English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It seems to me that most Americans carry around a 1950's stereotype of Nuclear Power Plants. Many, ignorantly, site Chernobyl as a valid source of their fears. If there is some sort of confusion, then what is it specifically?

2006-06-20 08:23:59 · 19 answers · asked by Axel 2 in Science & Mathematics Other - Science

19 answers

Ignorance...

2006-06-20 08:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by Raynanne 5 · 0 0

“Why is there still a public fear of Nuclear Power Plants?”

Because a mishap would kill hundreds of thousands if not millions, depending on were the plant is located.

“It seems to me that most Americans carry around a 1950's stereotype of Nuclear Power Plants.”

As supposed to what? Did nuclear plants all of a sudden became non-lethal?

“Many, ignorantly, site Chernobyl as a valid source of their fears.”

I would very much like you to expand on this comment. Why would you say that Chernobyl is not a valid source of fear? If a mishap happens in a nuclear plant the design/location/management of the plant is of no consequence. So please, do explain that.

I would like you to educate me a bit here, because I must admit from your point of view I must be very ignorant on the matter.

“If there is some sort of confusion, then what is it specifically?”

From what you’ve stated the confusion is all yours, you imply that there is no risk inherent in nuclear plants, that there should be no fear of them, that the fear of death by nuclear poisoning or worse having to live with it is of no consequence, that somehow Chernobyl is not or was not an issue, it appears that you’ve never heard of 3 mile island (which by the way is still closed and radioactive enough to kill after 40 years and will be for another 50,000 years) and on and on. The worst part is that it appears you don’t know that you don’t know the subject, and yet pass judgement erroneously.

============

Other related notes on the subject.

Except for a brief period in the 1970's it has always been cheaper to produce electricity by conventional means than from nuclear power.

We currently have over 50,000 tons of spent nuclear material without a home. This material is radioactive and will be radioactive enough to kill for another 50,000 years.

The nuclear plants constructed in the US were originally budgeted at 20 billion dollars, they came in at over 100 billion (in 1960's dollars, at today's rate that would be over 1.5 trillion)

2006-06-20 08:38:56 · answer #2 · answered by Eli 4 · 0 0

There's a valid fear. It's blown out of proportion to the risk, but it's there. Most people know more about the GNP of katmandu, than they do about nuclear physics, or nuclear power generation. Their fear stems from this, and the images of the 9mile islands in the past. The one issue NOT blown out of proportion is the problem of what to do with the radioactive waste. The contaminated equipment needs to be safely handled and transported. Then the question of where to put it? It's a weak point security wise. Twisted people, or terrorists could look to this waste as a source for a radiation weapon.

2006-06-20 08:30:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think mostly its about the fact that people are so scared of the Nuclear bomb. They kept doing all these information packets about this new technology in the 50's. So when they harnessed this new technology to make energy to run cities and counties and all of that, and after a few close calls it really started to scare some people. They way I put it is the fact that lots of different countries now have this nuclear power, but so do we. We also use it to create energy (they probably do too) however its one thing for there to be a big nuclear attack... people die and a war starts. It's quite another for there to be a mistake and lots of people die from a human error because we decided to take nuclear energy and try to use in an non-lethal way.

2006-06-20 08:36:37 · answer #4 · answered by plagueofserenity 1 · 0 0

Because there is still a fear that 3 rivers or Chernobyl can happen again. Both of which didn't happen in the 1950s. Its kind of like the public fear of atomic weapons it hasn't happened in a while but it may happen again and it may happen near you or your family.

But yes I know that atomic weapons are a bit extreme, but the one thing that would perpetuate the fear of a meltdown for me would be human incompetence.

2006-06-20 08:30:56 · answer #5 · answered by psuedopie 1 · 0 0

The fear that there is no way to make the waste products completely safe. I feel as if this fear mongering was brought up by the oil companies to lessen the countries deopendence on oil

howver Nukes are making a comeback as a green fuel

2006-06-20 08:30:36 · answer #6 · answered by Aaron G 2 · 0 0

If people have any true understanding of others in this world and they aren't keeping themselves in a box, then this is what i think...
So many people i see every day ...think rules , regulations, etc. are not to be taken seriously. they think we worry too much and everything will bbe o k, like yesterday, and the day before.
I've seen perople risk the safty of many with their ignorance.
Example: In Illinois, the plant in Illiopolis formally known as Bordins , then memosa? year after year i listened to stories of employees clocking in taking one look at gages then going home (still on the clock)
they'd come back and look at the gages again.....
once a few years before their great boom, they had a melt down, no explosion . took 3 months to clean that reactor.
same sight...workers would put pipes in place to fill train cars with product, lay down to sleep with their arms in side the train cars. when they'd get full they'd feel it on their arms and hands. then shut off valve and continue their tasks.
now they had enough sleep to party that night.
the explotion they had sent a section of the plant 5 miles away!
There's a plaque in the town on main street that states"to this point were your standing is 2 miles from the plant. If the containment ball were to blow, there will be a 14 foot hole for two miles around the center of the explotion sight. windows in springfield,Ill. and Decature Ill. will bow out"
something along that line
then word has it that depending on the time of year,when grain elevators are full, pipelines running,A.D.M. plants and other factories in the area would add to the explotion and kill radious....
something to think aqbout isn't it.
I went on a tour in a coal mine in Illinois in early 1992.
down in the tunnels I saw employee after employee smoking,, we all know or have heard about explosions in mines.........
In factories that i have worked I have watch many very large amounts of chemicals go down the drains to save $ that would have to be spent on truck recoveries,
I watched a white color worker report it to the epa,then get fired and there was a building built over the sight were the dumping continued
so many more stories i could tell...
then with terorists.....our country thinks their safe....not
we americans have a false sence of that.
just like the joke"War on Drugs"

Final word: People want to do things the easy way
terrorist..if they want to....they willl
accidents do happin

sleep tight

2006-06-20 08:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by Edward B 1 · 0 0

A nuclear plant is a nuclear bomb, but under a different heading in the patent office.

If a nuke goes off, any sharks within a 375 mile radius will evolve three times as fast and soon they'll have legs. THE SHARKS WILL HAVE LEGS DAMM IT!!!

2006-06-20 08:38:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Its in no way a foul theory for community, State & Federal Governments to prepare for such activities, whether they ensue some distance lots extra not often than issues like terrorism, organic failures etc. With asserting that, in case you're only attempting to stall a probable nationwide capacity coverage..recover from it.

2016-10-31 04:55:11 · answer #9 · answered by zubrzycki 4 · 0 0

no. it is because there is still a valid reason to fear them.

they are no where near as safe as they claim, and are always going to be giant nuclear bombs waiting to blow.

even if the blast does not kill you, the radioactive cloud can carry for thousands of miles, and wipe out everything in its path.

albeit they are much safer than in the past, there is always going to be a chance that one can overload, and a series of events can lead to catastrophe

2006-06-20 08:28:08 · answer #10 · answered by sobrien 6 · 0 0

i dont know why people fear them so much...my dad works in one and they really are VERY VERY SAFE!!!!!! i think that most people fear them because they are not informed about them....people all just assume the they will all lead up to the next 3 mile island event...but 3 mile island was an event that is VERY rare to happen....and will probabally never happen in the united states, becaause of all the new safety requirments that are being enforced by the government.

2006-06-20 08:55:29 · answer #11 · answered by Michael 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers