Nuclear energy - Do you feel safe with it?

Ryno

Ryno

Active member
Staff member
Global warming, energy crisis, rising oil prices, yadda, yadda, yadda... Go searchbar those topics if you wanna discuss them. What I want to know here is whether or not you feel safe with nuclear power. Why/why not? Areas of concern? Possible solutions?
 
I feel pretty safe with it. I don't know much about it other than I work about two miles from a nuclear plant and I have seen no ill effects in over 5+ years. I'll report back in another 15 years and let ya know how I'm doin.

On a side not about nuclear, did you see any of the news stories about the lost radiation sources in the recent china rubble. So I guess while it seems safe it has the potential to easily become a problem.
 
I personally don't have a problem with nuclear energy but I don't think we should use it as an everyday energy source. and what I mean by that is in cars and energy around the house. however I do fell that it should be used to power bigger products and buildings. It just has to be monitored and handled by professionals or some serious shit could go down.

What are your thoughts Ryno?
 
I think its great, it's alot cleaner and more efficient than any other method and as long as the people in the plants know what they're doing we won't have chernobyl 2
 
Hmmmm Im safe with it so long as it's handled properly and disposed of properly. My father works in at a nuclear power plant and back in the day they did not dispose of ANYTHING properly. Theres a giant 900 ton pile of shit leaking into the Colorado River that needs clean up, the same for an area in Utah, Washington and Oregon. They government wants it cleaned up but you know what? They wont fund it so the shit is still sitting there. There needs to be a clear plan on how they would approach it and keep it safe. Though I cant see it happening.
 
Thats the problem. Humans are imperfect beings and nature is unpredicuable (earthquakes, floods, etc).

With that in mind, is the risk still worth it to you?
 
Honestly, no.

And its not like any of us would know whats going on with it either. My father has had the same job for 20 something years and all I know is that he's a Radiological Supervisor. Everything is labeled "sensitive material". So if something were to go wrong, do you think the government would inform us of it? Probably not.
 
I'm a full supporter of nuclear energy - except in my backyard.

We live in a very large country, reactors can be placed far away from population centers.

Plus I want extensive government regulation and safety oversight.
 
You realize that there is no where in the US (Lower 48) remote enough to save you from the fallout of a disater.

Here is map showing how fast the radioactive clouds move across the world due to the spin the the earth and prevailing winds. I think its a 10 or 11 day span. Pretty fast/scary.

chrnbyl3.jpg


 
Yeah but Chernobyl was in 1986, power plants are being replaced and are become far more sustainable. Canada already has a system in place that is supposed to create much less waste, and the chances of a nuclear meltdown/accident are so much less. Three Mile Island wasn't even close to being on the scale that Chernobyl was on.

We will be safe, I'm a full supporter of it.
 
Yes, in fact most power in Ontario is produced by nuclear fission.

Here is why:

Canada uses Uranium 238, an element that slowly decays over a period of time. U238 is quite stable. So to accelerate the decay of this uranium, heavy water is needed to accelerate the rate of decay, but also to cool down the reaction. It is safer because when you slow down the flow rate of heavy water, the reaction slows down too. A meltdown is possible, but not explosion. For nuclear radiation, the core is protected by several layers of lead. The people working there are equipped with protection and safety devices to prevent exposure.

For poorer countries, they use U235, a purified and volatile isotope. This isotope is able to self ignite. So there is no way to control its reaction. U235 is costly and difficult to purify, but burns with a minimum of equipment. The US used to use U235, but realized that U238 is better. By the way, U235 is found is nuclear warheads in missiles. This is also why Chernobyl exploded, during a drill, cooling water was shut off, producing a meltdown, followed by an explosion.

The major problem is depleted uranium. It is U234 that has a long and strong alfa and gamma radiation. Research should be done to reuse this waste.
 
Wasnt even close? There was a partial meltdown of one of the cores...how much closer can you get to disaster?
 
There's a difference in the amount of radioactive dosage. You're a lot more fucked if a reactor blows up in your backyard as opposed to three states away.

And while the cause of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island may be the same, the results were far different. The iron coffin and the massive abandoned area surrounding Chernobyl are testament to that.
 
Yeah because one was a total disaster and one was almost a total disaster. TMI was almost another Chernobyl.

Anyways, back on topic :)
 
I would prefer wind mills a lot more. just low level radio active waste will last for a couple hundreds of years. It takes thousands of years for a fuel rod to become stable.
 
Nuclear power is really safe. TMI was a situation were everything that could have been done wrong was. They already have a place to put the waste but enviornmentalist are blocking them from using it.
 
I'm all for it. There's a nuclear reactor like 30 miles from my house in Michigan. Its been there almost my whole life and I've never even noticed. They're a great way to produce huge amounts of energy efficiently.
 
Heres what I think are the main points:

- Nuclear Energy will never be 100% safe. Human error, mistakes in disposal, etc; there are always risks.

- Research can lower these risks, but never eliminate them.

- Disposal is always going to be a problem. Radioactive shit is bad news. We dont currently have a way to deal with it other than let it sit for a few thousand years. Which isnt the best solution. Leaks will occur for sure until we find a better way of dealing with it.

That being said, nuclear power is a feasible option to power this country. More 'environmentally friendly' I guess in a lot of ways. We just need to be really, really careful.
 
Chernobyl WAS a disaster. Three Mile Island was bad, but it has none of the sickness that Chernobyl still has today, along with the fact that it's mostly clear now. Both of those were partly technological issues but mostly just dumb human error. In chernobyl they were plain retarded in using graphite rods to save cash. The amount of information we have and the safety precautions are far more advanced and health-conscious than the procedures in 80's Russia. There will definitely be a shift toward nuclear power whether we like it or not.
 
Automobiles are far from 100% safe. Electricity itself is not 100% safe. Hell, scissors aren't 100% safe. We don't need perfect safety to implement something. Of course, nuclear energy is different in that one mistake could lead to a catastrophe affecting millions (or billions), so of course measures need to be taken to ensure it is employed as safely as possible.

 
I agree with using and expanding nuclear energy to a point. With an exponential population growth no other type of energy (other than coal- two thumbs down) can keep up to the demands of the consumers. That being said I don't necessarily feel safe with it at all, humans make errors and mechanics fail, the chances of a nuclear meltdown may be slim but the consequences of it are unbelievable and long lasting.

Our nearest powerplant (Darlington) is built almost directly on a prehistoric fault zone which has a nasty tendancy to produce very small earthquakes (no more than a rumble every few years). The problem with this is that these prehistoric fault zones still slip and these slips are unpredictable and sometimes quite violent. Once again the chance of this happening is small but the fact that it can happen is scary. The largest city in Canada is located within the fallout zone of Darlington and I myself would have some problems with it also.
 
And also look at China right now, they're dealing with a devastating earthquake that most certainly nailed a few nuclear storage facilities and plants. You can't tell me that a shake on that magnitude didn't release or damage any of it when so many cities and towns were leveled. The Chinese authorities have claimed that everything is safe but honestly if anything happened they wouldn't gain anything by telling everyone. It's scary what we haven't been told.
 
haha i was reading through and was gonna say something, but you said it.

nuclear energy is a big risk, not the risk of only a few lives but millions if a nuclear fallout occurs. i'm not too familiar with the effects of cherbonyl but i know three mile island was almost pure human error/negligence. although it was "avoided" the whole incident never should have occurred.

anyways i think the risk is worth the reward. with the correct precautions taken it is about as safe as anything else.

i also think it should only be used to power "large" substances or whatever you want to call them. simply because not many people can be trusted with these types of things.

with the gas prices skyrocketing, fossil fuels diminishing etc. i think it's inevitable to avoid using. it is going to be a long time until we can harness wind power or anything natural efficiently enough for it to be worth it. but we can use nuclear energy now, and save a lot of money and resources.

i say do it to it.
 
I fully support nuclear energy. Despite the accidents in the past, that were in fact terrible, they happened for different reasons and could have been avoided easily. Cherynobl's reactor and the room it was in wasn't up to the standards it needed to be at for safety, and they left it alone until disaster struck. Our country needs nuclear energy. France is powered by 80% nuclear energy and hasn't had any problems, yet anyway. We have the technology and plants, we might as well use them
 
I guess the next logical question is this: Do we need more power, or just more efficent ways of using the power we already produce (the new energy saving light bulbs are a good example of a more efficent method of using the same old power)?

Is adding more power decreasing the need for more efficent devices? What if power production was capped?

 
the answer to our energy crisis has been under our nose for centuries.... and even used for centuries... until a certain empire rose into power...

hemp.... the single most renewable and cleanest burning resource known to mankind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ow3i2iqjW0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujiqrl32UI4&feature=related

parts one and two.... be enlightened...

and dont gimmie all that "you just wanna smoke pot fuckin pothead" garbage... you dont have to be a pot head to realize how beneficial this plant is to our human existance...
 
i really don't think we need more power right not, just more efficient ways to use power. sometime down the road, we're obviously going to need it though. i think finding more efficient ways are definitely the best route to go, but that you can only do so much with it...

 
yeah i live in the blast radius of a nuclear power plant and i have had no effect on me. so im ok with that.

i learned a little bit about nuclear chemistry last semester in chem and it was pretty interesting. nuclear fission and fusion and such. not enough to know anything about doing it though.

my girlfriends dad works for a nuclear power plant and he could talk for days and days about the safety features and stuff so i feel pretty safe with a power plant in my back yard.
 
If you let just anyone use it then that can be bad but as long as there are reasonable regulations it is probably the best energy source.
 
No. Nuclear waste is rarely disposed of 100% properly no matter how well intentioned they are. There's many more alternative powers such a solar power which have no environmental waste or effects other than the manufacturing process (which can be done sustainably as well). Plus, with solar energy, if you take the initial investment to install it in your home, in 5-10 years, depending on the type of solar you installed, you can actually be making money off it it by selling unused energy back to the energy companies.

Overall, Solar is very expensive initially but can pay for itself in the long run and is extremely sustainable. You have to pay for nuclear energy and although it is claimed to be sustainable, something has to be done with the waste. Often, it is just burried in the ground and houses are built on top of that land. This is happening right now with urban sprawl in Denver.
 
/\

No, it's not disposed of 100%, but it's made into a solid brick that is then buried. So even if the metal container it's in cracks, it is still in a state that won't leak into the soil. Solar energy would be a great supplement, but it costs to put it up initially, when we already have the resources and power plants up to use nuclear energy. We've gotten much safer
 
^Same here, ill throw out some stuff i learned about it.

It has to be watched over for a long period of time so the radiation doesn't screw with people.

If we keep using uranium and plutonium at a steady pace, then our supply could be out in a few decades.

You have to have a spot to dump the nuclear waste.

Nuclear power plants are high threats for terrorists because if they hijacked a plane and crashed into a nuclear facility, then we could potentially be fucked.
 
i live 50 miles from indian point power plant in new york and i feel pretty safe. i mean if it exploded i would be fucked over but for the most part iv driven by it plenty and its a pretty safe facility and it has good records never been and accidents or anything
 
Aluminum rods control the flow of neutrons to limit reaction and prevent a super-critical state, which can lead to a "meltdown" but NOT an explosion.

A reactor has creative potential, a weapon destructive. Weapons us primarily plutonium, a useless substance for reactors. Weapons use explosives to combine two large hunks of just sub-critical radioactive mass so that they suddenly become super critical the result is a large explosion which also spreads tremendous radiation. That cannot happen with a reactor.

As far as where to put the waste, we've already chosen Yucca Mountain in western Nevada
 
for serial though, we're close to making lasers powerful enough to fuse hydrogen into helium

more energy plus only helium emissions
 
The fact that more people aren't against it honestly scares the shit out of me. Nuclear power is not safe. It has safety features.

It is rarely disposed of correctly. When it is stored, it will be there for many many generations. Do any of the people for it give any thought to the long term effects? Not long term as in when you're old, or when you're children are old. I'm talking Jesus Christ old. If the Roman Empire had nuclear power, we'd still be dealing with all the waste.

Sure there are safe ways to use it, but has anyone heard of the nuclear barge thing? It's a proposed floating nuclear reactor. It floats around, and plugs into a harbor, giving the city mobile power. What happens if it sinks? You get a radioactive plume of steam that will be boiling seawater for years. Thats... cool.

What about security? How many plants are in the U.S.? How many appealing terrorist targets is that?

People complain about solar being expensive. When you figure in the amount of storage space and time needed for nuclear energy... Solar doesn't sound too bad. Solar technology is also only a few years away from becoming very cost effective. Why commit to nuclear energy?

If we use nuclear energy, we will go down in history as the ignorant generation that gave a damn less about our children. Like a country who leaves thousands of landmines for future generations to step on.

 
On the topic of security, right now we are experiencing major security problems because we rely on fossil fuels... look at the mess we are in now... the mid east has us by the balls...

(PS: DRILL ANWAR!! WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT ALASKA?)
 
i could be wrong on this, but i'm pretty sure solar power is going to be a little longer than a few years to be cost effective. plus it needs to be adopted by a mass of people. i'm not just talking a few "at home" users and stuff...
 
i live within the ten mile blast radius of Three Mile Island and I say yes, i feel safe with nuclear energy and i would support legislation allowing new nuclear power plants.
 
no, i've seen reports that we are close to finishing a process to "stamp" the solar cell on metal

need research though, idk the specifics
 
i don't know either way. i wrote a position paper a year ago saying it was bad but thats only if somehting bad happens. The waste is hard to handle but it's a lot better for the environment than burning coal. something like 1 gram of uranium is equal to a ton of oil, so that's pretty darn good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top