Nuclear vs Fossil Fuel

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Despite the fact that the pro nuclear, & enviromental lobby, have been seriously pushig the atomic option on us through all available media,it once again seems that a big pile of radioactive stuff that refuses to die, is in fact, probably lethal to our health.

Recently, the BBC did a pro nuclear documentary that included Chernobyl, where they said that the effects of the disaster were not that bad, & we should all embrace this clean environmentally clean fuel.

Recent events in Japan, & plain old common sense, suggest that this is horseshit, as you only need one earthquake/volcano/tsunami/terrorist bomb/plane/Homer Simpson screwing up a reactor - to potentially kill a large portion of the country - or worse.

Shouldn't we stop crap like Dancing with the Stars/MTV, that ice thing, & Idol - & concentrate our resources on finding a few bright kids who might come up with a decent solution for our planet's future?

I'd like my grandkids to drive some kind of cool convertible - but not a horse & trap:biggrin1:.

Have the events in Japan put anyone else off nuclear?
 

TheScotsman

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Posts
421
Media
14
Likes
170
Points
288
Location
London
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Eh, nuclear gets a bad rep, almost purely because it's impossible for people to hear the word 'nuclear' and not have their brain subconsciously add 'bomb'. You'd need to drastically alter people's perceptions of it, which doesn't seem likely. It's like the word 'cancer', it just makes people feel uneasy.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Despite the fact that the pro nuclear, & enviromental lobby, have been seriously pushig the atomic option on us through all available media,it once again seems that a big pile of radioactive stuff that refuses to die, is in fact, probably lethal to our health.

Recently, the BBC did a pro nuclear documentary that included Chernobyl, where they said that the effects of the disaster were not that bad, & we should all embrace this clean environmentally clean fuel.

Recent events in Japan, & plain old common sense, suggest that this is horseshit, as you only need one earthquake/volcano/tsunami/terrorist bomb/plane/Homer Simpson screwing up a reactor - to potentially kill a large portion of the country - or worse.

Shouldn't we stop crap like Dancing with the Stars/MTV, that ice thing, & Idol - & concentrate our resources on finding a few bright kids who might come up with a decent solution for our planet's future?

I'd like my grandkids to drive some kind of cool convertible - but not a horse & trap:biggrin1:.

Have the events in Japan put anyone else off nuclear?

No, the thing is that the dancing with the stars crap is exactly what's going on in Japan. Everybody is freaking out about nuclear because they don't understand it.

Nuclear is far cleaner than any other non-renewable type of energy. Massively, massively cleaner than coal, where the US gets most of it's energy. The Chernobyl accident was basically the "perfect storm" of bad shit, including a retarded reactor design, incompetent employees, and the deliberate disabling of safety devices, and you could probably live your life today within a mile of it. Three Mile island hurt and killed nobody at all.

This reactor was already an ancient piece of equipment, and it already survived an 8.2 earthquake completely unharmed just a few years ago. It took one of the top 5 worth earthquakes on record to damage it, and you can't exactly plan for something like that. Even still, the amount of radiation that could be released(but probably won't, since the containment vessel is not breached), would most likely be less than is released from burning coal every year...burning coal releases uranium and thorium into the atmosphere. A functioning nuclear plant releases 0 radiation into the atmosphere.

The media is sensationalizing the fuck out of this, and everyone is over-reacting, because it's OMG nuclear. It's nowhere near as dangerous to your health as the coal plant you get your actual electricity from, and never will be.

Now is it perfect? No, you still have to find places to store the waste. Is the waste better than coal waste? Holy shit yes.

I do agree, we still need to be making progress with renewable resources. But if we replaced every single coal plant with a modern nuclear one, the whole world would be better off.
 

hammer87

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 19, 2010
Posts
428
Media
64
Likes
333
Points
308
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Not one bit. Nuclear energy gets a pretty bad rap, but then again all our power sources do. No one wants an energy producing plant where they live. They all have their dangers.

When thinking about nuclear energy though, keep in mind that there have only been 10 (counting the possible meltdown in Japan) major incidents in the 60 or so years that they have been in use. And other than Chernobyl, lives lost is fairly low. Think about all the lives lost in mining accidents, they certainly belong in the discussion.


Chernybol should not be used in any debate. The Russian reactors had flawed designs, no containment structure, and simply half assed operation procedures.

Dont make it sound if 9.0 earthquakes with 20ft tsunamis happen on a yearly basis. They dont. I won't deny that there has been an uncany amount of these events with in the last ten years, but it has to be said that the Earth's tectonics are not static. The plates move, and will move long after we are gone.

