Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: refuting old myths
Michael

Date:
refuting old myths


We, and by that I mean nuclear space supporters, need to discuss ways to show the public that nuclear power is safe and needs to continue to be the main thrust of power plants and the space program. So many people have no idea how much safer new power plant designs are or how much more efficient new plant designs are so that much less waste is created. The problem with plutonium can be solved by using it as a source of power instead of a dangerous waste. There are nuclear reactions involving thorium that do not create plutonium, there are many areas of research that are not being pursued due to the lack of demand for nuclear power. Nuclear power can almost completely replace oil if we as a nation really want to break away from big oil and the middle east. I know that much of our government is financed by big oil and probably controlled by big oil as well, but if the people in charge are true patriots then nuclear power needs to be reborn and new power plants need to be built. If we are ever going to power our cars with hydrogen nuclear power will be needed to generate that hydrogen. Nuclear power is much cleaner than coal which, as many people don't know, releases considerable radioactivity into the atmosphere as well as contributing to global warming. We need an active movement to oppose the anti nuclear people on all fronts. Without nuclear power humanity is doomed to extinction, only nuclear power can serve us over the long term. The only way to insure safe power is to build new modern nuclear power plants to replace the old ones that are out dated. We need to make as much or more noise as the anti nuclear people to convince all the parents and children that the only way to truly make their families safe is by using nuclear power. It's so easy to whip up opposition to something most people don't understand and see as mysterious and dangerous. It's so easy to mislead people about nuclear power because of the hype surrounding the dangers of radiation. People need to understand that radiation is a part of the environment all around us not some sort of demonic source of death. Nuclear power can be controlled, overall nuclear power is less dangerous than other sources of power. Much more dangerous chemicals are routinely used, handled, and disposed of in the service of industry. Nuclear power must be portrayed as the force that will save our countries and civilization from slipping back into the dark ages. No other industry is required to make due with old technology that may be not up to par compared with what is currently possible. We have wasted too much time waiting for the pie in the sky nuclear fusion genie to appear and save us. We need modern fission power plants to take us into the 21st century. Write your government representatives, make them hear our voices, let them know that there are voices or reason who know we need real power right now not at some far off indeterminate date. Don't be afraid to speak up when people talk about the dangers of nuclear power, let them know that the hype, lies, and emotional arguments are stealing our future. If they want to protect the environment let them know nuclear power will make that possible. Without nuclear power we are at the mercy of oil and the countries that control it control our destinies. To break free of the tyranny of big oil and the middle east we need to use technology and we have it now in the form of nuclear fission.

Moon
My futures so bright, I gotta wear shades!


__________________
yale

Date:

It is YOUR statements which are myths.


You state your OPINIONS as if they were empirically demonstratable facts.


It is the "hype, lies, and emotional arguments" of the collapsed atomic industry that "are stealing our future."


At every step in your post, you make claims which are absolutely wrong.


yale


 


 


 



__________________
10kBq jaro

Date:

I never cease to be amazed at the fanaticism of antinukes....


A while back I watched an "interview" with James Lovelock. He performs admirably in what appears more like rabid harassment by a journalist on amphetamines.


HARDtalk's Lyse Doucet does her utmost to maintain the reputation of Big Bully dot Com (BBC).


Excellent quote from Lovelock : nuclear power is "the one decent thing we can do."


The direct link to the video tape BTW is


http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/04/hardtalk/lovelock29jul.ram


Jaro


http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html



__________________
MarkIX

Date:

Is the Idea to refute old myths by creating new one? if you are going to say that the only way humankind is going to survive is through Nuclear power perhaps you should provide evidence or alternatively stop accusing others of being deluded.

__________________
Publiusr

Date:

I guess the anti-nukes never heard of the all-natural nuclear reactor at Oklo.


The anti-nukes are the same eco-communists who can tell you everything you never needed to know about the Union Carbide plant (non-nuclear) in Bhopol--but forgot all about how the Volcanic Lake Nyos killed many more with volcanic spawned CO2.



__________________
Phil

Date:

It has been replied to the first message that wrong statements were being made at each step. I agree. But let's try to take it slowly.

Is it a myth that nuclear power is unsafe? At least, it is not 100% safe. In spite of the usually (not in all countries) very elaborated safety systems, there is always a little plrobability of something to happen in a nuclear power plant. New designs are not always safer because we have more experience of the old ones. What if we consider one thousand nuclear power plants? The probability of something to happen somewhere is multiplied by one thousand. And if something happens, it can be very serious.

Is radioactivity dangerous? It depends of the level! Try to approach fresh spent fuel and I doubt you will live much longer. The fission products have usually relatively short halflives so that they donnot remain dangerous more than 100 years. Transuranic elements, on the other hand, can have very long half lives: because of that, 1000 years old spent fuel released in the environment still can cause serious damages if ingurgited in water or food. But who can foresee what will happen to this spent fual in one thousand years?

Transmutation of nuclear waste is not yet a muature technology. By recycling plutonium in standard reactors we produce even more waste in form of heavier transuranics. Fast reactors are still less safe than standard reactors, and cannot handle americium. And finally, accelerator-driven systems would solve the whole problem but, as for fusion energy, nobody knows if they would work with reasonable economics. Are there other ideas? It must be efficient and directly applyable, because thousands of tons of nuclear waste are produced each year.

Nuclear power is a better alternative than oil and coal, I agree, but I am quite pessimistic anyway. I don't foresee any happy future for nuclear power in other applications than space. Oil is running out. What kind of energy resource will replace oil? I hope it will be a mix of everything possible but coal: nuclear, water, wind, solar, geothermic, etc. But in the long term, I don't believe nuclear power to be sustainable. Unless a miracle happens, I think we have to prepare ourselves in changing our habits and spare as much energy as possible, because energy prices are going to increase. What changes may be needed is a topic in itself and is open for discussion.




__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard