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

2007-11-02 13:07:28 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Plants don't blow up anymore. They run off of a different type of reaction now. THEY ARE SAFE.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html

2007-11-02 13:10:48 · update #1

If you know why they should say not in my backyard please say so.

2007-11-02 13:14:14 · update #2

New plants can use old waste as fuel and produce non-radioactive waste.

2007-11-02 13:15:02 · update #3

A direct quote from the link.

Any reactor type coupled with a spallation neutron source, even Chernobyl can not have a highly accelerated reaction because there is no longer a complete neutron feedback path. With accelerator reactors no Uranium or Plutonium needs to be wasted or disposed of. The remaining much smaller amounts of fission products can be put into lead covered thick walled copper tubes and placed in deep dry holes under public buildings to provide heat for said buildings with the use of heat pumps, and there will be far more measurable radioactivity from the secretary than from the buried isotopes, and she represents far more danger to life and limb.

2007-11-02 13:17:43 · update #4

You can doubt physics all you want but, that reactor cannot blow up. Read the quote. There is no way to generate an uncontrolled reaction.

2007-11-02 13:20:59 · update #5

Oy, are you really calling the link into question? The science is correct. Should it matter where it comes from?

2007-11-02 13:47:35 · update #6

14 answers

safe huh?
maybe you should do a bacterial sample of the ground around a reactor, and then tell me that they are safe.

oh and btw that is exactly what they thought about every reactor that was every built by the lowest bidder.
The Titanic was also unsinkable.

I agree the benefit does outweigh this risk if a reasonable solution is found for the waste, and the things aren't built by the lowest bidder, but rushing into a new technology with potentially devastating risks, is at the very least stupid and irresponsible.

2007-11-02 13:18:28 · answer #1 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 4 5

Chernobyl was not a power plant, it was a nuclear weapons plant.
Three Mile Island didn't harm anyone outside the power plant.
The Left is the group that opposes nuclear energy, because if the country is healthy, has plenty of power, and a good economy, they will never be able to bring the revolution to us.
That is why you will always see the Left at the heart of any and all strange and disturbing issues. PETA, Greenies, whatever. Normal people are continent to live their lives in peace, the Left is always trying to stir up trouble. If they can cause enough trouble they can seize power, like Chavez in Venezuela.

2007-11-02 13:30:08 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 3 3

It used to be so many people protested and elected in office others that felt the same way. Today i am not so sure.No one wants them in their area is the main problem i think.

2007-11-02 13:17:42 · answer #3 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 2 0

It's astounding to me to see how quickly people blame George Bush, conservatives and evil corporations for the failure to utilize nuclear power. This was a pet issue of the left in the '60s and '70s who were determined that those evil Republicans weren't going to poison us with radiation in the name of greed. I don't mind people having a position, but get your facts straight.

2007-11-02 13:31:06 · answer #4 · answered by J P 7 · 2 3

For Luis Echávarri, Director-General,
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, these
doubts should be put to rest indeed.

I still disagree.

The maintenance of Nuclear Energy is risky
and has incalculable collateral costs.
Regardless of the fact that we have
been trained to take such risks.

2007-11-02 13:21:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

You can just make sure you bury the Nuclear waste in your backyard for your children and grandchildren to dispose of in the future.
If they are so safe why do they have to bury the waste so far under the ground in the middle of nowhere in safe containers.

2007-11-02 13:13:17 · answer #6 · answered by molly 7 · 7 3

We should be building hundreds of new nuclear plants.

Remember the Jimmy Carter skit on Saturday Night Live where Garret Morris is a cleaning lady and gets locked in three mile island with President Carter? Hilarious.

2007-11-02 13:16:05 · answer #7 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 3 5

Because whenever they talk about building a new one the local citizens say "Not in my Backyard" and they should

2007-11-02 13:11:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8 3

cause GE finds it cheaper to burn filthy coal...Pluss the ones we DO have never inform the locals of any problems or events.

2007-11-02 13:11:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Agreed. If we are not going to build any more refining plants and not extract our own oil that is about all that is left. If we really want to be free of importing oil.

2007-11-02 13:13:58 · answer #10 · answered by rance42 5 · 4 6

fedest.com, questions and answers