Nuclear Power? Safe?
Crypt_Heart
2012/08/22 18:12:16
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
14% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
43% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
43% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
According to The Register (I know I know, shoot me later) Nuclear Power is both Safe AND Sustainable, putting it on par with Hydroelectricity. Here's a quote from the article.
"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe. New discoveries by US scientists have now shown it's sustainable as well.
That's because US government scientists have just announced research in which they've massively increased the efficiency of techniques for extracting uranium from the ocean - and that means that supplies of uranium are secure for the future even if the entire human race moves to fission power for all its energy needs."
I will admit that the Japanese were fairly on top of the reactor as it went down, could have been a lot better...but even still. When nuclear comes to mind, so does Chernobyl and sure it's not a coincidence that the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both nuclear powered or that the Tsar Bomba was nuclear powered.... (100MT of pure power *drools* (I'm male sue me)).
In fact there are many concerns about nuclear power in the US alone you guys have had to take extra precautions including terminating the use of certain ground water supplies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents (I know I know, but check the links before you critique).
I don't know how they have the gall to call it safe to be honest, that's including the disposal of the waste. However what do you think? Do you think the safety measures are enough around the world to effectively say that Nuclear power is no threat to human life?
"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe. New discoveries by US scientists have now shown it's sustainable as well.
That's because US government scientists have just announced research in which they've massively increased the efficiency of techniques for extracting uranium from the ocean - and that means that supplies of uranium are secure for the future even if the entire human race moves to fission power for all its energy needs."
I will admit that the Japanese were fairly on top of the reactor as it went down, could have been a lot better...but even still. When nuclear comes to mind, so does Chernobyl and sure it's not a coincidence that the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both nuclear powered or that the Tsar Bomba was nuclear powered.... (100MT of pure power *drools* (I'm male sue me)).
In fact there are many concerns about nuclear power in the US alone you guys have had to take extra precautions including terminating the use of certain ground water supplies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents (I know I know, but check the links before you critique).
I don't know how they have the gall to call it safe to be honest, that's including the disposal of the waste. However what do you think? Do you think the safety measures are enough around the world to effectively say that Nuclear power is no threat to human life?
Read More: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/22/oceanic_ur...
Meanwhile, how many coal mining accidents do we have every year? I found the following chart, which illustrates the death toll of different energy generation methods. Nuclear power is the tiny speck on the left:
If we put this into numbers, coal is 4,000 times more deadly than nuclear power. Adjusted for the same amount of power produced, 4,000 people die due to coal for every single person that is killed by nuclear power generation. I think it's fair to say that compared to coal and oil, nuclear power is sufficiently safe and the benefits definitely outweigh the comparatively small risk.
Tobacco firms, Coal, Oil and Gas Producers, Chemical companies etc. etc.
Personally I understand that until we have fusion power it is probably a necessary evil, but nuclear power can never be described as "Perfectly Safe".
After all given that there are any number of nuclear power stations along the New Madrid fault, who can really predict the outcome if it were to move in a major fashion?