Jimoslimos said:2) Problems associated with any large scale crop growth - pest/disease control etc.
Zack said:
brian 1, yep, I'm well aware uranium is all around us and that it is one of the most common elements. It exists in sea water,topsoil, dead vegetaion etc.etc.However, the technology to profitably extract it from these components is currently about as far away as faster than light travel.
Sure you resuse some of the spent fuel- what do you with the rest? (btw, there is no such thing as consenual science - its a bad thing, & wikipedia ain't exactly an authoritative objective source)
When you state 'died from nuclear power', do you mean 'radiation sickness'?
It's a bit like saying that no one died from smoking last year. A lot died from smoking related illnesses and lung cancer though. How many people are currently suffering as a result of Mayak and Chernobyl?
shnaek said:What the pro-nuclear people need is for the US or the UK to tell us that we are not allowed have a nuclear power plant. Then watch support for nuclear go through the roof
shnaek said:Seriously though, it helps to debate these issues - and politicians are far from helping the debate progress. When Denmark considered going nuclear the (pro nuclear) government there decided on a referendum. Those against nuclear could not campaign unless they were offering an alternative strategy. The anti-nuclear side won - but they won by presenting the alternatives. I am a bit sick of the 'No-to-everything' brigade in Ireland who don't offer alternatives, just simply say No all the time.
Would you live there?The idea of what's very bad has been hyped out of all proportion. At most 4000 will die as a result of Chernobyl. Those are UN figures not mine. Note that nowhere near 4000 have died as of yet.
How much exactly is there? Compared to what is there 'not that much of it'? I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.With regard to the waste, there's not much of it at all. That's another anti-Nuclear nugget of misinformation. While the waste is harmful there's not that much of it to deal with.
Once you introduce the human factor, there's always the possibility that disasters can happen. People get complacent. Do you not remember this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1479483,00.html It only happened last year and was classified as Level 3 out of 7. How can you be so sure that another meltdown definitely won't happen? It's a very dangerous attitude. I would be interested if you could please site your source for this factAlso Chernobyl is not something that can happen in any modern western power plants. Please do some research and you will realise that such an accident of that scale cannot happen in a western nuclear plant.
umop3p!sdn said:How much exactly is there? Compared to what is there 'not that much of it'? I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.
I wouldn't live in any part of Russia to be honest. I've got a friend who's been to Belarus and is currently on the far side of Russia working in an orphanage there. The conditions there are no better than in Chernobyl hence it's fair to assume that it's deprivation is ruining people's lives in Chernobyl not the fact there was a nuclear accident there at one point.umop3p!sdn said:Would you live there?
I wouldn't. It's not like protecting people from Nuclear waste is even that hard.I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.
umop3p!sdn said:I suppose you wouldn't mind the nuclear waste dump opening up near where you live.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?