Comments on: Nuclear power: Go ahead or stop now?

By: abkisa

abkisa — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 23:09:05 +0000

The burning of fossil fuel cause respiratory problems and deaths in far greater numbers than nuclear energy. Reactors and the surrounding technologies now more advanced than the older technology of these Japanese reactors. We need nuclear energy!

By: uLtRaTRim

uLtRaTRim — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:49:00 +0000

It is of course a fact that these reactors are very dangerous, if, and this is a very big if, a explosion happens. The chance that an explosion happens in normal circumstances is nearly zero.

In Japan, first an earthquake, and after that a tsunami hit the reactor. There are not so much buildings and fortifications who can hold it up to a force like this. The reactor is built very strong, but they have forgotten something, and that is that the reactor is close to the coast, in a ring of fire.

This is almost the same thing as asking for problems. I understand that there is not much room in Japan, but I think they could find a better place for it.

We cannot stop with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a very big and clean source, which don’t produce CO2 or N2O or CH4, or anything like that.

The fact is, that 1 kg of uranium is giving the same energy as 2.000 ton of petroleum. If we want that we don’t need this, then we have to use less energy, by driving with public transport, by using 1 tv and not 3, and a lot of things you already know.

Without a loss in demand, nuclear energy will always be a needed alternative.

By: Civic1Pop

Civic1Pop — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:45:18 +0000

If BP were made to pay for the recent catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico can we expect to see a similar approach to the present, albeit faceless, nuclear energy companies involved in the present catastrophe?

By: Vanwin

Vanwin — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:01:00 +0000

How much nuclear waste exists on the earth today that was not dangerous 100 years ago?
How long will it take until it is safe from terrorists, earthquakes and any other threat?
Is this really the very best that intelligent civilised humans can come up with?
Will they continue to use them and build them at any price at all including destruction of human and animal life, perhaps the destruction of whole countries in the end?
Is it wise, sensible, safe, best for the future of the planet, and a healty option. Are they truly competent to play with nuclear reactors – I do not think so.

By: rosielaf

rosielaf — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:39:11 +0000

haha.. a lot of hobb’s choices with our energy alternatives. I don’t like the coal fracking to extract gas either and that seems to be proceeding through doesn’t it, even though it has the potential or certainty of destroying water supplies irretrievably and we just are blithely unaware of this. Let’s just poison ourselves in the name of profit. Newer nuclear plants are designed differently and I know there are dedicated people often in charge, but humans make mistakes and when there are confounding problems then we have fouled our nest for sure. AND with congressional budget cut zeal we are robbing our watchdog and alert systems to further confound the potential problems. Maybe I’d rather have a solar/wind grid that is benign and investigate ideas like Tesla’s water car, etc. and perhaps we should just knock off and go dance outside in the clean air when have some down time. Might be pretty healthy.

By: Citrine

Citrine — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:36:44 +0000

When all is said and done, it will be shown again that, besides the casualties directly resulting from the forces of nature, the majority of victims and injuries from this horrible tragedy are due to fossil fuels. This can already be seen on the pictures coming from Japan, showing many fiery explosions, massive fireballs and thick black smoke. Extensive damage and high casualties from the extraction, processing, storage and transportation of fossil fuels has been the pattern in all major catastrophes in the world, to the point that nobody is too surprised anymore with the frequent news about fires in refineries, explosions in natural gas deposits and pipes, accidents in coal mines, etc.
In such context, to almost exclusive focus the current news on the nuclear plants and the risks of radiation comes across as unbalanced, if not straightforward biased. Anything can be improved, I guess, but we cannot protect ourselves from all risks, and much less from such exceptional, overpowering and far reaching events.
I believe that most governments will understand that nuclear power, when properly handled, is clean and safe, and that a combination of a grade-9 earthquake plus a giant tsunami is an occurrence bound to happen every half a million years or so, if ever again. In the meantime, not having several power plants grouped in the same area seems like a good idea, but most of the world already avoids such an arrangement.
As for the media, it would be nice to see headlines on subjects closer to social responsibility, for a change. Like on the urgent need to help Japan, a country bordering collapse right now, due to the paralysis of its economy and the disruption of its social services and transportation.

By: LunaCity

LunaCity — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:39:22 +0000

Compared to many other industries, nuclear power is pretty safe.

Basically, what we are witnessing is about as bad as it gets in a light-water reactor. A massive earthquake followed by a Tsunami, and three reactors partially melt down, and the worst you can say is that they vented a bunch of radioactive steam. The effects on human health are likely to be negligible.

Even Chernobyl had very little long-term health impact. A massive fire spreads radioactive dust across thousands of square miles and 20 years later, the effect on cancer rates in the area is impossible to distinguish from noise, according to the WHO report.

Compare that to all the other ways you can die, and the long-term impacts of global warming. A lot more people are going to die because of flooding, crop losses, and war than will die because of long-term low-level radiation exposure from nuclear accidents.

By: badger67

badger67 — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:29:19 +0000

Nuclear power no longer makes sense. It’s a centralized power source vulnerable to terrorism and natural disasters where the consequences of failure mean both large-scale blackouts and the potential for severe health impacts. Why spend the money on new plants when that money can be used for alternatives. Claiming alternatives cannot supply the power is shortsighted as a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and conservation will relieve demand, first primarily in housing and later in industry as energy storage technologies improve. We will be a much stronger and safer nation and world if power sources are decentralized. Wind is now cheaper than coal, solar is making big gains (see what Spain is doing), and there are other sources such as tidal energy just beginning to be used.

By: TooCheaptoMeter

TooCheaptoMeter — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:51:06 +0000

The civilian nuclear industry is of course tied to weapons, from the start. That’s why we don’t want Iran–only an enemy for just over 20 years, an oil partner before that–getting reactors.

Since innumeracy and science illiteracy are cornerstones of American culture, we can stay confused about transient radiation exposure from say, diagnostic X-rays, and eating radionuclides that will be coming up the food chain. Cancer comes from both, but from miniscule amounts of radiation ingested in the body. Children are ost vulnerable, but that’s low on the list if it affects utility profits.

With weathermen on TV standing in for engineers trying to explain cooling systems that they clearly don’t understand, most viewers will stay confused. The nuclear industry, where the money is at stake, won’t tell the truth, and that’s proven from the past.

Eventually, we’ll realize that decades of stored fuel is burning, and there aren’t enough qualified technicians that want to die on the job to try to stop it. IT will keep burnig for a long time. Maybe we can shift from spending $56 billion more on nuclear dangers here and put the money and jobs in getting our old fuel at every plant in secure dry cask storage, like Germany did 25 years ago. Oh, and they just took all their plants off-line for additional review and inspection. Time for Americans to review 8th grade physical science…

By: nevvie

nevvie — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:43:53 +0000

Of course nuclear energy is unsafe, how much more proof do we need to be given? If the Japanese reactor does go into meltdown then there will be many cases of cancer, as has been shown to be the case after the Chernobyl incident. The cost of running these plants is also deceptive. You only have to look at the problems we now face in the UK trying to get rid of the waste, which is now going to cost billions to dispose of.