To what extent is nuclear technoogy a danger to life on Earth?

Question

What are the benefits and risks associated with its use?

Answer 1

It's not that much of a danger.

Oh sure, everything carries some risk but when you actually look at the history of nuclear technology and the physics behind it you start to see that it's pretty safe compared to most of the other things we do on this planet, even nuclear accidents can be good for life, e.g. the thriving ecosystem around Chernobyl which was basically a dead zone before the meltdown.

The biggest danger is not using nuclear technology which would require us to burn fossil fuels and thereby cause global warming. Actually getting rid of it is also likely to create greater incentives to develop nuclear weapons since developing nuclear weapons in a world without them gives one a much bigger advantage over other nations than it does in a world with nuclear weapons.

Answer 2

The danger is due to the extreme toxicity, radioactivity and longevity of radioactive waste if they are ever spread in the atmosphere. Deliberately of accidentally.

Just the other day the Pentagon revealed that armed nuclear weapons had mistakenly been loaded onto an airplane for a flight over mainland USA... The risks with nuclear technology are related to accidents like that and what happened to Chernobyl. If an accident takes place on an oil platform or a coalpowerplant somebody will get hurt. If an accident happens in a nuclear powerplant whole countries can become uninhabitable for centuries. And there is no really good solution for handling the nuclear waste either. Terrorists are always looking for radioactive material to build dirty bombs. Sooner or later they will succeed as the stockpiles of nuclear waste keeps on growing. And it is possible, but not as likely, that they will be able to get their hands on a complete nuke.

Answer 3

We still have problems with first world nuclear power plants - Japan 2-3 folk died last year, Australia and America. In Japan they avoided a major disaster by 3 minutes and alot of heroics.

Google "kid of speed" and take a motor bike ride through Chernobyl by the daughter of one of the head scientists there. The official death toll is 500, the unofficial toll exceeds 300,000.

Fission creates some very nasty by-products - like spend plutonium - that is incredibly nasty and toxic in minute quantities for tens of thousands of years. Once the genie is out of the bottle - a released contaminant - its close to impossible to get it caged.

The US creates about 5000 tonnes of the highest danger toxic waste per annum. We still have no confirmed safe way to hold this by-product for 30,000 years away from all eco-systems or terrorists or earthquakes. In 30,000 years Australia will be pushing Hawaii out of the way. Release high grade waste in a dust and you have a nightmare scenario.

In the gulf war about 3 million depleted uranium (anti tank) round where fired. The national cancer rate is now 300 times higher in women and children that it was in any time leading up to the conflict.

The danger is remote but intense. Its like asking oh but what's the chance of a plane flying into a building - or two planes flying into two buildings. I lost my best friend in that one, terrorist activity does happen. How do you think the US feels about North Korea having plutonium and long range launch capability when it's on China's doorstep and antagonistic to the US foreign policy?

Nuclear has grave risks if you think it through. I'd prefer mega wind power stations (3 tera-watt) be build off-shore - Scientific America last year showed that was the most economical green, energy fabrication source until sustainable cold nuclear fusion can be achieved - maybe by 2040?

Answer 4

No. we don't be able to kill off all existence on earth now and could not for the forseeable destiny. in reality if all humanity united for a century in one great concerted attempt to attempt to wipe off all existence from Earth - with nuclear weapons, chemical compounds, and greater - we probable nonetheless could not do it. existence is solid at surviving and adapting, and that's with basically the top of human conceitedness which you will desire to think of shall we exterminate all our planet's existence, that has developed over billions of years to be extremely resilient. What human beings consult from while they say we've sufficient nuclear firepower immediately to kill off existence on earth many circumstances over, they propose the better orders of existence - maximum great animals and doubtless a competent ingredient of the vegetation too. yet microbial existence, from which the better orders developed, has existed for billions of years, and in promordial environments worse than human beings could desire to create on earth. in reality such bacterial existence exists kilometers deep interior the earth's crust, and with animals in deep-sea fumaroles. bugs and much marine existence could survive a sustained nuclear connect & iciness besides. From those, new bigger orders could upward thrust up back, long after human beings have been long previous. So no, while you're speaking approximately *all* the existence on earth, human beings could not wipe it out whether we tried. We actual could desire to alter it even with the undeniable fact that.

Answer 5

well its the most efficient way to get energy that we know of and its basically safe. the only thing that could pose a threat is nuclear war and a meltdown like at chernobyl.

Answer 6

Benefits: a relatively safe source of power

Risks:People have a tendency to die when subjected to a nuclear blast

Answer 7

remarkably less than oil/coal technooogy.

we are poisoning ourselves by many means, nukular is looking better all the time.

Of course, there are only so many Uranium mines and most of the politicians in Washington don't own stock in them, besides all their friends run oil companies.

Answer 8

neclar technology is not danger to life it is used for better prospect only