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

5 answers

It is one of the components linked to the raising average temperature of the world. By adding a denser gas blanket to the planet it limits radiational cooling trapping heat and energy.

2007-05-28 11:21:10 · answer #1 · answered by mike453683 5 · 0 0

No. Your worst fear is completely unfounded. The only meltdown at a civilian power reactor that had off site effects was unit 4 at Chernobyl (and it's debatable whether that should be classified as a civilian facility) which was a Soviet designed reactor prone to instability (the US had banned reactors of similar design back in the '50's), with no containment structure and a serious design flaw in the control rods. It was also doing a test right in the middle of a Xenon transient that makes the reactor harder to control, when things started to get out of a hand the reactor entered into prompt supercriticality at which point it basically becomes uncontrollable, something that a western reactor (or the other type of Soviet, now Russian reactor which is based on the most common type of western reactor) can't do. The only western civilian power reactor to meltdown was Unit 2 of Three Mile Island which was written off but didn't kill or injure anyone because of the containment structure (which Chernobyl lacked). Since those accidents procedures for operating nuclear power plants have been improved to reduce the chances of another such incident happening (and there are big economic incentives not to meltdown a billion dollar reactor). The old RBMKs still left (a lot of them including Chernobyl have since shut down) have all had significant safety upgrades to make them more controllable (and fix the control rod flaw that caused the Chernobyl meltdown) and are also operating under stricter rules to keep the reactor from entering the hard to control states so even the most dangerous nuclear reactors on the planet will probably never meltdown again. Even if a nuclear power plant did melt down CO2 (cause of most global warming) doesn't exactly burn very well (it's used in fire extinguishers for a reason).

2016-04-01 01:27:06 · answer #2 · answered by Karen 4 · 0 0

U need to read a different book .
The green house gas is only 1.1 % of our atmosphere total.
CO2 the big bad gas Wrong God put plants here to cohabited with us . The plants need CO2 just as much as u do oxygen. The plants are doing a great job of recycling our air.
Methane is even a bigger joke . They publish all kinda of numbers as to how bad it is. Wrong again try to find how they got that data . Methane is a very light gas and is possible 50 miles up,how did they measure it,they didn't. What if there was a large lake of methane high in the atmosphere . It is not . Methane as it gets very high in the atmosphere is oxidized by the intense sun light and oxygen.
so there is still almost no green house gas . That means no global warming.

2007-05-28 11:13:52 · answer #3 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0 0

Well with rising temps come rising sea levels which means loss of coastline so less land to live on, which doesn't bode well for the planet's ever growing population.

Also with changing temps, we will see a shift in agriculture. It will become too hot to grow crops where we grow them now so things will have to shift to cooler areas. This will create food problems and economic problems.

Really high global temps will facilitate the spread of tropical diseases. And we will continue to see more violent storms, like hurricane Katrina.

2007-05-28 10:32:17 · answer #4 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 0 0

this explains it extremely clearly
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/what.html

2007-05-28 10:31:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers