Why "no" to nuclear power?

Question

Candidate Edwards said no new nuclear power plants will be built if he is elected.Can anyone put forth a lucid argument against nuclear power using current design criteria? We have 30+ nuclear power plants being operated at sea with ZERO accidents(Carriers and submarines) If the USN can have a perfect safety record using high school graduates as the operators,do you really think it is that dangerous when compared to global warming being accelerated by the burning of fossel fuels for power generation?

delphi,
I said "using current design criteria",3 mile island was designed in the 1960's.Your argument can be compared to me saying that smoking is ok because the tobacco companies say it is.(that's what they said in the 50's and 60's).

Bert Must Die,
Give yourself a cookie.

delphi,
CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA.FYI Chernobyl melt down was caused by operators violating procedures.Russian power plants of that vintage(Again 1960's) lacked automated protection systems to guard against human error.

Mr.Knowitall,
Thank you for your good answer.Here's a thought:
USN has shown that it can be done safely,why not utilize military power plants to be located on closed military bases.If it takes the mitary mindset to do it correctly,then why not do it that way?
Nuclear waste:OK you've convinced me that global warming is really bad,if I have to choose between setting in the dark or being concerned about the long term storage of spent nuclear fuel,I'll choose the latter.
Edwards "plan" was punitive taxation to force conservation.Will accomplish nothing but crippling the economy.

Answer 1

Environmentalists and Hippies don't like them and lobby against. Ironic, considering using them would help a lot of other causes those people care about.

Thank you crazy liberals for holding back progress

Answer 2

You make a good argument! Let me tell you why I disagree.

In the military you have very strict discipline. The high-school graduates who operate military vessels do so with very complete and expensive training and under very clear instructions and procedures. Breaking these procedures in ways that compromise safety leads to relatively severe punishments.

In the private sector we have no such control. The government agencies who are supposed to be keeping an eye on design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants are really controlled by the industries themselves. And those industries are more concerned with maximizing profits than with the safety of Americans. If you look at the history of nuclear plants being built and operated in the US you see many frightening 'irregularities'. The last plant built in California, for instance, ran THREE HUNDRED PERCENT over budget, one side of it was found to be built with the wrong plans, and after it was built it was found to be sitting on an earthquake fault and so it was never actually opened for business! Many American nuclear plants are running at reduced capacity because of design flaws that could easily have been foreseen.

In Europe, with their 'socialist' philosophy, government regulation works better. But the same problems that led to Chernobyl in the USSR could lead to a similar event here-corruption, lack of regulation, wrongly-ordered priorities. Especially under a president who believes environmental controls on the most polluting industries should be VOLUNTARY!

Another problem, maybe just as bad, is the problem of waste. We still don't know what to do with this stuff. It lasts tens of thousands of years and if we make nuclear power a major power source we will have it coming out of our ears! Again, because of corruption and the profit motive, all the proposals our government makes are to be viewed with suspicion and skepticism because their highest priority is more likely to be the profits of some well-connected company like Bechtel or Halliburton than the safe, economical and permanent solution to the problem.

Answer 3

There is no possible solution to dispose of the toxic waste, It would just pile up and up.. not to mention the high risk of a nuclear meltdown.

Nuclear power will not be ideal as our main source of energy.

Answer 4

No, because of disposial of the waste but we still could build a few until other options are ready. Edwards is an idiot and his opinion means little. Peace

Answer 5

I think they should build at least one in each state. Three in Calif and four in Washington

Answer 6

3 Mile Island. There are far better resources to tap. I agree with Edwards completely on this issue.

Hey Bert up yours. Chernobyl.

Answer 7

cause you is messing with the Universal balances when you make enriched uranium

Answer 8

They only last 30 years and have had multiple accidents.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#power

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu5kfISZH3kABI.FXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5cjhmNXFhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGRDVfMTIxBGwDV1Mx/SIG=12bl19i3v/EXP=1193767583/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident