham45]

As long as they are kept running well and as long as they are not made my general electoric nuclure is ok. Although if there was no nucular power there would be on nuclear weapons if what I have heard is to be correct. As the spent fuel thingies are perfect for the job.

I think other power solutions are just as good. Coal technology has developed to the point where the only things that come out of those plants is water and CO2 2 very harmless things.

I do not feel for wind, it is pointless and costing too much for what it gives ok for a small instilation but not as a way to power a country.
Solar the same the condictions have to be just so.
hydro and tidal I like couse setting up can be an issue but ones that is done they generally do no harm.

 

[Exocet]

France uses nuclear power to provide almost 75% of electrical needs, and that since the 60's with no incident.
Wastes are disposed somewhere, until a better solution is found, which is basically the same as fossil fuel, except that we decide where the waste is going, thus make sure it's nowhere near human contact.

But wait, there's more! There's more to nuclear power than fission reactors! We are building a fusion reactor with the help of an entire international organisation that gives it
a massive budget. Even more power to distribute.
Solar and wind power are nice, but not at a large scale, and that's where nuclear power comes in. There is no other logical solution.

 

[FireAza]

Although if there was no nucular power there would be on nuclear weapons if what I have heard is to be correct. As the spent fuel thingies are perfect for the job.

As I recall, modern designs are more efficient, meaning that spent fuel rods are useless for nuclear weapons. Also, modern designs are actually able to re-use the spent fuel rods for another round of fission.

It always shocks me how little people know about how safe nuclear actually is. They always use Chernobyl is an example of how "dangerous" nuclear power is. Really? A poorly built plant, based on an out-dated design (even by 50s standards), with what little safety features it had disabled, and the staff, who were practically untrained were intentionally pushing the plant beyond all reasonable safe levels, is an example of how dangerous nuclear power is?

Exactly. You see the same with the Fukushima incident.

People cry about how there was an incident and all that.

While in reality, it took a top 10-ever earthquake, following my a massive tsunami that wrecked half of Japan before anything bad happened, and if one of their backups had been built underground, nothing would've gone wrong. Even if they had had a full meltdown, the core would've sunk into a specially prepared basin underneath where it would've dispersed and cooled.

And let's not forget that the Fukushima reactor happened to be the oldest design of all the reactors in Japan. Apparently, if one of the newer reactors has been the one that was hit, it wouldn't have been an issue, since they had new features in their designed to prevent exactly what happened at Fukushima from happening.

 

[BringBackBuck]

2 pages in and no mention of the hazardous by-products of nuclear power?

Is that because it is not your problem because your country sends it's spent nuclear fuel to Australia to bury in the middle of our desert where it remains dangerous for thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of years causing god knows what damage to the ecosystem?

Or did everyone just forget about nuclear waste?

 

[Sansha]

Nuclear energy is clean, efficient, relatively cheap and easy to maintain. It produces an enormous amount of power with very little fuel and doesn't take up much space or manpower to operate.

This all comes at a heavy price, as demonstrated at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island - that when it goes bad, it goes really bad, and the effects can be horrendous and irreversible.

The risk is relatively low, but the consequences are about as bad as you can get, in terms of environmental and financial destruction.