Poll: Nuclear power and You

[JWAN]

Really, give me a real reason though. You must have some reason.

I don't think humanity is smart enough to properly use it, is my plain reason.

Something will go wrong with it, in the end.

That's the same with anything on the planet. Should we stop using elevators and ballpoint pens then?
Should we stop exploring drugs for medicinal use because it has risks?
Should we stop using electricity because it causes fires?

 

[JWAN]

The risks outweigh the benefits in my eyes. I believe that we should put more effort into harnessing renewable resources anyway, considering that our planet is getting its ass kicked by us because of stuff like this.

Can you explain more please?

 

[Andantil]

I think that, for the time being, it's the best way to go.
The pollution's dangerous, yes, but it's produced in very small amounts and can be contained.
The chances of another Chernobyl incident are very low, so long as proper procedures are followed.
Terrorists would need a lot of manpower to get a nuclear reactor. In the US at least, the national guard would be mobilized the moment we identify any threat. We'd have hundreds of soldiers at every nuclear power plant in the nation in under a half hour. I don't know how effectively other nations would respond, though.

 

[AvsJoe]

The risks outweigh the benefits in my eyes. I believe that we should put more effort into harnessing renewable resources anyway, considering that our planet is getting its ass kicked by us because of stuff like this.

Can you explain more please?

Sadly, I cannot. I don't know enough about the subject to elaborate much further. Heck, my opinion stated above is far from an educated one; I stated it because it seems like the moral choice, not to mention common sense. But if you would like to know more, the employees at your local library will certainly point you in the right direction.

 

[gim73]

I think that, for the time being, it's the best way to go.
The pollution's dangerous, yes, but it's produced in very small amounts and can be contained.
The chances of another Chernobyl incident are very low, so long as proper procedures are followed.
Terrorists would need a lot of manpower to get a nuclear reactor. In the US at least, the national guard would be mobilized the moment we identify any threat. We'd have hundreds of soldiers at every nuclear power plant in the nation in under a half hour. I don't know how effectively other nations would respond, though.

Well, actually the only 'pollution' that is generated is fossile fuels transporting equipment to the site. No sulphur dioxide or carbon dioxide is produced in nuclear power. If the power plant is being cooled directly by a river, then there is thermal pollution, where the heat is being dumped to the river and that could have either a positive or negative effect on the river aquatic life.

What you wanted to say was the contamination is all contained. Contamination is basically certain materials that are activated and now have a half life, making them radiation sources. As far as being dangerous... When dealing with radiation of any type, it's important to minimize your exposure. Certain levels of radiation will definately increase the likelyhood of your death, but beyond that there is a chance for cancer. Nobody can really say if you get X rads of radiation, your chance of getting Y cancer will increase by Z %. Cancer has alot of variables in it, so we can't just place a value on the radiation and make that the most important factor. The real danger of contamination is accidental ingestion by either breathing or eating. There are many safety systems and barriers to ensure that this does not happen to either the public or personnel working at nuclear power plants.