# Nuclear Power - Should we use it?



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

In your opinion, is nuclear power safe to use, and should we even be using it in place of other resources?


----------



## LostInMyOwnMind (May 5, 2010)

In the short term, yes we should. It is a better alternative to burning fossil fuels. I’ve lived in the shadow of a nuclear power plant most of my life and quite frankly never give it a second thought. In the long term no, we need to find other alternative sources of energy which are not immediately available today. The problem herein lies; if we can worry about it tomorrow, we will. Using nuclear energy would postpone the immediate need and ease our urgency to find alternative sources. Necessity is the mother of invention.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

yes- I think we need to diversify our energy sources so we aren't so dependent on petroleum. Also other energy sources cause more deaths than nuclear does.


----------



## Zic (Dec 30, 2009)

Only in the short term, as a "transitional fuel", to help us cope with depletion of petroleum and gas. In the long term, however, I'd like to see wind and solar power plants instead of nuclear ones.


----------



## kexx (Nov 24, 2010)

LostInMyOwnMind said:


> In the short term, yes we should. It is a better alternative to burning fossil fuels. I’ve lived in the shadow of a nuclear power plant most of my life and quite frankly never give it a second thought. In the long term no, we need to find other alternative sources of energy which are not immediately available today. The problem herein lies; if we can worry about it tomorrow, we will. Using nuclear energy would postpone the immediate need and ease our urgency to find alternative sources. Necessity is the mother of invention.


You took the words from my mouth. Nuclear energy is defiantly the way to go while we find better alternatives. That doesn't mean if we institute the use of nuclear energy, that we should ignore current research in the field of alternative energy. I also think there is a decent amount of misunderstanding due to past nuclear accidents. When I've talked about the possibility of nuclear energy with people they seem to get very nervous and start talking about Chernobyl. The accident there was caused by workers purposely turning off the safety mechanism during some testing. Safety regulations in nuclear factories now are much higher than back then due to these blunders. Mistakes happen in every field. That's how they improve. The death rate in anesthesiology used to be extremely high due to human error and has decreased greatly by creating ways to avoid this, such as check lists.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

As long as proper safety precautions are taken and nuclear waste is properly disposed, then yes. But as others have said, it should only be used to buy us time.


----------



## noz (Dec 7, 2009)

statistically, its very safe. you cant even blame the technology for Chernobyl because negligence was implicated there.

problem is even though its safe, its scary as fuck to have the prospect looming over your head that your entire countryside might end up irradiated for 80 years if something does go wrong.

but again, its like if they do what they are supposed to, a meltdown is like unheard of.

the biggest issue with nuclear is what to do with the useless uranium cake after the fact. I say we get a giant, magnetic slingshot and start hurling it into the sun. it wont mind, it'd just be more fodder for later!


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

noz said:


> the biggest issue with nuclear is what to do with the useless uranium cake after the fact. I say we get a giant, magnetic slingshot and start hurling it into the sun. it wont mind, it'd just be more fodder for later!


:crazy:

It would be cool if we could find a use for it...


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

Given the amount of waste produced and the associated risks of nuclear weapons I'd say it is not perfect, but it is the least bad option. Alternative energy is not yet economically or in some cases technologically viable. Unless of course we are discussing nuclear fusion, which could be something of a panacea, if we can ever get it working.


----------



## absent air (Dec 7, 2010)

somehow im not really comfortable with this thread....


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

We have no choice. We need it to bridge the gap between our past and our future. Nuclear power has its disadvantages, but those are controllable and IMNSHO less than those of fossil fuels. We must keep in mind however that the natural resources of fissionable materials are strictly limited. 
Contrary to popular belief fission is not an unlimited energy source. Fusion would be, provided its based on hydrogen and not helium but that is a long way off yet.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

Zic said:


> Only in the short term, as a "transitional fuel", to help us cope with depletion of petroleum and gas. In the long term, however, I'd like to see wind and solar power plants instead of nuclear ones.


This basically sums up my thoughts. I think that nuclear fission is possibly the best short-term energy solution we have available, but its use should be limited such that the eventual, inevitable transition to a more permanent solution is less painful.


----------



## katzel (Dec 15, 2010)

Yes it should be used, but it should be used for limited purposes like power generation and reserve force of weapons. Overuse of nuclear power could result in catastrophic problems later on as well as give arms to potentially tyrannical individuals who would love to use nuclear power and technologies for their own personal agendas and personal gain.


