Nuclear power is selfish and immoral. - Page 2

KSigMason · #11 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 10:21 PM

I was always under the impression that Nuke tech has gotten better and safer.

Makedde · #12 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conrovist

Fisrtly, this stuff is more toxic than most of us are able to comprehend. A minute particle entering your body means certain painful sickness and death.

I saw a news report the other day about Chernobyl. All that disaster took was one person pushing the wrong button.

Makedde · #13 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigMason

I was always under the impression that Nuke tech has gotten better and safer.

So was I, but I don't think anyone wants another nuclear disastor, and that is always a possiblity, no matter how slim.

sunnyside · #14 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

I saw a news report the other day about Chernobyl. All that disaster took was one person pushing the wrong button.

Oh it took a lot more than that.

1. they did the experiment that started the problem on old fuel for convenience. It would have been much safer with newer fuel.

2. The backup system they were testing actually didn't pass an earlier test. However records were falsified in order to get a bunch of bonuses. They at least were trying to remedy this situation with the experiment in question. But that's a bit like trying to fix the ejection seat on a plane after you've taken off. Would have been easier before, but now fiddling with it is risky. It also may give an idea of the kind of contracters the stuff was built by.

3. There was a delay. The crew trained for the experiment went home with their shift. The people around at the time weren't at all properly prepared.

4. Then you've got the accidental over insertion of the control rods. This, however, doesn't cause any disaster, but dealing with it properly would require hassle and delay.

5. Now if it was me if a manual error in an experiment with a nuclear power plant happened I'd just play it safe and try again from a stable situation later. These guys decided "Hey if we use the manual overides to shut off/remove a couple critical safety features we can finish the experiment tonight."

6. Lots of people not explaining to other people what's up ensues. Maybe to save face for the manual error and such?

7. They do the experiment and things start going bad. A combination of some really bad design, the safeties they'd pulled earlier, and bad luck combine to produce a meltdown.

8. Again in defiance of safety regulation parts of the roof and structure were made out of a combustable material.

Which didn't help one bit and threatened the other reactors.

9*. This one gets a star because it didn't go bad. But even after reactor 4 F***ING EXPLODED and reactor 3 was on FIRE the big wigs wanted to keep #3 operating. However the night shift chief basically said "screw that" and shut the thing down.

Much buffonary follows making things worse, and there is a couple other things they did wrong leading to the accident, but this is already pushing tl;dr.

The point is it wasn't just an unlucky button push, but a combination of bad design, corruption by those making the thing, and some pretty unbelievable choices.

Makedde · #15 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyside

The point is it wasn't just an unlucky button push, but a combination of bad design and some pretty unbelievable choices.

I was mislead! The guy on 60 Minutes said a guy pushed one button and the whole place blew up. Liar!

sunnyside · #16 (**permalink**) 08-17-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

I was mislead! The guy on 60 Minutes said a guy pushed one button and the whole place blew up. Liar!

Due to the fact they weren't telling each other what was up that might have been how it seemed to the guy pushing the button.

But that's rather like saying someone just burst into flames after lighting up a cigarette, and not mentioning that they were soaked in gas at the time.

lardbeetle · #17 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

So was I, but I don't think anyone wants another nuclear disastor, and that is always a possiblity, no matter how slim.

A chernobyl-type disaster can't physically happen here. They were using entirely different types of reactors - graphite-moderated as opposed to our own water-moderated reactors. As graphite heats up, it enhances the reaction, so it can speed out of control. As water heats up, it turns to steam, which slows the reaction, becoming a moderating force on the nuclear process and helping prevent a meltdown.

The worst case scenario is a small release of radiation a la three mile island, which killed nobody.

Conrovist · #18 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 01:14 AM

Sigh... "just lable him a commie and I needn't think about what he is saying."

I am not advocating any policy, just pointing out how wrong and foolish nuclear power is.

