i have heard the USA justifying having Nuclear energy saying it is the cleanest one but they do not have where to put all the waste . how can it be clean if any place the waste is put on will be contaminaed forever ???
2006-06-19 15:05:09 · 6 answers · asked by game over loves evanescence 6 in Environment
for those who think the goverment will find the best place to put the waste and that we have 25 000 years to find a place to put it i would like to let u know that the American goverment once put their waste near a 1 million people Mexican city causing the deaths of many new borns .
2006-06-20 11:06:49 · update #1
Nuclear reactors are not totally clean, but the volume of waste is so small that it is all currently being stored at the power plants. Just imagine trying to catch and store all the coal smoke at a coal fired power plant! The amount of nuclear waste is truly, astonishingly small. We do have a place and the know how-to bury it safely, but the anti-nuclear groups have the political power to prevent anyone from actually burying it there. While some of it will remain radioactive for thousands of years, it isn't forever. Anyway, we are not increasing the world radioactivity, we are digging radioactive ore from mines, using it in nuclear reactors and then burying the radioactive ash back in the ground.
2006-06-20 08:00:17 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The USA uses less nuclear energy than most western countries. France for instance uses much more.
Nuclear energy pruduces many thousands of times lower volume of waste than burning coal or oil. However the waste is more difficult to deal with.
And of course, no waste will be dangerously radioactive for ever, just a long, long, long time.
If you are going to continue to use electricity, drive or ride in a car, use any modern manufactured item, then you are consuming energy that must come form somewhere and will have some downside. The question then, is which energy source/sources give the most overall value with the least downside. Many people believe nuclear energy is the choice because of the small waste stream and enormous power potential.
2006-06-19 15:19:17 · answer #2 · answered by enginerd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear energy is cleaner than natural gas, which is very clean. Like you said, thewaste is the problem. Also, one small mistake at a nuclear plant can be devestating for years.
2006-06-19 15:09:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Radioactive contamination is defined as radioactive material someplace it is not supposed to be. When our government finally decides to meet it's promise to take the nuclear waste and bury it in an appropriate place, it will be right where we want it and therefore no contamination will exist.
2006-06-19 15:30:50 · answer #4 · answered by lunatic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well it is cleaner than other power sources, but they are all dirty. if you want to make a real enviromental choice, choose natural gas over electric. electric energy is way more poluting than natural gas due to the fact that electricity has to have so much more work put into it, while natural gas is basicaly dig it and leave it.
the waste is realy only bad for like 10,000 years. just give us time untill we can get fusion power worked out. untill then, we will just have to settle for fission and combustion power.
2006-06-19 16:39:57 · answer #5 · answered by cronos51101 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not forever.....it has a half life of 25,000 years......lol
2006-06-19 15:08:04 · answer #6 · answered by tattie_herbert 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