----------



## Ikrash (Dec 19, 2010)

yes because its a must need for every country


----------



## Harley (Jul 5, 2009)

Zic said:


> Only in the short term, as a "transitional fuel", to help us cope with depletion of petroleum and gas. In the long term, however, I'd like to see wind and solar power plants instead of nuclear ones.


Well let's hope if we do transition to wind and solar power, they are _vastly_ improved in the future because, as of now they *SUCK* in terms of providing huge sources of energy to large populations.


----------



## OxidativeCleavage (Dec 27, 2010)

Nuclear power is not a reliable method for sustainable energy because of the complications and cost associated with long term storage of nuclear waste... the waste could - literally - take millions of years to decompose naturally.. and with population and consumption growth comes increased need for energy that is truly renewable and "green" which nuclear power unfortunately is not.. 

Scientists are simply unable to provide any certainty related to the safety of the long-term storage of nuclear waste at this time and engineering cannot accurately predict the structural integrity of storage facilities that will have to hold up for time periods that span - literally - millions of years.. the geological considerations alone are beyond our predictive capabilities nevermind designing something that would have to withstand rises and falls in human civilization and governments/natural disasters (meaning that they would have to be able to function without human management for extended periods of time (possibly thousands of years if natural disasters make accessing the facility impossible).. 

So in the end it comes down to how responsible we want to be for future generations... if we don't care about the future generations then nuclear power is a viable and "sustainable" option because problems with major governments breaking down, and natural disasters etc are less likely in the short term but (if we look at history) become nearly a certainty when the time scale is stretched out over millions of years...


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

sarek said:


> We have no choice. We need it to bridge the gap between our past and our future. Nuclear power has its disadvantages, but those are controllable and IMNSHO less than those of fossil fuels. We must keep in mind however that the natural resources of fissionable materials are strictly limited.
> Contrary to popular belief *fission is not an unlimited energy source*. Fusion would be, provided its based on hydrogen and not helium but that is a long way off yet.



Actually that is technically incorrect if one considers breeder reactors.


Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


However, I still agree with the general consensus that nuclear fission is a necessary evil and should only be used until better alternatives can be developed.


----------



## OxidativeCleavage (Dec 27, 2010)

perennialurker said:


> Actually that is technically incorrect if one considers breeder reactors.
> 
> 
> Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Breeder reactors are more efficient since they produce about 25-35% more fuel than they take in - but they are also more dangerous to both the environment and national security.... They still produce radioactive waste and have a much higher risk for radioactive exposure/accidents because the fuel has to be reprocessed and they use sodium as the coolant which is a huge fire hazard!

Moreover they are not completely renewable either... 
So,
Unfortunately for the aforementioned reasons they aren't a viable solution to our energy problems at this time..


----------



## prufrok (Nov 28, 2008)

We should definitely increase our usage of nuclear power as an energy source. Hopefully one day we can move from fission to safer, less potentially dangerous forms of nuclear power, but I think we have to start at where we currently are technologically speaking. Managed properly nuclear waste is far less of a detriment to the environment than energy sources such as coal and petroleum.


----------



## Teigue (Jun 8, 2010)

I've always felt it should be used more often. There is room for improvement of course, but that can only happen if the industry utilized.


----------



## Sir Monocle (Jan 8, 2011)

Nuclear power is never safe, but it is something that I see as necessary for the technology based civilization of this planet. We need more an more energy all the time, and this will only keep increasing unless technology stops being used, something which i doubt. I just hope they go and mine that helium-3 from the moon sooner.


----------



## RocketMikari (Feb 14, 2011)

I think it can be used... carefully, very carefully.


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

Uranium Is So Last Century

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. but with Thorium-based nuclear power. IMO Thorium is the energy industry's most valuable secret.

"Imagine how the nuclear energy debate might differ if the fuel was abundant and distributed across the world; if there was no real possibility of creating weapons-grade material as part of the process; if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years; and if the power stations were small and presented no risk of massive explosions.

What you're imagining could fairly soon be reality judging from a little-noticed development in China last month.

Two years ago, as part of the Manchester Report, a panel of experts assembled by the Guardian selected nuclear power based on thorium rather the uranium as one of the 10 most promising solutions to climate change."


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

yes.. but it gets into the issue of militarization.. i.e Iran is trying to develop some form of nuclear energy plants, and everyone's all up in arms about nuclear weapons.. as if they think they can even sustain a nuclear war for 1 hour..


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

Until fusion gets going, yes.


----------



## DarklyValentine (Mar 4, 2010)

Yes we should
Why - its cheaper and safer than poising mother earth and fueling mulit conglomerates with gold bullion


And fooking the climate(which I shall no go into here specially from you right wing nut naysayers)
any thoughts on liquid fluoride thorium? Anyone know what I am spaking of
Methinks not.. clueless conjectures cross my desk oft.

Clearly a superior means – without the proliferation of weapons and therefore viable for those fooking nutty Islamic nations who bull whip their bitches


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

No we shouldn't use it!
Lets burn the rest of the oil and walk back into the stone age.


----------



## Bunker Man (Jan 4, 2011)

Yes. Next question?


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

*Fission chips*

You can always trust the arrogance of the human species to exceed all expectations. 
Despite thousands of individual nuclear accidents across the globe, untold thousands of deaths and fatal cancers, plus the vast areas of land laid waste forever because of radioactive contamination (contamination that'll still be toxic to man in a couple of hundred of million years when the sun explodes into a red giant and the word really ends), there's still this risible assertion trotted out by people that we know what we're doing and everything is under control. 

A safe fission reactor can exist in only one place - on paper. Sure the whizz-kids can theorise a 'perfect' design, the problems start when that abstract design is turned into reality. There can never, ever be such a thing as a 'safe' reactor, because every approved (or not-so-approved) vendor in the construction, configuration and maintenance chain is an entry point for the unforseen, the unplanned, the 'human error' that causes the accident that kills the innocent multitudes and adds eternally toxic pollution to the eco-sphere we all share.

This Japanese disaster... the "earthquake safe" reactors stopped being safe when the plants' owners felt it was necessary to falsify safety records. 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...as-chequered-past-EVE2Z?OpenDocument&src=hp26

The design on paper was safe, the real thing can never, ever be safe. Human error and the real world will see to that. The Fukishima reactors stopped being "safe" when they left the impossibly perfect world of the drawing board and crossed into the real world, where the unexpected happens so often we have daily programs called "The News" to help us keep abreast of them.

They cost billions to build and the carbon footprint of the decades long construction process of each reactor is monumentally massive when you actually stop to think about it instead of jumping straight to a point just after it gets switched on. How do you think the excavation, the construction is carried out, if not by diesel guzzling heavy machinery, cranes, diggers. How much traditional energy is required to create the steel and the concrete and the glass and the plastics etc etc. This notion that nuclear reactors are "low carbon" is a crock of shit- try to imagine how such a device could ever be built without a carbon footprint the size of Brazil.

And when the reactors are running? Well, every moment of fission creates toxic by-products which we basically do not have the technology to handle, or make safe- so we do what any irresponsible polluter does, we hide it. We bury it in what we hope will be "safe" locations. We try to ignore the fact that what might be safe now could be radically altered by natural events over the hundreds of millions of years this waste will remain toxic (The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years). Just remind me, what containers is this toxic shit stored in? Think it'll last even 10,000,000 yeras? 1000 years? 500 years? BANG! oh dear, they corroded before the projected lifespan was out). Can you hear the grateful thanks of your great grandchildren's great grandchildren across the centuries, across the millenia, for the poisoned gift you so thoughtfully left for them (every second each and every reactor is operating more waste is being produced- better dig some more "safe" holes!

In the UK there are still areas of arable land on which it is forbidden to grow food - still toxic, after 23 years, from Chernobyl fallout, you see. 23 years out of the forever, for which this land will be un-useable. In the UK there were areas where milk consumption had to be banned for over a year - cows ate radioactive grass, made radioactive milk, caused radioactive kids. Clean energy, did you say? 

I live less than 10 miles from a reactor on the east coast of the UK. When it's running, the measurable radiation on the main car park of the sight is many, many times background. Clean energy, you say? They've had a few incidents at the plant - quite a few - well, a lot, actually. Rarely reported on mainstream media, of course. 

There's a list of these incidents on this site run by the local "Shutdown Sizewell" campaign :
http://www.shutdown-sizewell.org.uk/old newsletters.htm

(I'm not a member. Maybe I should join)

Nuclear power "safe"? Don't make me puke blood and lose my hair with laughing, please. 

One of the principal reasons people support of nuclear power is that they actually have almost zero information about the actual scale and frequency of nuclear incidents. Those facts, that information has been deliberately suppressed for a reason. Human life has never been more valuable than political or fiscal expediency. Nuclear disasters in the UK started happening before I was born...