If we HAD solved the waste problem then I would reconsider my position.
(i.e. stop the world I want to get off!)

Check these out:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...lear-leak.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

etc. etc.

Jack · #19 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conrovist

Nuclear power is selfish and immoral.

OK. Let us for a moment assume that modern nuclear power plants cannot melt down and are completely safe. (Google – Nuclear accidents)
Let’s also ignore the cost and time lag of building these perfect reactors, as well as all the problems of decommissioning, and just concentrate on the nuclear waste that they all produce.

Fisrtly, this stuff is more toxic than most of us are able to comprehend. A minute particle entering your body means certain painful sickness and death. At a time when cancer is reaching epidemic levels, we should remain cognisant of our own vulnerability.

Radioactive waste is also very hard to contain. It is unstable by definition, often requiring cooling and can cause unpredictable behaviour in the materials it comes in contact with. Every time it is rehoused or handled in any way, another load of “low grade” waste is created.

Many types of nuclear waste, take tens of thousands of years just to become half as toxic. Taking proper care of even one ton of such waste, for so long, is an inconceivably massive undertaking. If the cost of this, were factored in, then it would be clear that nuclear, is the most expensive power yet.

The dreadful cost of our irresponsible production of radioactive waste, will be born by our descendants for thousands of generations. Just how selfish are we? Not only have we squandered a large proportion of earth’s fossil fuel reserves and consequently rendered the planet a less hospitable place, but we are now demanding that the cost of our excessive energy use, be paid for by all the people of the future. We did not inherit any such foul legacy from our ancestors. It is absolutely immoral to foist this horror on our descendants.

As a species, we appear to be so proudly obsessed with our own cleverness, that we are utterly incapable of objectively assessing the cost/benefit balance of our technologies.

Real green policies are in direct opposition to the precepts of capitalism. Real green means LESS consumption, whereas capitalism depends upon perpetually increased consumption. A reasonably bright 3 year, old could point out that constant growth is ultimately unsustainable!

Accepting that we must use less, is a very unpopular concept to champion. But unless physics takes another quantum leap forward, it remains the grim reality.

First, The “truth” is, that Three Mile Island proved that America’s nuclear safety technology even in the 1950’s “WORKED.” Surely we’ve come a long way in nuclear technological safety since then, wouldn’t you think?

Second, France gets 85% of it’s electric power from “NUCLEAR” power plants. Are the French smarter or dumber than Americans?

Third, The French have developed technology that “recycles” the nuclear control rod in their power plants which of course is the most radioactive part of the nuclear power plant. Most other waste is “low level” radioactive waste and nowhere as dangerous as the Gang Of Green would have us believe.

Fourth, America already has extensive usage of nuclear power not only in many power plants, but all over the world and even in American ports powering our ships. Nary a single accident has contaminated nary a thing in over 50 years.

Fifth, We can either continue to go to war and shed our children’s blood for foreign oil, or we can use our own technologies and natural resources, choose your option. Whichever we do, we better start doing it “NOW.” If we choose to use our own technologies and resources we can avoid WW3. If we’re choosing WW3 for the world‘s oil, let’s getter done now and quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)footing around.

Kazikli Bey · #20 (**permalink**) 08-18-2008, 05:09 AM

I think that the main problem with nuclear power is not that it is dangerous (because, done properly, it is not) but more that it does not solve the problem of "Where the hell are we going to get power when all the non-renewable energy sources are gone?"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nuclear Power: My pet issue	lardbeetle	Political Opinions & Beliefs	59	08-21-2008 08:44 PM
Nuclear Power	partier9	Opinion POLLS	22	08-09-2008 11:23 PM
Nuclear Power	RichardHead	Opinion POLLS	53	06-10-2008 05:22 PM
Jordan wants nuclear power	MannieD	Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Weapons	2	01-19-2007 09:54 AM
Iraq official on Iranian nuclear power	noetsi	Middle East	2	05-27-2006 10:20 AM