As for our the nations obsession with the "reality on TV," that is what it is.

Cancer, is in all of us, all the time. Everything causes cancer. Sounds out of bounds, but it is the truth. Some things cause cell mutation to happen more than others. I will not deny that. But it also needs to be known that some cell mutations are not all bad. That is evolution. (I am not starting that debate)

I kind of went on a rant there...Sorry about that. If I am wrong, please tell me. I dont want to spew lies and mis-information.
 

hammer87

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 19, 2010
Posts
428
Media
64
Likes
333
Points
308
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Good quote on the whole situation in the US.

Here we go. Don't let a disaster go to waste. An earthquake of the century, that breaks an already outdated reactor with a weak containment system, paves the way for us all to be Amish.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
The fact remains that the inbuilt redundancy failed to work. How many other outdated piles are there globally?

As for media storms - hasn't there been enough about coal & oil too? At least that can all be gone in 100 years or so. I don't worry about that at all.

Furthermore, the media tries to scare people with "dirty" bomb stories, when the radioactive harm from that can be measured in days.

What I want to hear is "We have this shit under control - here's the proof MF!"

No one's said that; no evacuees are trotting back, & I still haven't heard of a plane /bomb proof reactor (apart from in Iran!).

Either way, any energy source releases the exact same amount of heat/unit. If a couple of billion more people come online, perhaps it won't really matter from which source it comes from, especially when added to all those extra trees cut down, nitrates used as fertilizer, & methane machine cows for more burgers.
 

hammer87

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 19, 2010
Posts
428
Media
64
Likes
333
Points
308
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Just about every commercial reactor is outdated, and in all reality, the situation that the Japanese are going through has never happened before. So you are not going to hear anyone say that they have it under control. In a situation like this, you have to prepare, and practice for the worst, and hope for the best. And I think that is what they are practicing.

As for the evacuees just going back to their houses and living life as normal...Going back to what. Their homes were leveled by the same natuaral disaster that casued this mess.

I would also like to add that for all intensive purposes, nuclear power is still considered a developmental technology.
 

TheScotsman

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Posts
421
Media
14
Likes
170
Points
288
Location
London
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I love how news channels are describing this as the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It's the only nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It's easy to be the worst in a sample size of one.

People need to be re-educated about what nuclear power is exactly, but it's unfortunately far easier to sell stories about how you could die any second because crazy scientists are busy building death machines.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,253
Media
213
Likes
32,166
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I love how news channels are describing this as the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It's the only nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. It's easy to be the worst in a sample size of one.

People need to be re-educated about what nuclear power is exactly, but it's unfortunately far easier to sell stories about how you could die any second because crazy scientists are busy building death machines.
At least 3 reactors somewhere between partial and total meltdown=REALLY BAD SHIT
 

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
Atomkraft nej tak. Denmark is doing pretty well without nuclear. They just import it. Their tribe will have plenty of time to get on their yachts and run for it.
 
Last edited:

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear technology, and has been doing so since at least the 1970s, without a single incident.

Even though it personally gives me the total creeps, I recognize that my emotional reservations regarding nuclear energy should not stand in the way of reassessing its use here in the US. In fact, we should have had this discussion about ten years ago if not earlier.
 

D_stryhtfg

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Posts
223
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
51
Drill here, drill NOW!

Oh...and while you're at it...throw up a couple nuke plants as well. Forget all of those half-baked ideas like wind mills and solar power...those types of fairy tale sources of power have no future.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear technology, and has been doing so since at least the 1970s, without a single incident.

Even though it personally gives me the total creeps, I recognize that my emotional reservations regarding nuclear energy should not stand in the way of reassessing its use here in the US. In fact, we should have had this discussion about ten years ago if not earlier.

At least one state has been >50% nuclear for over 30 years. Anyone know if there's an easy way to find out which others are majority non-fossil?

"South Carolina’s four nuclear power plants typically supply more than one-half of the State’s electricity generation." (link)
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, as much as I like to criticise The Beehive Hairdo State of Ewetaw, they've enough low sulphur coal and hydroelectric to avoid building nuclear power generation for another 100 years. But they are WAY overdo for the once every 1,200 year earthquake that slips the west side of the Wastach Fault down 12+ feet. In fact, local geologist figure they are at least 200 years late (it's sort of like a geological menstrual cycle). And when that temblor does hit, all of the hydroelectric east of the fault will most likely wipe out the major strip of population living along the fault.

You just can't win.
 

mizzlopez

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
337
Media
2
Likes
21
Points
163
How do you expect people to feel after seeing what 2 Nuclear bombs did to a country of people? That should strike fear into anyone regardless of when it happened.