Lakestay-The 1957 Windscale reactor fire 

1957 - that was barely a microsecond ago on a radioactive decay scale. The stuff that escaped in '57 is just as toxic and as lively today as the day it escaped - it's just spread all over England. Mmmm. clean and safe. 
Here's an interesting list - All American nuclear incidents, How many of these did you know about? Do you really think (thinking of the poster who said they lived in the shadow of a reactor) that any power co is going to let YOU know that your enviroment has been shit on by radioactive contamination? "Please lay a lawsuit on us - it may break us, but we are honest, and the people must be told" Wahahahahahahah. 

Anyway. That list -

*Research Facilities*

*29 November 1955*
Experimental breeder reactor EBR-1 experienced a core meltdown due to operator error. *26 July 1959*
A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (now known as the Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility) in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California. Later discovery of the incident prompted a class-action suit by local residents, who successfully sued for $30 million over cancer and thyroid abnormalities contracted due to their proximity to the facility.
*2 September 1944*
Peter Bragg and Douglas Paul Meigs, two Manhattan Project chemists, were killed when their attempt to unclog a tube in a uranium enrichment device led to an explosion of radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas exploded at the Naval Research Laboratory in Philadelphia, PA. The explosion ruptured nearby steam pipes, leading to a gas and steam combination that bathed the men in a scalding, radioactive, acidic cloud of gas which killed them a short while later.
*21 August 1945*
Harry K. Daghlian Jr. was killed during the final stages of the Manhattan Project (undertaken at Los Alamos, New Mexico to develop the first atomic bomb) from a radiation burst released when a critical assembly of fissile material was accidentally brought together by hand. This incident pre-dated remote-control assembly of such components, but the hazards of manual assembly were known at the time (the accident occurred during a procedure known as "tickling the dragon's tail"). A similar incident, involving another fatality, occurred the following year (see next entry), after which hand-maniuplations of critical assemblies was abandoned.
*21 May 1946*
A nuclear criticality accident occured at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. Eight people were exposed to radiation, and one, Louis Slotin, died nine days later later of acute radiation sickness.
*2 July 1956*
Nine persons were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of Sylvania Electric Products' Metallurgy Atomic Research Center in Bayside, Queens, New York.
*1957*
A radiation release at the the Keleket company resulted in a five-month decontamination at a cost of $250,000. A capsule of radium salt (used for calibrating the radiation-measuring devices produced there) burst, contaminating the building for a full five months.
*30 December 1958*
A chemical operator was exposed to a lethal dose of radiation following an incident involving the mixing of plutonium solutions, dying 35 hours later of severe radiation exposure.
*1959*
A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California.
*2 April 1962*
An "unplanned nuclear excursion" occurred in a plutonium processing facility in Richland, Washington. Several employees were hospitalized for observation following exposure to the resultant radiation, and radiation was detected in the surrounding atmosphere for sevearl days following the incident.
*26 March 1963*
A mechanical failure led to a nuclear leak and subsequent fire at an experimental facility in Livermore, California, resulting in serious damage to the shielded vault where the experiment was conducted.
*5 October 1966*
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown at Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. Radioactive gases leaked into the containment structures, but radiation was reportedly contained.
*1974*
Whistleblowers at the Isomedix company in New Jersey reported that radioactive water was flushed down toilets and had contaminated pipes leading to sewers. The same year a worker received a dose of radiation considered lethal, but was saved by prompt hospital treatment.
*1982*
International Nutronics in Dover, New Jersey, which used radiation baths to purify gems, chemicals, food, and medical supplies, experienced an accident that completely contaminated the plant, forcing its closure. A pump malfunctioned, siphoning water from the baths onto the floor; the water eventually was drained into the sewer system of the heavily populated town of Dover. The NRC wasn't informed of the accident until ten months later -- and then by a whistleblower, not the company. In 1986, the company and one of its top executives were convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy and fraud. Radiation has been detected in the vicinity of the plant, but the NRC claims the levels "aren't hazardous."
*1986*
The NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology, Inc. (RTI) plant in New Jersey for repeated worker safety violations. RTI was cited 32 times for various violations, including throwing radioactive garbage out with the regular trash. The most serious violation was bypassing a safety device to prevent people from entering the irradiation chamber during operation, resulting in a worker receiving a near-lethal dose of radiation.
*ca. December 1991*
One of four cold fusion cells in a Menlo Park, CA, laboratory exploded while being moved; electrochemist Andrew Riley was killed and three others were injured. The other three cells were buried on site, leading to rumors that a nuclear reaction had taken place. A report concluded that it was a chemical explosion; a mixture of oxygen and deuterium produced by electrolysis ignited when a catalyst was exposed. The Electric Power Research Institute, which spent $2 million on the SRI cold fusion research, suspended support for the work pending the outcome of an investigation.

