...or is he just in it for the profits from emissions trading and for the accolades?
2007-12-16 16:02:05 · 13 answers · asked by Martin L 5 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Bonnie, I have researched nuclear plant failures, including Chernobyl, and it's pretty clear that the victims of that accident were more the victims of communism than of nuclear power per se.
First, the Chernobyl plant is nothing at all like the plants we have in the west. It was built on a shoestring because the communist government had few resources and little technology to make it safe. Its reactor didn't even have a containment structure around it! Analysts have found at least six system breakdowns that could never have happened in a western-style nuclear plant because western plants simply don't incorporate the same inferior technology into their designs.
2007-12-16 17:22:32 · update #1
Besides the design flaws, the materials and workmanship were suspect also. For example, the plant was constructed with incomplete concrete pours because they were constantly running out of concrete in the middle of pouring a lift. This created seams in the concrete that weakened the structure in a way that would never happen in the west. The concrete shortages were directly caused by the communist system. The fact that they went ahead with the pours despite the shortage was directly caused by a lack of accountability, which was directly caused by the communist system. The fact that there was little concern by the government for the individuals who were most affected by the accident was also a direct result of the communist government.
Hence my statement that the victims of Chernobyl were victims of communism…not victims of nuclear power per se. Got any other examples besides Chernobyl?
2007-12-16 17:22:52 · update #2
Id go for the latter.
2007-12-16 16:04:25 · answer #1 · answered by snakeman11426 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Nuclear power is not without ecological risks, and although nuclear technology is very safe, accidents in nuclear power stations are bound to happen sometime, and with more Nuclear power stations the probability of a Chernobyl scale accident will grow. Unlike other sources of energy, an accident in a Nuclear power station can damage the ecology for many generations.
Another issue is that Uranium is a limited resource, more than oil, so an investment in nuclear technology should be aimed at fusion technology, and not fission technology, and anyway, it would be better in the long run to develop energy technologies that are based on sun, wind, water, hydrogen and bio fuels sources.
2007-12-16 19:28:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nuclear power is safe---- "thousands dead from nuclear radiation" ????? where ??? when??? more people die in the coal and natural gas and mining industry in ONE year than all that have died in the peaceful use of nuclear energy since it's conception over 50 years ago.
2007-12-16 16:24:26 · answer #3 · answered by Bullseye 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that the other forms of power have not been promoted. Once we begin to develop them I think each home can become self-sufficient.
In this case we do not need a form of energy that is as dangerous as nuclear power!
2007-12-17 12:45:46 · answer #4 · answered by B. D Mac 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nuclear power creates radioactive waste which has to be monitored and stored "safely" for hundreds of thousands of years while it breaks down. The system failures at nuclear plants like Chernobyl kill thousands of people and leave generations crippled with various types of cancers and child deformities.
Is that -really- the answer we need for global warming?
Perhaps you might want to research nuclear plant failures and their lasting effects (as seen in National Geographic or the like) as well as the waste produced and its environmental impacts BEFORE you endorse such an unsafe and ecologically damaging source of energy.
2007-12-16 16:13:47 · answer #5 · answered by Bonnie 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think you can still take him seriously. Maybe he'll come around and see the benefits of nuclear power in the future.
2007-12-16 16:58:02 · answer #6 · answered by qu1ck80 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know Al Gore and I can't take him seriously on anything except parenting. He's been a good dad!
2007-12-16 16:10:53 · answer #7 · answered by missingora 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How can you take Gore seriously when he expends more energy than 50 average American families...
2007-12-17 01:57:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He seems to be focusing on demand for energy, not supply of it.
2007-12-16 16:37:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't trust any carbon crusader that still insists on flying and driving a gas guzzler!
Vote for Ed Begley Jr.
2007-12-16 16:05:51 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