quote:

---

Nuclear power comes from splitting uranium or plutonium atoms. Although generating electricity from nuclear fuels emits no CO2, SO2, or NOx, nuclear power nevertheless poses grave risks to both human health and the environment. Operating nuclear power plants is always risky -- an accident, however unlikely, would spew radioactive materials into the atmosphere, causing catastrophic damage. The Chernobyl disaster killed dozens of people, and medical experts estimate that many thousands will die prematurely as a result of the radiation released by the accident.

Safely storing nuclear waste is a less spectacular, but perhaps more difficult problem. Nuclear fission creates materials that will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Current proposals would store these wastes in an underground storage site. It is impossible, however, to ensure that any site will be safe for such a long period of time.

Far from fulfilling its promise of providing "electricity too cheap to meter," nuclear power is an expensive form of energy. Although supplies of uranium and plutonium should last for more than a century,[b] no more nuclear plants are being built, because of the [b]high costs. Nuclear power currently provides 22\% of electricity generated in the U.S.

---

• nuclear power does not pose "grave risks" to the environment or people. this is just plain ignorance to how nuclear reactors and radiation work.
  
• operating nuclear plants is NOT risky. it is orders of magnitudes more likely that workers will be killed in car accidents on the way to the plant then die of cancer due to radiation. same goes for people who live near by.
  
• the cherynobyl accident killed 12 plant workers due to the explosion and the high radiation of the exposed reactor. if a coal plant boiler exploded, just as many if not more would be killed. furthermore, a similar accident will never happen simply because of the way american reactors are built.
  
• it is very easy to ensure radioactive waste sites will be protected for centuries. they are buried in the desert, surrounded by granite, encased in layers upon layers of concrete and steel. there is zero chance for ground water contamination, mainly because there is no ground water to contaminate.
  
• nuclear plants are so expensive to build because of ignorant fools who think 10 millirems per year is horribly dangerous and that policies such as "as low as possible" are implemented, at a cost of billions of dollars per +/- 1 life saved.

This message has been edited by CatKnight on June 12, 2001 at 10:45 AM

the reason chenobyl happened was because the reactor wasnt built properly and badly maintained

this is why i bitch slap someone into a comma when they try arguing a case for why GM food should be banned. ITS COS THEY KNOW FUCK ALL ABOUT HOW TINGS WORK THEY JUST LISTEN TO THE PRESS AND THEIR PREJUDICES AND THESE ARE THE SAME PREJUDICES THAT CAUSE THINGS LIKE RACISM so those hippies can go kiss my ass

------------------
not many cars to nick here so instead they hijack pedestrians
and run them around at terrifying leg speeds
its called git surfing
all too often the git is one of their own mothers
the latest trick? catapult them into a shop

Anywaze... I totally agree with Cat-man, and I've been saying this same stuff for years! I suppose it's possible that Homer has given nuclear power a bad name...

------------------
"OH GGOD!!! NOT THE HYLIGHTER AGAIN!!! GO AWAY YOU LITTLE PEANUT HEDGEHOG!!!"
"The only thread about ME likened me to poo shaped mummy."
"Have a nice day, because monkeys don't."
-PersonGuy

This message has been edited by PersonGuy on June 12, 2001 at 06:24 PM

and i say we shove all the nuclear waste onto a spaceship and sent it to jupiter.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Knight Bob:
does anyone not notcie that sithee isnt actually talking out of his ass like a lot of people here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
didnt the chernobyl thing happen because the two head scientists turned off all the coolant, and the safety stuff, and started trying to make the reactor overload???

---

I did a report on it a long time ago. What I remember is that there's a bunch of stuff that reacts... and there's hundereds of rods they put in there to make it react slower. So if you need more power you pull the rods out a little bit. Anyway, someone accidently took the rods ALL THE WAY OUT and <leeloo>Biiiig Baaaadaaa BOOM!</leeloo>!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
i say we shove all the nuclear waste onto a spaceship and sent it to jupiter.

---

I can't remember the exact number... but I costs a TON of money PER POUND to send something into space!! Not practicle... Besides the used fuel and explosion from the rocket to send it is worse for the environment than the stuff we're sending! How stupid it that!

------------------
"OH GGOD!!! NOT THE HYLIGHTER AGAIN!!! GO AWAY YOU LITTLE PEANUT HEDGEHOG!!!"
"The only thread about ME likened me to poo shaped mummy."
"Have a nice day, because monkeys don't."
-PersonGuy

As for storage, I agree with you quote on this one. What right do we have to store large amounts of extremely radioactive matterial in the ground, properly protected or not, when it will be dangerous to biological systems for thousands of years? Can you GUARENTY the for that entire time there won't be a leak or some other event that would expose large amounts of people to the waste? We can't.

quote:

---

CatKnight, I'd like to know why you think radiation isn't harmfull to the environment. I know that you are a physist, and do know these kinds of things. I've had some nuclear physics and quantum physics, and I've learned that radiation is a dangerous thing to biological systems. Yes, we are already constantly being exposed to low level backgroung radiation. I think that what most people fear about nuclear plants, is that the extremely high levels of radiation foudn in the reactor might get out, through poor engineering or acident. You are right though, an American nuclear reactor, properly built, would not have these problems.

---

the amount of radiation past the reactor building is undetectable behind normal background. in other words, spending money to reduce it is POINTLESS. sort of like spending a billion dollars specially outfitting one single car to be completely crash-proof, while ignoring the other 100 million cars and assuming they are perfectly safe. as for the reactor cores and high level waste, well the core has double and triple backups including 3 back-up diesel generators to power the cooling systems incase the first 4 break (hint-not a likely occurance). also new reactor designs, (mainly the pebble-bed class reactor) are 100\% physically impossible to meltdown or release radiation.

quote:

---

What right do we have to store large amounts of extremely radioactive matterial in the ground, properly protected or not, when it will be dangerous to biological systems for thousands of years?

---

as opposed to the billions of tons of CO2, NOx's, CFC's, O3, etc, we already release daily? the environmental impact of a small high-radiation-release accident is infintessimal compared to DESTROYING THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE AND ENDING ALL LIFE ON EARTH. and far far less likely even.

quote:

---

Can you GUARENTY the for that entire time there won't be a leak or some other event that would expose large amounts of people to the waste?

---

i can. even if some of the waste was release, there is nothing within like 100 miles of it that could be damaged. it's in a barren desert. oh no we irradiated the dirt! run for your lives! we're doomed! (also am extremely unlikely event).

If your all worried about it build them out in the desert. You could build the reactors and the spent fuel storage in the same place.

Im tired of paying through the nose for power that i know can be made cheaper.

Hey CK, you mentioned a coal boiler explosion being able to kill more people. Im remembering something about a coal BIN exploding someplace and taking out a corner of a town. Killed a bunch of people. Just cant get more out of my poor abused brain.

quote:

---

You could build the reactors and the spent fuel storage in the same place.

---

thats what they do now. they stick the spent fuel rods underwater in a pool on site. once it cools they put it in dry containers.

as for sending waste to space, you might as well just shoot it into the sun. the best way to do it would be to make some sort of big rail gun and shoot them so their trajectory takes them right into the sun, using small payloads at a time. you could also stick jesse jackson, kathy lee gifford, and a few others up ther too.