*Power Plants*

*3 January 1961*
The world's first nuclear-related fatalities occurred following a reactor explosion at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Three technicians, were killed, with radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. Another incident three weeks later (on 25 January) resulted in a release of radiation into the atmosphere. *24 July 1964*
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.
*19 November 1971*
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.
*March 1972*
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.
*27 July 1972*
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line. [See also 9 December 1986]
*28 May 1974*
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."
*22 March 1975*
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.
*28 March 1979*
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.
*1981*
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.
*11 February 1981*
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.
*July 1981*
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.
*1982*
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.
*25 January 1982*
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.
*15-16 January 1983*
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.
*25 February 1983*
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.
*9 December 1986*
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].
*1988*
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.
*28 May 1993*
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.
*15 February 2000*
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there _was_ a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.
*6 March 2002*
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.
*Nov 2005*
High tritium levels, the result of leaking pipes, were discovered to have contaminated groundwater immediately adjacent to the Braidwood Generating Station in Braceville, Illinois.

Other sources of info -

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

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

whisperycat said:


> You can always trust the arrogance of the human species to exceed all expectations.
> Despite thousands of individual nuclear accidents across the globe, untold thousands of deaths and fatal cancers, plus the vast areas of land laid waste forever because of radioactive contamination (contamination that'll still be toxic to man in a couple of hundred of million years when the sun explodes into a red giant and the word really ends), there's still this risible assertion trotted out by people that we know what we're doing and everything is under control.
> 
> A safe fission reactor can exist in only one place - on paper. Sure the whizz-kids can theorise a 'perfect' design, the problems start when that abstract design is turned into reality. There can never, ever be such a thing as a 'safe' reactor, because every approved (or not-so-approved) vendor in the construction, configuration and maintenance chain is an entry point for the unforseen, the unplanned, the 'human error' that causes the accident that kills the innocent multitudes and adds eternally toxic pollution to the eco-sphere we all share.
> ...


Yes, using nuclear power with uranium and plutonium fuel should have never been done, but ABANDONING NUCLEAR POWER FOR GOOD WOULD BE A TRAGEDY. 

There is another alternative for nuclear fule: THORIUM. The only reason uranium and plutonium were use was because they can be made into weapons. See the posts above if you want to find out about thorium. Though a fissle material (such as uranium and plutonium is required in order to kick-start a throium reactor).


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

yes of course, we are able to safe;y and properly store the waste, and despite what is happening in japan it is safe other than massive super rare disaters. our technolgy has advanced alot since chernobyl so really nuclear power is a-ok in my books!


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

compared to the health and environmental impact of other energy sources *eg BP oil spill* Nuclear looks very clean and safe. Before now, there hasn't been a nuclear disaster in 25 years. How many oil spills, deadly gas explosions, trapped coal miners and other disasters related to other fuel sources have occured in that time? Not to mention wars in the middle east to keep oil supplies secure.

Nuclear has a bad rap because radiation is invisible and scary. The fears surrounding it far outweigh the actual risks.

Did you know the average coal-fired power plant emits far more radiaton into the environment than a nuclear plant? Like 100 times more?
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

Something else to keep in mind is that the crippled plant in Japan are 2nd generation reactor designs from the 1960s! Modern reactor designs can be passively cooled which would have prevented the problem in Japan completely. Chernobyl again was a major design problem (no containment).


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

Reports have shown that the Fukushima plant was not entirely up to required safety standards at the time of the recent quake. This makes the case for strong enforcement of stringent safety requirements, NOT that nuclear power should be abandoned.


----------



## Sanskrit (Feb 6, 2011)

I join the chorus of Pro-nuclear here. It is as far as energy sources go the safest available right after solar (windmills have caused many accidents and also are inefficient). This of course means that all the people who are eager to just cluster up all the accidents in nuclear plants into "NUKE BAD" argument do not realize how many of the accidents that happen there would be in severity ten times as dangerous in alternative sources that are currently available. Plus a friend of mine who works in coal power plant has a high risk disasters to fight in there like coal dust self combustions, coal storage explosions and massive flameless fires that will not die at least 5 times a year. That to me does not sound safe and many times I have worried if he'll manage to make it home safely. 

Coal plants can have so hot fires in them that it devours all oxygen and then manages to actually ignite its own smoke leading to people choking to death and then being crisped to bone if they do not manage to evacuate in time. Meanwhile in nuclear plant up to safety standards accidents are hardly similar in severity and in worst case scenario which is incredibly rare a nuclear plant is more dangerous. Anything else is much more contained in them.


----------



## DarklyValentine (Mar 4, 2010)

as i posted before the disaster i will add i still haven't changed my mind.
i would add net deaths from all other fuel sources, as a few of you pointed out, being my main reason...over looked is the fact these also cause horrific deaths/suffering/illnesses on a grander scale - oddly never mentioned, tabulated as conglomerates and the global market are keen to maintain this destructive equilibrium for the almighty dollar
climate - they are those that maintain, based on cores, fossils, trends etc - that this interglacial glacial should have been long over...mother nature is truly a formidable beast to unhinge and will know doubt wreck terrible revenge in the coming years via various means; the most worrisome from massive quantities of methane released due to accelerated warming.

As for design most places over design, be it roads infrastructure bridges buildings. But the fav quote is for the 100 year storm, given that context and the fact us puny huwmans have been wreaking havoc upon this planet for a verily short period of time, a blink of an eye... our global society will be our undoing. I think i really mean money and our ability to presume it wont happen today, tomorrow perhaps in
100 years
1000 years
10000 years

Still that aside I id still like to see more green one cannot help but wonder why this dosnt get an accelerated boost from these events.


as for the uk - our arrogance and judgement can at times be astounding

, people overlook the fact we are also succeptable to earthquakes, 5.7ish is our highest lnd one thus far - the patterns strengths follow no known geological pattern (not including isostatic rebound).

tsunami we get them, be from slides in the sea of noway, as evident in the past via earthquakes - eg dogger bank areas (6.1 for that) and these are the ones we know about..ignoring the Bristol channel one...def less than 1;1000 year events...

these are so called stable regions,(uk etc thus outwith tectonic boundaries)
we would fair badly, just that ignorance is bliss for many

ramble ramble ...


----------



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

I'm definitely pro-nuclear. It is safer statistically than fossil fuels and produces far more energy than renewable sources. Nuclear fission, what we use today, comes with the obvious risks associated with nuclear waste. However, if scientists managed to perfect nuclear fusion, we'd have no nuclear waste, and much more energy. It would be the holy grail of modern energy.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

nuclear energy solves all our problems, its quite safe under normal circumstances unless someone majorly screws up or a gigantic wall of water smashes the entire containment area to bits -_-

it also shuts the whiney greenies up because of its low carbon emissions, and can last for ages before needing to be replaced. The emissions are FAR less than coal based power. 

not only that but within a century we may be able to harness the suns power of nuclear fusion and do it all in space so then the greenies really will have nothing to cry about, if they dont like us using our star then there are 6 septillion other ones to choose from ^^


----------



## travisty (Nov 10, 2010)

The thorium reactor is basically a traveling wave reactor. It's been a concept for awhile now but I don't believe anyone has actually made a working design (not a scale design). I happen to have a friend in this very industry who works as a nuclear engineer for a company in Seattle called Terrapower (formerly Intellectual Ventures). If it's any indicator how impactful this model and concept is, I can tell you that Bill Gates has billions wrapped up in this project along with a former MS exec who founded the company. The thorium reactor still requires U-235 (which I'm calling the enriched fuel or an enriched U-238) to start fission, but can be fueled with a number of other more difficult actinides (thorium, for example). I would rather see the traveling wave reactor get it's jumpstart from the U-235 then burn the remaining plutonium or depleted uranium. Why burn thorium when a traveling wave reactor could end nuclear proliferation. The beauty of the design is that once you get it going, it will continue for decades without being re-fueled and the Terrapower design, supposedly, has the ability to be "recharged" with waste that we are currently trying to bury under Yucca mountain. It's promising and has been peer reviewed at MIT, but I bet it's twenty years out now, especially since the intended contract for the construction looked like it was headed for Toshiba before the quake hit. In the mean time, get used to wind mills or turn off the lights. Can't wait to see how it goes when everyone is powering up their plug-in electric vehicles on an overburdened and underpowered grid. In the interim, we should be trying to maximize the efficiency of our grid and electronic devices, we should be looking closely at natural gas (consideing we're sitting on and next door to huge reserves) and we should be implementing sustainable, local micro-energy producing generators, at the residential level. Energy is everywhere around us in many forms, we just need to get smarter at how we tap into it. Energy happens to be my major field of study, this is something I could go on all day about, but I have to go meet a friend for coffee right now. Be back later.


----------



## topgun31 (Nov 23, 2010)

travisty said:


> The thorium reactor is basically a traveling wave reactor. It's been a concept for awhile now but I don't believe anyone has actually made a working design (not a scale design). I happen to have a friend in this very industry who works as a nuclear engineer for a company in Seattle called Terrapower (formerly Intellectual Ventures). If it's any indicator how impactful this model and concept is, I can tell you that Bill Gates has billions wrapped up in this project along with a former MS exec who founded the company. The thorium reactor still requires U-235 (which I'm calling the enriched fuel or an enriched U-238) to start fission, but can be fueled with a number of other more difficult actinides (thorium, for example). I would rather see the traveling wave reactor get it's jumpstart from the U-235 then burn the remaining plutonium or depleted uranium. Why burn thorium when a traveling wave reactor could end nuclear proliferation. The beauty of the design is that once you get it going, it will continue for decades without being re-fueled and the Terrapower design, supposedly, has the ability to be "recharged" with waste that we are currently trying to bury under Yucca mountain. It's promising and has been peer reviewed at MIT, but I bet it's twenty years out now, especially since the intended contract for the construction looked like it was headed for Toshiba before the quake hit. In the mean time, get used to wind mills or turn off the lights. Can't wait to see how it goes when everyone is powering up their plug-in electric vehicles on an overburdened and underpowered grid. In the interim, we should be trying to maximize the efficiency of our grid and electronic devices, we should be looking closely at natural gas (consideing we're sitting on and next door to huge reserves) and we should be implementing sustainable, local micro-energy producing generators, at the residential level. Energy is everywhere around us in many forms, we just need to get smarter at how we tap into it. Energy happens to be my major field of study, this is something I could go on all day about, but I have to go meet a friend for coffee right now. Be back later.


Wow this is really insightful and helpful. Thanks, and yes, more info would be much appreciated.


----------



## martin tomas (Apr 11, 2011)

Although it is a good source of obtaining energy, it can have damaniging effects. For example, the earthquake that happened in Japan is causing radiation, which is killing animals and plants. Another example would be the chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, which happened in 1986. After decades of the accident, we can still see the effects that it has caused. Research shows that high levels of radionuclide absorption is causing the loss of coniferous trees and animals. With new technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines, we can obtain reliable energy without having to worry about any effects.


----------



## Cman (Sep 24, 2010)

martin tomas said:


> Although it is a good source of obtaining energy, it can have damaniging effects. For example, the earthquake that happened in Japan is causing radiation, which is killing animals and plants. Another example would be the chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, which happened in 1986. After decades of the accident, we can still see the effects that it has caused. Research shows that high levels of radionuclide absorption is causing the loss of coniferous trees and animals. With new technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines, we can obtain reliable energy without having to worry about any effects.


This all smells like bullshit. What sources did you use?


----------



## semloh (Apr 14, 2011)

As many said, a stop gap between fossil fuels and that beyond. 

Still one must ponder what the French said of the US "In America, you hire your auto mechanics to run the plants. Here we hire the best."**

Some truth in that, and in USSR and some other countries it was considerably worse, and working amongst design flaws as well. Japan was in many ways better than the US, but in a number of incidents more the coverup artists. Can not do that with Nukes. Saw enough of that living there less than a year. Certainly you can not do that in a very earth quake/tsunami prone area. One top official claimed plutonium was harmless and offered to eat it. (Breathing the dust is extremely poisonous, but in ceramic form it is pretty safe.) 

Over the years, many an official has down played the earthquake danger. It would have been wise to have some sort of reserve cold 
dump, such as layered cyrogenic liquid, but am not sure of the costs. This could have made all the difference in the world. 

** A big problem in America was that so many power companies had a wide variety of investors and powers that be. Some were very naive and booster oriented. Unlike decentralized advantages, with extreme possible risks in the nuke field, a centralized authority that is not prone to influence pedaling is better, IMHO.


----------

