View Poll Results: Are nuclear energy plants just too dangerous, worldwide?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • They are too dangerous, do not build any more and shut down the ones currently in operation.

    4 18.18%
  • They are dangerous, do not build more but it is OK to keep using the ones already built.

    3 13.64%
  • The risks are worth it, keep expanding nuclear energy.

    12 54.55%
  • Other opinion (add your details in a posting on this thread)

    3 13.64%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 62

Thread: Nuclear energy - safe?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Waimanalo
    Posts
    771

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    I voted with the current majority in the poll: the risks are worth it. But actually, that assumes we've mitigated the risks as best we can. Nuclear power and air travel share the difficulty that overall risks are low and accidents infrequent, but when something bad happens, it can be really bad. The fact that accidents are infrequent leads managers to be complacent about plant safety, and we really can't depend on private companies to handle this well. If your memories stretch back to Three Mile Island, you'll recall that journalists started digging around after the event to find that federal inspectors had been reporting many, many safety violations at nuclear plants which went year after year without being corrected.
    Greg

  2. #27

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    'really bad' in common terms would encompass things like the aforementioned boiler explosions that kill, and then are over.
    Really bad in nukology means, we have a major problem immediately, then possibly millions die over the years and the huge surrounding region is inhabitable for centuries as is the food/water/etc., and we economically wither in total. It's what we're seeing happen in Japan with this small example. Add to that the widespread PANIC that would occure in less composed/civilized nations, like the US, and you can see how just one nuke mishap and it's repercussions could easily kill a country. But hey, it was so unexpected...

    Building a nuke facility to withstand merely a 7.5 quake anywhere is a con game, doing it in quake country is criminal, as is hiding beneficial technology that could have infinitely bettered this country, and that's been going on for at least 100 years.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    I'll admit this is a shameless plug......but here goes.

    Check out FutureNewsNetwork.com to learn about 100 years of suppressed technology. We are talking about power generation technology that folks have been killed over.

    If you honestly think Nuclear Energy is the answer, then it clearly shows you do not have all the facts. Stirling, Steorn, and a host of magnetic technologies are here to stay. And in the last 10 years or so, nobody has been killed over these revolutions to the status quo of power supply, so perhaps the government has finally given up on suppression.

    All we need now is for consumers to stop acting like sheep.
    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In retirement
    Posts
    428

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Check out FutureNewsNetwork.com to learn about 100 years of suppressed technology.
    Wow that page is way too busy for my computer. Took too long to load and scrolling the page was next to impossible.

    So I checked Wikipedia for those things you mentioned.

    So as not to sidetrack this thread I wonít go into detail, but those technologies donít seem to be ready yet. They need much more development; maybe new discoveries will make them work.

    Back to nuclear plants, if I was designing a plant I would seriously consider underground installations. Much better containment and cooling water could be feed by gravity in emergencies.

    Just a thought.
    "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
    Ayn Rand

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kihei -currently away at school in NY
    Posts
    734

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Although I've voted in the poll, I have been decidedly quiet in this conversation. But Tim's post prompted me to voice my opinion. I want to say first and foremost that just because I believe we shouldn't allow this accident to dismiss nuclear energy all together, that doesn't mean we should ignore all the other forms of alternate energy. Dismissing nuclear energy is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Ignoring other forms of energy production is just as stupid. Wind energy is an excellent alternative energy source - when you live in an area that has sustained winds for most of the time. Solar energy is an excellent form of alternative energy - when you live in an area that has predominately sunny weather. Geothermal energy is an excellent form of alternative energy - when you live in an area that has a large geothermal reserve. All of these methods are excellent - under the right conditions.

    My opinion on nuclear energy is not something I take lightly. Back in the day (BC - before college) I was staunchly opposed to nuclear anything. I fell for the media blitz that took over after Three-Mile Island. In its typical "the sky is falling" mentality, the media instilled a deep-seated fear of simply the word NUCLEAR. But I also became curious – what exactly was “radiation”? How did it work? Was all radiation bad? So I decided to find out.

    I became so engrossed in the subject that I almost concentrated on this area in grad school. Turns out that nuclear processes are so well understood from a physics perspective (not to be confused with engineering) that it is, in fact, a “dead” subject. We know far more about nuclear reactions than we do about sound.

    One of the biggest problems with nuclear processes is the lack of education amongst the public. Fearing nuclear energy is like fearing the ocean. Yes, if you are not careful, you could die from it. However, if you approach it with a keen understanding, it can provide valuable services.

  6. #31

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    LOL! Gotta love some of the euphemisms that are being bandied about here re: nuclear energy.

    In the meantime, none of the pro-nuclear energy proponents have been able to address the very real issue I brought up in post #9. What the heck are we going to do with all the nuclear waste that continues to accumulate, even as we speak?

    Ignoring the issue doesn't make the problem go away, alas.

    I'm realistic enough to know that with nuclear providing about 20% of this country's electrical needs, it is not an energy source that can be completely shut down tomorrow. But to expand its use with no firm plan on how to handle waste disposal is just plain ludicrous.

    Morally, I find it shameful. The people of today enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, while leaving it up to their children and grandchildren to be burdened with the problem of handling the radioactive waste.

    And please,.... spare me the speech about science coming up with safe and peaceful ways to re-process the waste. I've been hearing that same, hollow claptrap from nuclear reactor applicants for over 30 years. It's like a chronic smoker developing emphysema, but continuing to smoke anyway because of a fervent hope that a cure will be found before he dies. Some plan, huh?

    Even if the hurdle of NIMBY politics can be overcome to create a permanent storage site for waste, the capacity for such repositories won't be infinite. This will be an ongoing issue and concern.

    Until a plan is developed on how to permanently deal with nuclear waste, I say that there should be a moratorium on the building of all new reactors. In addition, aging plants should not have their operating permits extended, particularly if they no longer have the means to safely store depleted rods.

    Remember folks: Japan's radiation threat is coming from spent nuclear rods that were supposedly tucked away safely in storage pools.

    I repeat: Ignoring the issue of dealing with nuclear waste does not make the problem go away.
    Last edited by Frankie's Market; March 22nd, 2011 at 11:30 AM.
    This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

  7. #32

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    All the nuclear waste in the world should be dumped in Texas.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    K-Town
    Posts
    2,497

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    When speaking of Nuclear Energy.......

    there is simply no humanitarian, defensible position for the tragic, LONG TERM consequence of an accident, regardless if the source/cause of the accident is tsunami, human error, design flaw, locational ignorance, Act of God, Mother Nature, Father Time, Zeus, Mohammed, or yo Momma!!!!!!

    The alternatives are....

    TOO NUMEROUS
    TOO PERFECTLY SUITED TO THE INDIVIDUAL LOCATOINS
    EXCEPTIONALLY VARIETAL FROM SUN, WIND, WATER, MAGNETICS
    FAR LESS GOVERNMENTALLY INTRUSIVE
    COMPLETELY SMALL SCALE PORTABLE AND LARGE SCALE INDUSTRIAL

    The Grid will die a slow death in MY lifetime.
    From my Summer of Love perspective, I'd bet the farm on it.
    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  9. #34

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Tokyo tap water unsafe at 2x the safe level for radioactive iodine: one of the largest cities in the world, over 13 million people, without safe tap water.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever I am, I'm there
    Posts
    3,198

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frankie's Market View Post
    In the meantime, none of the pro-nuclear energy proponents have been able to address the very real issue I brought up in post #9. What the heck are we going to do with all the nuclear waste that continues to accumulate, even as we speak?
    The US' growing nuclear waste problem.
    Peace, Love, and Local Grindz

    People who form FIRM opinions with so little knowledge only pretend to be open-minded. They select their facts like food from a buffet. David R. Dow

  11. #36

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalalau View Post
    Tokyo tap water unsafe at 2x the safe level for radioactive iodine: one of the largest cities in the world, over 13 million people, without safe tap water.
    And, "Authorities said above-safety radiation levels had been discovered in 11 types of vegetables from the area, in addition to milk and water."
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Oahu now part of the traffic problem in lower Puna
    Posts
    8,415

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    maybe we should be looking at not if we need nuclear energy and not if we should be going green, but more at reducing our need for electricity in general.

    when I was a kid anyone with handheld electronic gadgets was considered a geek. At home the only electronic device to do homework with was an electric typewriter (as opposed to the good old Underwood manual typewriter). We had one phone and it was wired near the kitchen. We had one tv set.

    Now the most common electrical device is the power strip because we need to plug in more and more devices!
    Life is what you make of it...so please read the instructions carefully.

  13. #38

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Butterfly mutations blamed on Japanese nuclear leaks (StarBulletin):

    The results show the butterflies were deteriorating both physically and genetically, with the share of those showing abnormalities increasing from 12 percent in the first generation to 18 percent in the second and 34 percent in the third.

    The researchers also demonstrated the effects of internal exposure to radiation by feeding leaves from plants from the area near the Fukushima nuclear plant to the butterfly larvae.

    "The possible risk of internal exposure from ingestion should be investigated more accurately in the near future," it said.
    So proof is finally coming about on the dangers of ingesting food that has been exposed to radiation.
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Question Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amati View Post
    Butterfly mutations blamed on Japanese nuclear leaks (StarBulletin):
    So proof is finally coming about on the dangers of ingesting food that has been exposed to radiation.
    As far as I know only the Bulbuls eat Monarch butterflies, both the butterfly and the larva (caterpillar). Since Monarchs are trans-continental, it is in our interest to eliminate Bulbuls, right?

    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Unhappy Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leo Lakio View Post
    You are forgetting the partial meltdown at Fermi 1 in 1966, the Windscale fire in 1957, the "incidents" at Chalk River, and dozens of other accidents that have led to radiation leaks, fuel-rod damage, long-term shutdowns, and fatalities. Yes, fatalities: Charleston, RI, 1964; Buenos Aires, 1983; Tokai-mura, 1999. There have been many more incidents than just Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and that's just the civilian-operated reactors.
    Thank the Internet for Leo!

    I have never even heard about these other radioactive leaks!

    Every gain has its payback, and we can not forget that.

    Nothing is free - not even freedom.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Matapule, I am with you on the restrictions on placement and operation of nuclear plants.
    Unfortunately, since you have ME on 'ignore it's not something we can discuss - but I am aligned with your views.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  17. #42

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amati View Post
    Butterfly mutations blamed on Japanese nuclear leaks (StarBulletin):



    So proof is finally coming about on the dangers of ingesting food that has been exposed to radiation.
    Is that why the price of poke is high?

  18. #43

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    My error again, it is StarAdvertiser. At least I am consistant.
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  19. #44

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Some of the larger atmospheric weapons tests raised levels of radioactive Strontium

    to alarming levels. Strontium is very close to Calcium in it's chemistry and
    the element can be placed in the bodies skeletal structure.
    The studies conducted on the Lapp peoples confirmed that the caribou /reindeer
    had eaten much contaminated food.
    Last edited by lensperson; August 23rd, 2012 at 12:14 AM.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Centered - sides are for suckers
    Posts
    1,527

    Default Nuclear energy - safe and beneficial!

    That reactor-in-the-sky has been bathing our planet with nuclear energy since before life on Earth began, can you get any safer or more beneficial than that?
    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kahalu`u Stream
    Posts
    2,933

    Unhappy Nuclear energy - safe and beneficial (at times)

    Quote Originally Posted by salmoned View Post
    That reactor-in-the-sky has been bathing our planet with nuclear energy since before life on Earth began, can you get any safer or more beneficial than that?
    Beneficial, yes. We couldn't life without it. Literally. We can also harvest its heat and photovoltaic power.

    However, the sun is currently causing skin cancer, retinal degradation, and our doctors advise shielding our skin and eyes with hats, clothes, eye shades and sunscreens. We don't have to worry about meltdowns (currently and seemingly), but I just heard of another supernova in a distant galaxy. Too distant for us to see by eye.

    Perhaps no benefit comes cost-free. Guns protect us and threaten us. Politicians help us up and let us down. Cars transport us and kill and injure us in a number of ways (crashes, pollution, pedestrian accidents). Even sweet freedom allows terrorists to kill, maim and destroy.

    Every benefit has a cost. No easy way.
    Be Yourself. Everyone Else Is Taken!
    ~ ~
    Kaʻonohiʻulaʻokahōkūmiomioʻehiku
    Spreading the virus of ALOHA.
    Oh Chu. If only you could have seen what I've seen, with your eyes.

  22. #47

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    An interesting alternative to this scenario are Thorium based reactors.

    This element needs to be bombarded with a neutron beam to be fissile but as soon
    as the beam turns off it stops doing its thing.

    Thorium Oxide is a component of Coleman camp lantern mantles.

    The term "being in the limelight" stems from the early use of Calcium Oxide
    lamps to illuminate the stage .

    The design of radio tubes was influenced by these elemental design factors.

  23. #48

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    West Coast Babies Suffer Thyroid Problems After Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown
    by SOURCE on APRIL 8, 2013 ∑ 0 COMMENTS
    in CALIFORNIA, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, OCEAN BEACH, WORLD NEWS


    Children born in Pacific coastal states in 2011 may be at greatest risk.

    By Anne Hurley / msn Healthy Living / April 4, 2013

    Itís already well known how devastating the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown was for Japan ó dramatic spikes in radiation-related illnesses, an increase in likely cancer deaths over the next several years, and pollution which may never truly be cleaned up.

    A new study suggests what many worldwide have feared ó that the devastation from the traveling radiation has in fact sickened infants in other countries, including babies born shortly after the incident in Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California.

    The study, conducted by scientists with the Radiation and Public Health Project, found that babies born shortly after the incident were 28 percent more likely to suffer from congenital hypothyroidism than were children born in those states during the same period one year earlier. In the rest of the U.S., which received less radioactive fallout, the risks actually decreased slightly compared with the year before.

    The explosions produced the radioisotope iodine-131, which floated east over the Pacific Ocean and landed through precipitation on West Coast states as well as other Pacific countries. The levels of that isotope were measured in levels hundreds of times greater than supposedly safe levels. Radioactive iodine accumulates in human thyroid glands, and, in babies and fetuses, the radiation can stunt the growth and development of both the body and the brain. That condition is congenital hypothyroidism (which, luckily, is treatable when and if detected early).

    Fukushima fallout appeared to affect all areas of the U.S., and was especially large in some, mostly in the western part of the nation, the study said. Even worse, other conditions affecting babies born in that time frame may have been caused or worsened by Fukushima, the researchers said.

    ď[State and federal] health departments will soon have [data] available for other 2010 and 2011 indicators of fetal/infant health, including fetal deaths, premature births, low weight births, neonatal deaths, infant deaths, and birth defects.Ē

    Scary? You bet. But information is power. If you have a baby born in March or April 2011 and you live on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. (or other Pacific countries), ask your pediatrician to test your child for congenital hypothyroidism ó and anything else he or she believes could have been caused by radiation.

  24. #49

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Kalalau, thank you for that important heads up!

    Side note: A reply to an online article about it reminds us that it does not mean 28% of children will develop the problem. Someone kindly do the math .... according to Medscape:
    The incidence of congenital hypothyroidism, as detected through newborn screening, is approximately 1 per 4000 births.
    So what number is a 28% increase (how many per 4000 births)?

    I'm not suggesting that the radiation has not been an environmental disaster, but I think the article/study has a hint of being purposely panic-inducing, since it does not put the stats into perspective of overall actual numbers.
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  25. #50

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    If my math is right it looks like the chance of having a baby with the condition rises from .025 % to .032 %. Not a very large chance but everything is statistics. If there is one problem there may be another one connected or one that will show up a few years down the line. Thousands of people who did not die immediately at Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Chernobyl died years later. Not all the radioactive isotopes are horribly dangerous, some are only mildly dangerous, some have half lives of a few days or months, some have half lives in decades or centuries. Its nice to keep that kind of stuff out of the food you eat or the air you breathe. I understand that the private insurance industry does not issue policies for nuke plants because though the risk of something going wrong is small the negative financial impact is so astronomical if something does go wrong that it is not a financially reasonable insurance risk. So the tax payers are responsible. What a nightmare liability issues could be, imagine bankrupted parents suing for restitution. But then tobacco companies and asbestos companies got off the liability hook for decades but finally got held responsible, maybe nuke plants will some day, too.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •