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

Certainly the Climate Change will be devastating in many ways but the health of the planet shouldn't be compromised too much. I am sure we are much better off with more CO2 in the air than more Nuclear plants. Nuclear and other waste are far more dangerous than Global Warming gases.

2007-07-19 02:42:21 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Global Warming

12 answers

Nuclear energy is actually a safe and viable source of energy. Nuclear waste can be contained and recycled. Where as CO2 and other gases are nearly impossible to contain. People fear nuclear energy but most times their fears are based on misinformation.
Nuclear energy is the best chance we have at making a significant reduction in green house gas emissions. Coal burning power plants are the most commonly used power plants in the US and they are far and away the biggest source of CO2 emissions.
Other alternatives like wind, solar, and water powered plants are very very expensive and very inefficient. It's not possible to rely on these sources as our main souce of energy.


Edit: Just so you know... reducing your own personal energy use does nothing except lower your bill. Energy companies always produce a surplus in order to prevent brown outs. This energy is not stored up if it isn't used.
I had a hard time accepting it when I found out but sadly one person really does not make a difference (at least in this case).

2007-07-19 03:07:33 · answer #1 · answered by Gwenilynd 4 · 4 1

Most nuclear power plants are absolutely safe. The whole reason Chernobyl happened was the fact they didn't follow the guidelines and many of them weren't trained professionals. Plus Chernobyl and Three Mile Island happened a while ago, technology has improved tremendously.

Global climate change is a serious problem. The last time our levels of CO2 were a fraction as high as they were now an Ice age occurred. CO2 levels have never been this high in all recorded/known data. So I think it's time to be a little more green.

2007-07-19 05:03:10 · answer #2 · answered by nniethm 1 · 1 0

It's a good point that you make and I guess it comes down to one of balance.

If we look at the record of the nuclear industry it is by and large a good one. There have been disasters such as Chernobyl but thye consequences of this almost pale into insignificance when compared to the effects of climate change that have already been witnessed. The World Health Organisation for example has calculated that one person dies every three minutes because of the effects of global warming and one person becomes infected through diseases occasioned by global warming every three seconds.

Sticking with figures from the WHO, Chernobyl was and will be responsible for about 9,000 deaths. You'd need approx 20 Chernobyls a year to equal the number of deaths from global warming. Within 30 years you'd need a Chernobyl every week.

In the worst case scenario 2.5 billion people will need to be relocated due to global warming. That's about 7,500 times the highest estimate of the number that were relocated following Chernobyl.

The thing about global warming is that it affects everyone, about half the world's population won't be affected to any great extent but the other half will. Any nuclear disaster, short of an all out nuclear exchange, is only going to affect a comparatively small number of people.

2007-07-19 08:14:26 · answer #3 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0 0

"Nuclear and other waste are far more dangerous than Global Warming gases."

Incorrect. Nuclear waste can be dealt with by storing it in a secure isolated location. We could even put it back in the same location from which the uranium was mined in the first place.

You don't seem to be aware of the potential consequenes of global warming. The WHO estimates that 150,000 people are already dying worldwide annually as a consequence of global warming, and projects that this number will double by 2030. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melts, sea levels will rise 23 feet. We'll soon be seeing more droughts, heat waves, water shortages, food shortages, etc. If we don't act soon, global warming may increase beyond a point where we can get it under control.

The hazard from nuclear waste pales in comparison.

2007-07-19 05:07:03 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1 0

The problem is that the effects take so long from the time the cause starts. We may already have put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to flood all of Florida. The other problem is how do you measure the "average" temperature of the Earth and if you do how do you not know is a normal swing in climate. Remember we are only talking about 0.5 degrees F here. We may all need swimsuits soon.

2007-07-19 03:09:54 · answer #5 · answered by Brian 1 · 0 0

Because it will cost us huge sums of money.

Moving people away from coasts, changing what farms grow and irrigation systems, replacing things lost to flooding. More here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

The resulting economic Depression will make the 1930s look like good times.

Nuclear power is far less risky. We know how to make safe power plants, we're good at that kind of engineering. We know how to bury the waste safely, it's just a political problem to pick a site.

Scientists have proven this is not a natural cycle.

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

2007-07-19 04:21:24 · answer #6 · answered by Bob 7 · 2 0

i don't understand how huge of a situation international warming is, i oftentimes do not have faith people who tell me that the international is coming to an end and we are all going to die. in spite of the shown fact that, whilst it contains your question, why not attempt to quit it? This sounds only like a controversy that i heard from the republicans approximately stem cells. "medical use for stem cells continues to be 15 years away, which could not help anybody now, so we would desire to constantly not advance investment." i've got faith that replaced into from Missouri. additionally, this ability that Al Gore replaced into suited that international warming is a situation and led to by ability of guy. as unfavorable to the republican place that it flat out would not exist. Why not call George bush the bumpkin?

2016-10-22 01:14:05 · answer #7 · answered by teters 4 · 0 0

The ice will melt ,lakes , rivers will shrink, air pollution making it harder for us to breathe, animals will die, we may destroy our own planet.

Tips to avoid global warming
Change your light bulbs to fluorescent, Try to stop using hot water, raise your house temperature 3 degrees up in the summer & 3 degrees in the winter it will save money to your energy bill, recycle glass,paper,aluminum.

2007-07-19 02:57:15 · answer #8 · answered by Orlando J 3 · 5 1

Because I don't want my Mom's house under ocean water!

2007-07-19 04:30:06 · answer #9 · answered by lisateric 5 · 2 0

Then visit GREENPEACE.ORG

There you will know why we should worry about our planet.


Anyway, God created us stewards of His creation so it's basically our moral responsibility to do our duty because nature nurtures if we nurture nature.

2007-07-19 02:51:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers