Why are we so anti nuclear power when it has proved to be safer and less polluting than oil?

Question

BEFORE YOU GET HYSTERICAL ON ME do a search on the number of deaths and levels of pollution of the two !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the nuclear waste issue is easy to solve just designate Area 57 a dump ( excellent security , no surface water to contaminate - encapsulate it in a ceramic binder to eliminate air pollution or just cover it with earth and cement - for the real dummies ; radiation has a very short range and doesn't make the air radioactive ) and no i don't care that the spot will be hot for 10,000 years -if we are still around we will know to avoid it

Answer 1

Man this is a hot topic.... hot get the pun hahahhaha. Sorry that was bad.

I should start by saying that I am pro nuclear and I am a nuclear engineer so I am biased one way.

I think part of the reason why people are afraid of nuclear energy is that they don't understand it. Most people don't know what happened at Chernobyl or why it happened, they just know that happened and people died because of it. Also with Three Mile Island (TMI) people know that something went wrong, but they don't understand how wrong it went, what the problem, and how much of a threat it really did or (as was the case) did not present to the general public. Since they don't know the answers they just assume the nuclear is 100% dangerous, which its not. Nuclear energy is dangerous but at the same time we understand it and can control it safely. If we are mature about it, there is little to worry.

Now most people you can reason with. If you have experts sit with these people and talk about what really happened at Chernobyl, TMI, and other accidents, and then explain how nuclear reactors in the US operate now and why they are safe and then consider their questions/concerns, then you can convince most people that it is safe. But if you start by assuming that people are morons, that people will get HYSTERICAL when debating nuclear power, you will just insult them and they won't listen to you. They will be likely to think everything you have to say a lie. The problem is not their lack of knowledge, that can corrected, but it is your impatience and intolerance.

That being said the issue of a geological repository is very complex. As a nuclear who has done research related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel, I can promise you that there is no way to guarantee that any canister will be able to withstand 100,000 years of a harsh radioactive environment, but if you let us do what we want, then can destroy most the of radioactive material in reactors and accelerators so that you only have to store a small fraction of the waste (<5%) for ~100 years.

Answer 2

Half lives of many of the nuclear waste are thousands of years whereas the best insulation we have right now can handle about 100 years. Ask people who live in Nevada about how they feel about all the waste from around the country being dumped into their background. And ah yes don't think there won't be another Chernobyl ever... Even the Japanese came really close to a meltdown.

Answer 3

If radiation had been the only question, then people would not have bothered and there would have been global acceptance for power production. But problem lies in the use of nuclear energy being used for other purposes like making nuclear weapons. Herein lies the objection of world community to prevent people from using them.
VR

Answer 4

The mass of people prefer sloganistic thinking, without looking at the stats. A simple equation of nuclear power and nuclear weaponry prepares them to be scared, and 'environmentalist' propoganda does the rest.
I agree with you - nuclear waste is nasty stuff, but we know that and can take precautions. Fossil fuels have been pouring poison into the environment with few effective checks for decades, and that's somehow preferable!

Answer 5

As a nuclear engineer, I can say that most of the fear of nuclear power stems from ignorance. People simply don't know the correct statistics and act off of a hyper-cautious and irrationally fearful and skewed story fed to them by the media. Also, those biased for the pipe dream known as "renewable energy" (specifically biomass) tend to spread lies about the safe, clean potential nuclear energy offers the world.

Answer 6

i might want to hardly doubt that's safer. besides the very undeniable reality that we are starting to be very sturdy at making both one of those gasoline communities really threat-free, neither is inherently a threat-free thanks to get means. Coal and oil burn, they leak, fires can spread. Coal ought to be mined. Oil ought to be drilled. both are really risky jobs. Nuclear gasoline is radioactive. the technique of having nuclear means comprises a procedure that calls for huge containment and cooling, with out both issues can get very unsafe very immediately. so that you %. which threat you want to tolerate. Coal/oil failures will oftentimes be smaller scope, surely some casualties, yet are more desirable in all probability to ensue. Nuclear failures are a lot more desirable uncommon, yet can take a city off the map, completely.

Answer 7

i don't know about nuclear; but the quicker the oil runs out the better. you cant tell me that there wouldn't be an alternative in the shops the next day. I'm sick hearing about oil as if it were the be and end all

Answer 8

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, caused panic about nuclear power. I agree it is safer now...

Answer 9

The only reason it's "proved" safer is that it is not as prevalent as other power sources.

When it becomes unsafe, its effects are exponentially greater. Have you forgotten Chernobyl or 3-mile Island?

Answer 10

Good one!
The problem lies with this disarmament mania.
Every country tells the other not to stock nukes, so who will?
Tell you what, ask the Indian president at his site!
He'll tell you why.