nuclear energy: yay or nay?

fdelval · Mar 17, 2011

After japan's tragedy, there is lot of heated debate in my country abour nuclear energy.

What is your opinion about this one?

Yesterday i was researching some info about chernobyl, and it was very raw to read.
About 500.000 "liquidators" worked there even though many of them knew they were gonna die after nuclear exposure; sooner or later, but noone refused to help.

His work saved europe from a much bigger explosion.

The melted core was about to leak to an underground pool. The contact of the melted core at probably 1.200? degrees would have produced so much steam in contact with water that it would have blown and thus scattering the nuclear particles all over europe, in a much higher concentration, making europe lethal to any kind of life.

Some good reads, and a tribute video that gets to my heart after reading the brave work that liquidators did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidator_(Chernobyl)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

mvsf1 · Mar 17, 2011

Before Fukushima: YES.
After Fukushima: YES.

ironheart · Mar 18, 2011

there's a big debate on this in Norway these days, and we dont even have nuclear power plants. we're afraid of everything, lol.

My opinion is the same as mvsf1 tho.

fdelval · Mar 18, 2011

ironheart said:
there's a big debate on this in Norway these days, and we dont even have nuclear power plants. we're afraid of everything, lol.

Well, a lesson we could learn from the chernobyl's problem is that you dont need a nuclear plant as neighbour to get radiation; a plant at 10.000km can still contaminate your country if uncontrolled.

i must say yes to nuclear energy too, life has so many risks, this is another one. Well controlled, in hands of professionals and with enough security meassures, is one of the cleanest, most secure and cheap ones.

I think aswell that building a power plant at sea level is a big mistake, they probably took care of all kind of problems, even the most insignificant ones, but forgot the big, most visible ones, like a 10 meters wave... :bored:

SRB · Mar 18, 2011

heelll yeaaa only hippies say no

ironheart · Mar 18, 2011

good point fdelval.

the good thing is that we dont need nuclear power in Norway because we get all the power we need from water, wind and natural gas.

but for bigger countries i can see how nuclear power is a very effective and clean source of power. worth the risk imo.

BigBen · Mar 18, 2011

Yes, we seem like we are taking all necessary precautions to maintain the safety of everyone around the area. I think the benefits of energy are greater than the risks b/c the chance of something catastrophic occurring seems unlikely. The professionals that deal with the nuclear chemistry are more than aware of the consequences of it and they work hard to make sure people stay safe.

pGhi · Mar 18, 2011

I know that Norway is very expensive country, so is the energy expensive or not? Because energy is so "green", energy might be so expensive too?

ironheart · Mar 18, 2011

pGhi said:
I know that Norway is very expensive country, so is the energy expensive or not? Because energy is so "green", energy might be so expensive too?

lol, you're right, Norway is very expensive. but electricity is not that exspensive because we produce so much of it. we export most of the electricity we produce. but in the coldest months of the winter the electric bill can get a bit much tho.

tim290280 · Mar 19, 2011

Hey I know, lets compare a reactor that was antiquated and poorly maintained when it inevitably failed with state of the art reactors that have thus far stood up to the worst that mother nature can throw at it. Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen for roughly a decade. Oh and also "making Europe lethal to any kind of life" is just rubbish. You know there are over 100,000 people that live near Chernobyl right now!

I don't agree with geologically unstable areas like Japan having nuclear reactors, but they have built the ones that they have really well. If it hadn't been for the tsunami immediately after the quake we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Better link to info than wiki: http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/index.htm

MuscleMecca Crew

fdelval · Mar 19, 2011

tim290280 said:
Hey I know, lets compare a reactor that was antiquated and poorly maintained when it inevitably failed with state of the art reactors that have thus far stood up to the worst that mother nature can throw at it. Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen for roughly a decade.

??
Nobody is comparing chernobyl's security measures to japan's. It doesnt matter where the problem comes from, but what would happen after, which may be irreparable.

tim290280 said:
Oh and also "making Europe lethal to any kind of life" is just rubbish. You know there are over 100,000 people that live near Chernobyl right now!

Hooray for green vegetables which glow in the darkness and make the radiation meters beep like crazy
Well, maybe you consider "living" what a limbless, two faced, 3 eyed guy does there, if so, yes, chernobyl can handle families there. Or maybe cockroaches are your idea of life in europe after a nuclear explosion?

Also, if you compare some nuclear dust to a explosion of all the melted core scattered all over europe, then ok, europe had no risks at all.

Skeptic · Mar 19, 2011

A lot of the news here in Australia was comparing it to Chernobyl.

tim290280 · Mar 20, 2011

fdelval said:
??
Nobody is comparing chernobyl's security measures to japan's. It doesnt matter where the problem comes from, but what would happen after, which may be irreparable.

Yes they are. You essentially did in your first post.

Hooray for green vegetables which glow in the darkness and make the radiation meters beep like crazy
Well, maybe you consider "living" what a limbless, two faced, 3 eyed guy does there, if so, yes, chernobyl can handle families there. Or maybe cockroaches are your idea of life in europe after a nuclear explosion?

Also, if you compare some nuclear dust to a explosion of all the melted core scattered all over europe, then ok, europe had no risks at all.

You clearly didn't read my link.

Do you actually understand what levels of radiation we are exposed to on a daily basis? Do you understand that frequent flyers and pilots often experience higher exposure rates to radiation than was seen in areas adjacent to Chernobyl, or currently in Japan for that matter.

I had to get qualifications in radiation safety for my research work. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and paranoia surrounding nuclear energy. Hyperbole aside, your statements regarding glowing plants and genetic mutations are exactly the sort of misinformation that needs to be removed from these discussions. Please read the link I provided, it has some very good information in it.

fdelval · Mar 20, 2011

I still dont see where i compared both, well, excluding they are nuclear energy related, and that some people will have to die in order to get things under controll

And it surprised me the most, that the most ironic member in the forum didnt get the "glowing vegetable" exaggeration, althought nobody can deny that mutation cases did raised.

All the theory sounds ok Tim, but now, put your hand in your heart and answer:
Will you, and your 1 month pregnant wife move to chernobyl, where your 100,000 people live, or "try" to live, or will you stay in the other side of the world if you could?

Nuclear power is risky, but i still think its pros overpower its cons, but there are still consequences

tim290280 · Mar 22, 2011

fdevel said:
I still dont see where i compared both, well, excluding they are nuclear energy related, and that some people will have to die in order to get things under controll

Your inference was there, although I can see you may have not meant it:

Well, a lesson we could learn from the chernobyl's problem is that you dont need a nuclear plant as neighbour to get radiation; a plant at 10.000km can still contaminate your country if uncontrolled.

fdevel said:
And it surprised me the most, that the most ironic member in the forum didnt get the "glowing vegetable" exaggeration, althought nobody can deny that mutation cases did raised.

I did get it, hence:

Tim said:
Hyperbole aside, your statements regarding glowing plants and genetic mutations are exactly the sort of misinformation that needs to be removed from these discussions.

fdevel said:
All the theory sounds ok Tim, but now, put your hand in your heart and answer:
Will you, and your 1 month pregnant wife move to chernobyl, where your 100,000 people live, or "try" to live, or will you stay in the other side of the world if you could?

The argument appealing to adverse consequences is not a relevant argument. What I would or wouldn't do is not the issue. The facts are that:

At present, 100 000 people living in contaminated areas still receive a higher dose of radiation than the limit recommended for the general public. More...

2.2 It is difficult to tell precisely the number of deaths – past and future – attributable to the Chernobyl accident, because people who have been exposed to low levels of radiation often die from the same causes as unexposed people.

Confusion about the impact of the accident has given rise to highly exaggerated claims that tens or even hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of the accident. In fact, a much smaller death toll can be directly attributable to Chernobyl radiation. Twenty-eight emergency workers died from acute radiation syndrome, 15 patients died from thyroid cancer, and it is roughly estimated that the total number of deaths from cancers caused by Chernobyl may reach 4000 among the 600 000 people having received the greastest exposures. More...

2.3 In the general population of the contaminated regions, there is so far no convincing evidence that Chernobyl has increased the number of cases of leukaemia or solid cancers, except for childhood thyroid cancer.

Thousands of those who were children and adolescents at the time of the accident have developed thyroid cancer as a result of exposure to radioactive iodine. The majority of those cancers have been treated successfully. Among workers who were exposed to higher doses of radiation this exposure has contributed to an increase in the number of cases of certain types of leukaemia and solid cancers, and possibly of cardiovascular diseases and cataracts. Future analytical studies should be able to clarify this. More...

2.4 As most people received relatively low doses of radiation from the Chernobyl accident, there is no convincing evidence of effects on human fertility and heritable diseases, nor have any effects been observed for pregnancy outcomes and on the overall health of children of exposed parents.

Those are the facts of the matter. Everything else is fear mongering.

fdevel said:
Nuclear power is risky, but i still think its pros overpower its cons, but there are still consequences

I agree. Like I said previously, I'm not a fan of nuclear power in geologically unstable areas. I've also become aware of some of the modern alternatives that are now superior renewable energy sources.

Glex · Mar 30, 2011

This might help:

Nuclear energy is nice because it keeps pollutants out of the air. But it's expensive, and the waste is a problem. We'll be better off developing renewable energy in the long run.

I saw an interesting article about using small reactors to power neighborhoods of a few dozen houses. I think the premise was, in apparent violation of economies of scale, that these small reactors are more efficient, produce less waste, and are less prone to meltdowns and dramatic disasters due to the small amount of radioactive material. I think part of what might make it more efficient is the distribution of the electricity; a lot of energy is lost in transmission over long distances, but localized power plants would ameliorate that. Good luck selling that to the public, though. I'll try to find it later.

tim290280 · Mar 31, 2011

Actually Glex there are some reports doing the rounds at the moment that suggest that renewables could replace current energy production within 20-30 years no problems. Ion salt solar power is their big one, along with wind, geothermal and traditional solar. Apparently Australia could be completely renewables by the end of the decade.

More here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=660
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=656
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=647
http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Synopsis_v1.pdf
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/101223_energy_report_final_print_2.pdf

Obviously there are some assumptions built into these reports, and not totally unbiased sources, but still, exciting!

Glex · Mar 31, 2011

Yeah...when I say 'in the long run' that's not to say it couldn't be achieved in a few decades. I think there will be a place for fossil-fueled internal combustion engines for at least a generation or two after we die, but I hope the US is generating 100% of its stationary, non-emergency power with renewables well before the 2050 date. Knowing the way things work here, however, I'm not optimistic. The cost of renewable energy will have to drastically undercut fossil fuels before the established system starts to fall apart, and right now they're only just starting to even out in competitiveness.

I would be interested in working in renewable energy or energy efficiency after I get out of the Air Force.

TalkAdmin · May 2, 2012

We have huge problems with disposal too but I would say they are good overall but I would never build them in areas near fault lines like we have in the USA or near the ocean where tidal waves are possible. We have a few in the US right near fault lines just waiting for a repeat of Japan. Come to think of it we have whole cities on fault lines as does Japan. Keep those plants away from those areas. I think the radiation problem is way, way worse in Japan then they are saying. I bet in 1- years from now or so there will be many millions of cases of cancer al, over caused by this incident..

****, we have the sun man! 1 second it probably puts out enough power to supply the planet forever. We should really learn how to use it. If every house had a couple solar panels and a small windmill think of how much power would be saved from the grid. What if every telephone pole had a little 4 ft square solar panel on it every where.. I bet we would not even need big dangerous plants.

Norway, is that the country where they have all the volcanic activity and they get tons of power from it underground? Not sure if it is Norway but this one country has all of these hot water vents every where coming from deep in the earth. They pipe the water up and get power from it. Sweet..

Hypocrisy86 · Sep 24, 2012

Yes.

As long as GE doesn't make it/them.

nuclear energy: yay or nay?

nuclear energy yes or no

yes

no

fdelval

Well-known member

mvsf1

Mecca V.I.P.

ironheart

Mecca V.I.P.

fdelval

Well-known member

SRB

Well-known member

ironheart

Mecca V.I.P.

BigBen

Mecca V.I.P.

pGhi

Mecca V.I.P.

ironheart

Mecca V.I.P.

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff

fdelval

Well-known member

Skeptic

I am god.

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.

fdelval

Well-known member

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.

Glex

Diet cat says no spoon 4u

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.

Glex

Diet cat says no spoon 4u

TalkAdmin

Administrator

Hypocrisy86

Mecca V.I.P.