Comments on: I know nuclear power is bad, but… http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978 for environmentalists who don't take themselves too seriously Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:41:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Brian http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-222389 Brian Mon, 11 May 2009 15:04:37 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-222389 THPW is the company that knows how to burn Thorium safely and are presently helping India do so. We should as a country get on board and stop sending so much money to the middle east for oil for our power plants. THPW is the company that knows how to burn Thorium safely and are presently helping India do so. We should as a country get on board and stop sending so much money to the middle east for oil for our power plants.

]]> By: Mateo http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-183232 Mateo Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:22:26 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-183232 You people don't seem to understand that nuclear power is so REDICULOUSLY POWERFUL that it could ELIMINATE the need for all other power source. 1. It is very safe, there are an insane number of safety measures, just like you don't worry about your car filled with explosive gasoline to kill you. 2. Meltdowns are DO NOT = mushroom clouds, they are simple large releaes of rediation, even Chernobly (wich was a piece of shit even by Russian 1980 standards) had ALMOST ALL of its megare 4000 death within the first week. Infact people live on the outskirts of Chernobyl to this day. 3. All the waste we have made in 50 years can only fill a football field 10 feet deep. Anyway nuclear waste can be reprossesed to make it MUCH LESS radioactive AND go away in just a few hundred years. 4. It makes an insane amount of power, It CAN AND WILL power us for the next 10000 years (both fission and fusion as fission makes more power + more resources that way). 5. Solar and other renewables (exept wave in the 30-90 year future because the ocean is fucking huge) can not power us, they are expensive and make small amounts of energy. The only place solar has in on houses to make sure there are not blackouts and we have extra power. You people don’t seem to understand that nuclear power is so REDICULOUSLY POWERFUL that it could ELIMINATE the need for all other power source.

1. It is very safe, there are an insane number of safety measures, just like you don’t worry about your car filled with explosive gasoline to kill you.

2. Meltdowns are DO NOT = mushroom clouds, they are simple large releaes of rediation, even Chernobly (wich was a piece of shit even by Russian 1980 standards) had ALMOST ALL of its megare 4000 death within the first week. Infact people live on the outskirts of Chernobyl to this day.

3. All the waste we have made in 50 years can only fill a football field 10 feet deep. Anyway nuclear waste can be reprossesed to make it MUCH LESS radioactive AND go away in just a few hundred years.

4. It makes an insane amount of power, It CAN AND WILL power us for the next 10000 years (both fission and fusion as fission makes more power + more resources that way).

5. Solar and other renewables (exept wave in the 30-90 year future because the ocean is fucking huge) can not power us, they are expensive and make small amounts of energy. The only place solar has in on houses to make sure there are not blackouts and we have extra power.

]]> By: Mateo http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-183228 Mateo Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:00:58 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-183228 There already is one and its not thorium. It is called reprossesing, its very simple we get used nuclear fuel and USE IT AGAIN its like recycling. It works because used fuel retains 95% of its energy. Plus it also reduces waste to low level waste that only lasts a few hundred years. Also since it uses old fuel we wont have to mine more so it is CO2 free and with large scale we could supply ourselves power for 10's of thousands of years. It is already being done a lot in France and Japan. It comes down to one thing, If the French are doing it, are we too pussy to do it? There already is one and its not thorium. It is called reprossesing, its very simple we get used nuclear fuel and USE IT AGAIN its like recycling. It works because used fuel retains 95% of its energy. Plus it also reduces waste to low level waste that only lasts a few hundred years. Also since it uses old fuel we wont have to mine more so it is CO2 free and with large scale we could supply ourselves power for 10’s of thousands of years. It is already being done a lot in France and Japan.

It comes down to one thing, If the French are doing it, are we too pussy to do it?

]]> By: maddy http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-178670 maddy Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:34:36 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-178670 i think we should use wind power GO GREEN NO COAL NO NUCLEAR ENERGY NO HYDRO ELECTRICITY WIND ALL THE WAY i think we should use wind power GO GREEN
NO COAL
NO NUCLEAR ENERGY
NO HYDRO ELECTRICITY
WIND ALL THE WAY

]]> By: Mateo http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-170214 Mateo Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:12:46 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-170214 There is one but, it is not currently deveoped it is called FUSION it uses duterium and NO weapons can be made out of fusion. Fusion also does not explode. There is one but, it is not currently deveoped it is called FUSION it uses duterium and NO weapons can be made out of fusion. Fusion also does not explode.

]]> By: Nu Clean Air http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-163723 Nu Clean Air Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:13:40 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-163723 Nuclear power IS the solution. Just because all of this is POSSIBLE, does not mean that it will happen. Look at the nuclear industries deaths, and then compare them to: smoking, coal mining, car accidents. You can't hardly even compare. No one historically has died in the US from nuclear power and in the last year thousands have died in car accidents. You can't just say that nuclear energy is bad, you have to look at the positives!!! Nuclear power IS the solution. Just because all of this is POSSIBLE, does not mean that it will happen. Look at the nuclear industries deaths, and then compare them to: smoking, coal mining, car accidents. You can’t hardly even compare. No one historically has died in the US from nuclear power and in the last year thousands have died in car accidents. You can’t just say that nuclear energy is bad, you have to look at the positives!!!

]]> By: Rad Worker http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-138851 Rad Worker Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:59:19 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-138851 When all you people over 40 who don't have their heads on straight die, the world will be run by my generation. A generation (not without its flaws) that is not still constantly looking over its shoulder for the Commie Red Russkies, and screams holocaust at the slightest mention of the words nuclear or atomic, and nuclear power will finally be free from the paranoia, misinformation, dramatization, and misunderstanding that it has endured since its creation that unfortunately coincided with the Atomic bomb. A reactor is not a bomb, it cannot be a bomb, the laws of physics dictate this, not some safety systems (plentiful though they are) or human operators. Reactors are engineered from the atomic level to shut themselves down in the event of an accident. the circumstances that led to Chernobyl were: bad design, poor training, human error, and poor disaster management. Three Mile Island was a non-event, more of a lesson learning process, no one was hurt or even exceeded federal radiation exposure limits (which are incredibly strict), and what happened at both of these reactors is physically impossible (not just highly unlikely... impossible). As for the waste problem, nuclear waste is also a non-issue. Since the creation of nuclear power the total amount of waste from all nuclear reactors would cover one football field 10 feet deep. That's 50 years of waste. On top of that 98% of that waste can be reprocessed. When fuel is removed from power reactors it is not because it is all burned up, its because there are neutron poisons built up in the fuel that can be removed. The removal process also liberates minute amounts of Pu 239, which led to the Carter Administration banning the process (which france has pursued whole heartedly)because of public fear. The plutonium is also not an issue because it can be combine with Uranium in what is called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, and burned up in reactors. The cost of a power plant installation is vast, but they pay for themselves in less than 10 years. Mining uranium is not particularly dangerous as far as mining goes because natural uranium emits negligible radiation, so it is no more dangerous than any other manual labor job. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH NUKE IS THE FEAR OF STUPID PEOPLE, GET INFORMED, GET NUKE. When all you people over 40 who don’t have their heads on straight die, the world will be run by my generation. A generation (not without its flaws) that is not still constantly looking over its shoulder for the Commie Red Russkies, and screams holocaust at the slightest mention of the words nuclear or atomic, and nuclear power will finally be free from the paranoia, misinformation, dramatization, and misunderstanding that it has endured since its creation that unfortunately coincided with the Atomic bomb. A reactor is not a bomb, it cannot be a bomb, the laws of physics dictate this, not some safety systems (plentiful though they are) or human operators. Reactors are engineered from the atomic level to shut themselves down in the event of an accident. the circumstances that led to Chernobyl were: bad design, poor training, human error, and poor disaster management. Three Mile Island was a non-event, more of a lesson learning process, no one was hurt or even exceeded federal radiation exposure limits (which are incredibly strict), and what happened at both of these reactors is physically impossible (not just highly unlikely… impossible). As for the waste problem, nuclear waste is also a non-issue. Since the creation of nuclear power the total amount of waste from all nuclear reactors would cover one football field 10 feet deep. That’s 50 years of waste. On top of that 98% of that waste can be reprocessed. When fuel is removed from power reactors it is not because it is all burned up, its because there are neutron poisons built up in the fuel that can be removed. The removal process also liberates minute amounts of Pu 239, which led to the Carter Administration banning the process (which france has pursued whole heartedly)because of public fear. The plutonium is also not an issue because it can be combine with Uranium in what is called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, and burned up in reactors. The cost of a power plant installation is vast, but they pay for themselves in less than 10 years. Mining uranium is not particularly dangerous as far as mining goes because natural uranium emits negligible radiation, so it is no more dangerous than any other manual labor job. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH NUKE IS THE FEAR OF STUPID PEOPLE, GET INFORMED, GET NUKE.

]]> By: Le Sniss http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-134875 Le Sniss Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:32:55 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-134875 Given the modeling predictions regarding burning fossil fuels into the future, the hazards of nuclear/ supplemented by renewable energy sources seem trivial. If a billion citizens (15% of earths humans) were to be killed by nuclear energy (a disastrous worst case scenario of extreme unlikeliness) in the next two hundred years, this toll would still be less than the death toll predicted by many climate change models. Nuclear power can eliminate greenhouse emissions. It can provide the electricity needed to power the "emissions- free" vehicles we will purchase soon. Yes, nuclear power will kill people. But a lot less people than climate change. We should use it now, it will give us time to figure out fusion. Given the modeling predictions regarding burning fossil fuels into the future, the hazards of nuclear/ supplemented by renewable energy sources seem trivial. If a billion citizens (15% of earths humans) were to be killed by nuclear energy (a disastrous worst case scenario of extreme unlikeliness) in the next two hundred years, this toll would still be less than the death toll predicted by many climate change models.

Nuclear power can eliminate greenhouse emissions. It can provide the electricity needed to power the “emissions- free” vehicles we will purchase soon. Yes, nuclear power will kill people. But a lot less people than climate change. We should use it now, it will give us time to figure out fusion.

]]> By: Osiris http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-46034 Osiris Mon, 19 May 2008 20:27:34 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-46034 By burning coal, you release more radioactive trash into the atmosphere (radioactive isotopes) than nuclear energy ever thought of doing. How many deaths have directly been caused by nuclear power? The problems at Chernobyl can probably be written off as human error and cost cutting measures taken in the construction of their reactor. As for what happened at Three Mile Island, it was vastly blown out of proportion. You have a better chance of dying from tritium inhalation than you do from nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant. Unfortunately, what has ruined the U.S. is also at play here: special interest groups/lobbyists and bad science. By burning coal, you release more radioactive trash into the atmosphere (radioactive isotopes) than nuclear energy ever thought of doing. How many deaths have directly been caused by nuclear power? The problems at Chernobyl can probably be written off as human error and cost cutting measures taken in the construction of their reactor. As for what happened at Three Mile Island, it was vastly blown out of proportion. You have a better chance of dying from tritium inhalation than you do from nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant.

Unfortunately, what has ruined the U.S. is also at play here: special interest groups/lobbyists and bad science.

]]> By: radioactive man http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978/comment-page-1#comment-33627 radioactive man Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:09:44 +0000 http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/i-know-nuclear-power-is-bad-but/978#comment-33627 uuuuuu alllllllllllll stink uuuuuu alllllllllllll stink

]]>