Again, why is this country so against using nuclear power?

Question

Please, if you are not educated about nuclear power, if you do not ACTUALLY know the facts about the radiation related thereto do not bother answering, seriously spouting nonsense just makes me mad....but if anyone can make an actual argument against it id be interested, but bring facts to the table not (the nuclear waste will kill us all). it will kill the mideasts oil monopoly, save us some cash, help prevent global warming and a score of other things

even though i tell people not to answer if they dont no what they are talking about they still do...so here are the facts.....3 mile island hurt no one, chernobyl was a disaster because the russians had no dome over their reactor (is manditory in the US, and the domes can EASILY withstand a 747 impact) and the accident in japan was extremely minor, the radiation was very small

also, if you were to take all of the waste from all the reactors ever made you could fit it into a cube approximately 10 meters on a side

Answer 1

Here is a concept - leave the middle east alone! We have the technology to be independent from their oil and the investment in it would cost half of what the war in Iraq costs.
To bombing in any form - Vietnam, a tiny country was bombed with more explosives then everything put out during WW2 and just enforced the resistance. There are 1,8 Billion Muslims in the world, and one nuke into the middle east by the USA and it would be over - for the USA.

Answer 2

ya i don't know all about the facts n stuff, but i thought it was interesting how you included global warming when mentioning the things you didn't want to hear about. why is that? ok im not hippy at all (lol) but did you know that at the speed the earth is 'warming' the san francisco bay area (home of over 6,783,760 people according to the 2000 bay area census) will be UNDER WATER in less than 100 years. the damage and effects of global warming are gonna do much for damage than radiation and nuclear accidents would do, in the long term. the water level is rising so fast, glaciors are melting, the earth's temperature is increasing--all because of NUCLEAR power, gas-guzzling cars, and so many other factors. what's the point of useing nuclear energy [to power homes] if the homes aren't going to be here within a little while. i think you should watch 'inconvient truth' and get some information before you mention it as if it's not as important as the other negatives. think again mate!

Answer 3

Well, I used to live near a nuclear power plant before they shut it down and imploded the cooling tower (which was really cool to watch by the way. - see my Trojan link to view yourself) If you live near a plant, like myself, you have more concerns about safety. Chernobyl? 3-Mile Island? These are my concerns. If they could make it 100% safe against a meltdown then maybe I would be more for it but I have done many hours of research into the operational handling of nuclear plants and many of them have been handled carelessly and human error is always a major risk. Nobody's perfect and it's peace of mind knowing that a nuclear blast won't destroy my entire county and everybody I know including myself.

By the way, when they shut down the plant, I think our energy bill only went up a dollar or so a month. Not worth it.

Also, the disposal of the nuclear waste is a huge dillema, and nobody knows what to do with the stuff. The half life is thousands of years and the place they have been putting the current stuff has been leaking and poisoning the ground and nearby water supplies. Until they can find a viable and cost-effective option for waste disposal, there is no sense in creating the waste.

Edit: Boredatwork: 10x10?! The Hanford site Just one of many:
The site occupies 586 square miles (1,517 km²) in Benton County, south-central Washington, and is approximately eqivalent to half the total area of the state of Rhode Island (centered on 46°30′00″N, 119°30′00″W.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

Answer 4

Because the environmentalists have politicians scared if they even think about pushing nuclear power they will be ousted.

But you have it right --Reality is nuclear power can be safe, clean, CO2 free, and economical. The only problem there has ever really been with nuclear power is the waste disposal. And the solution is quite simple. Fire it into the sun. It will never be noticed there.

Standardization of design would have eliminated both the Three Mile Island and Cyhrnoble (sp?) accidents.

Standardization would reduce the overall costs to build and maintain.

Answer 5

You are totally right. Nuclear power is safe, even the 3 mile island accident was relatively benign (though almost a huge disaster). It's clean, quasi-renewable, and plentiful.

The problem is NIMBY (Not in my back yard). Those giant, ominous smokestacks and the fear that something will go wrong where YOU live keeps folks from approving new reactor-building projects. But as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, the clamor for cheaper energy will become louder than the fear of meltdown and the big oil lobby's fight against it.

In 75 years, there'll be fission plants EVERYWHERE.

Answer 6

Florida has 6, Switzerland has 5, California has 1, Japan has 12, most of Europe has them.

It is the cheapest form of electricity and the only power that has zero emission. If the USA used almost exclusively nuclear power the number of children and adults sickened by asthma would drop drastically.

Atavacron, what are you on? There is no 'emission' of radioactive waste, 3 Mile emitted less than Radon which may be under YOUR house. "Heavy water"? In Europe, they discharge the 'water' into rivers. Here, they contain the 'water'. which is clean enough to swim in. Cleaner than most lakes and rivers.

Three Mile Island is often mentioned by these scared people. Fact is that not a single plant, aminal, or insect was harmed by Three Mile Island, IT WAS CONTAINED and the amount of radiation that escaped that day was LESS than the Radon under many people's homes.

Americans would rather have their kids sick. Fear is the reason the USA does not have more. Irrational fear.

Answer 7

It won't help jack not to mention the risk to people in the event of an accident or worse, all the other prices will just go up. To make ethenol the price of corn is going to go through the roof and prices for fuel will remain the same or go up, probably the latter of the two. Plain and simple it would be more cost efficient if everyone made their own electricity! We only have alternating current because direct current can not be transmitted very far, but if you made it on the spot at home it wouldn't have to be transmitted at all and you could just make enough for your own personal use, I make it all the time! I prefer free electricity over paying for it, fuel is another story, I use very little of it! P.S. you can't run your vehicle on nuclear energy.

Answer 8

Well massive use of Nukes would bring a nuclear winter or a nuclear summer. If we were to fall into a nuclear winter ( were temperture drops because of this use of nukes) the worst case scenario the Chinese, Indians, and Pakistani's start freezing to death because they don't have enough oil to heat their homes up. Then their militaries will confront us in the Middle-East for oil. Starvation will be rampant. We will seal our own fate if we do fire any Nuclaer weapon beacuse any non-friendly Nuclear capable countries will retaliate. Note that this was a wrost case scenario released by the government a few years ago.

Answer 9

You don't say which country your are writing about. In the US we have nuclear plants producing electricity. There is a company in Southwestern PA that is going to build a nuclear plant.
The problems with nuclear are demand for electricity, tree huggers, the Democrat party.
For the most part, we have adequate electric power right now. It takes 10 years and 10 billion to build a plant of any kind.
George Bush once suggested that closed military basis be used for nuclear plants or oil refineries. He got shouted down in a heart beat.

Answer 10

The only negative I see is the grid. The grid gives control to a large group, namely lobbyists and the government. I'm fine with the, uh, risk or whatever, and am all for cutting the pursestrings of the fertile crescent. I blog about it at spinornospin.blogspot.com (full disclosure - I am not paid to blog, but the ad is sponsored). I am for individual rights, and things like solar and wind power. If we HAD to do big power, I agree that nukes are the way to go. BUT, I'd rather be self reliant. I know we already put a bunch of money into infrastructure, but I'd rather just let it die, like mainstream media should. :)