Has Your Opinion Changed About Nuclear Power?

[AGRP]

Mine has :collins:

[Matt Collins]

Nope. Nukes are still safe, clean, and efficient if done properly. But building them in earthquake-prone zones is not the brightest idea.

[kpitcher]

I'm within 50 miles of two plants and feel safe. With that said it'd be nice if the newer types of plants were put into operation. Newer plants would mean more power and a lot less waste, along with waste that didn't last centuries.

Most of the world is using Generation 2 plants. I know China is the only country with an operating Gen 4 pebble bed plant.

[dbill27]

We need more nuclear power and soon.

[Southron]

I've never been against it but why bother when we have so much coal?

[Sola_Fide]

I've never been against it but why bother when we have so much coal?

Yes.

[Keith and stuff]

Yeah, I used to be for it. Than I released all nuclear power in the US is just a corporate handout. It is a welfare program for very large companies. I totally support nuclear power if it could happen without the government completely funding the industry. If a private company was able to build a plant, come up with a 1 trillion dollar insurance policy and safely dispose of the waste, I'd totally support that. However, I'm not aware of such a scenario ever happening anywhere in the world. As it stands, all nuclear power that has ever happened anywhere in the world is either government created or massively subsidized by the government, and that is when it is done correctly. I'm not saying it's impossible to do nuclear power responsible, but there has never been a plant that was doing in a pro-liberty way. So far, it's all very anti-liberty.

When the nuclear power plant was built in Seabrook, NH there were mistakes made and in addition to those problems, the plant cost the utility customers in the region billions of dollars. The Nuclear plant in VT was found to be leaking toxic chemicals for years and it turns out the company know about it and covered it up. As of now, the plant is still running.

[messana]

Depends. I won't want to have one in California or any other places with fault lines.

[00_Pete]

No because i always hated it. That and f*cking bio-engineering.

Besides, if you guys knew who Oppenheimer and Einstein really were and why they pushed for the nuclear program...even Teller started to notice there was something wrong with bastard Oppenheimer.

And if anything goes wrong with those bombs and you soon figure out that its military policy to nuke your adversary nuclear power stations to multiply the damage...THEN you will understand.

Some people need to cut down on the Star Trek nerdness and the technology/transistor worshipping and start using their brains. And in the case of Libertarians the whole "ohhh look at me im so against this eco stuff" act also plays a part.

NO NUKES AND NO BIO-ENGINEERING!

[amy31416]

No because i always hated it. That and f*cking bio-engineering.

Besides, if you guys knew who Oppenheimer and Einstein really were and why they pushed for the nuclear program...even Teller started to notice there was something wrong with bastard Oppenheimer.

And if anything goes wrong with those bombs and you soon figure out that its military policy to nuke your adversary nuclear power stations to multiply the damage...THEN you will understand.

Some people need to cut down on the Star Trek nerdness and the technology/transistor worshipping and start using their brains. And in the case of Libertarians the whole "ohhh look at me im so against this eco stuff" act also plays a part.

NO NUKES AND NO BIO-ENGINEERING!

Did a nerdy Libertarian bone your wife or something?

[kahless]

Was not for it before this since I learned from living near one that the science is implemented by the fallable and a corrupt. Managment and those that spout the science can do so all they like but that does not discount the fact that man has repeatedly shown they do not follow science.

I get a kick out of these forums where every issue mans corruption - conspiracy is debated but when nuclear power is discussed man is infallable and incorruptable (typically followed by pro-nuclear industry talking points)

Besides this I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing it. You want nuclear power then contribute to the industry rather than force others to pay for it.

[Chieppa1]

"Brian Dunning
Fukushima nuclear plant does NOT have a combustible graphite core like Chernobyl. A total meltdown should flow into underground containment."

[Chieppa1]

@BreakingNews: 6.4 magnitude aftershock hits near stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, USGS and local media report http://1.usa.gov/gn3hzy

[One Last Battle!]

Was not for it before this since I learned from living near one that the science is implemented by the fallable and a corrupt. Managment and those that spout the science can do so all they like but that does not discount the fact that man has repeatedly shown they do not follow science.

I get a kick out of these forums where every issue mans corruption - conspiracy is debated but when nuclear power is discussed man is infallable and incorruptable (typically followed by pro-nuclear industry talking points)

Besides this I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing it. You want nuclear power then contribute to the industry rather than force others to pay for it.

You do realize that for Chernobyl to occur, just about everything had to go wrong, right?

The people running it were complete idiots with no experience. The reactor had no containment. The coolant was not water (as is standard in most plants) but graphite, making it effectively explosive. Even WITH all these factors, the morons running it had to disable all of the safety features first.

[Xavi1990]

Why can't we just use the technology of the Venus Project? Fresco has shown in 1974 how to deal with earthquakes and how to fully use solar energy.

[wildfirepower]

Other forum:

When Chernobyl exploded 100 000 people got cancer all over Europe and Russia over the next 10 years.

As for Chernobyl, facts are this :

* For the 14 years since the disaster 300,000 died in Ukraine alone from the radiation sickness
* The releases contaminated an estimated 17 million people to some degree.
* 143,000 people have been evacuated from contaminated areas of Ukraine
* 600,000 people took part in liquidating effects of the disaster, 100,000 of which already died or are now handicapped
* Cases of leucosis and thyroid cancer exceed average by 2 and 5 times correspondingly among the Chernobyl victims.
* There are 1.8 million people residing on the territories of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, which are still defined as contaminated

I lived in Europe at the time and we definitely had higher leukemia cases as far down as Italy

[wildfirepower]

If there were no Global Warming - we would still be in an Ice Age. Humans didn't cause any of the previous thaws - guaranteed.

I agree, global warming is a natural occurance. As the living creatures on Earth increases/explodes, more water is released from ice-deposit regions due to warm Earth.

If world people do not burn fuel, wood and other substance the Earth will return back to Ice-age. Everyday millions of barrel of oil/petrol is burned, millions of Tons of coal is burned, millions of Tons of wood is burned, millions of Tons of cooking and industrial gas is burned. Think, if millions of Tons of these "fire products/substance" in not burned what would be the temperature of Earth.

There must be Volcanic activity under the Glaciers and Ice-deposit regions of the world because of which world ice is melting.

Heat from big cities cannot travel more than 20 miles or 30 miles. Forget big cities heat reaching Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the world.

Global warming is limited/trapped/exists in big cities only. Camp 15 miles outside a big city and you will shiver in the middle of the night. But sleep in open space/ground. Do not sleep inside a tent/camp. There is no global warming in Antartica, Siberia, Alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the Earth. Abandon/leave big cities.

I was travelling by plane and the instrument in the front seat displayed outside temperature as -25 C. This means heat cannot travel more than 1000 or 2000 feet high.

Global warming is a myth. Anyone remember the global cooling fad in the 70's? It's all about money. Politicians have found a scare tactic to inflate their own pockets.

Scientists were recently caught manipulating data since the 90's to create the illusion of global warming. I think George Carlin had it right.

Everybody, set fire to all the waste plastic, waste rubber, waste paper which are lying around for many years and nobody is recycling them. Basically burn all the trash/garbage in the world and create some open and clean space. There is no such thing as global warming.

Global warming is the biggest fraud in human history.

Some 7 billion tonnes of coal is produced worldwide per year which is equal to weight of 14,000 world trade center buildings (9/11).

Worldwide oil production for year 2010 was 30 billions of barrels.

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-mining/

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html

[One Last Battle!]

if there were no global warming - we would still be in an ice age. Humans didn't cause any of the previous thaws - guaranteed.

I agree, global warming is a natural occurance. As the living creatures on earth increases/explodes, more water is released from ice-deposit regions due to warm earth.

If world people do not burn fuel, wood and other substance the earth will return back to ice-age. Everyday millions of barrel of oil/petrol is burned, millions of tons of coal is burned, millions of tons of wood is burned, millions of tons of cooking and industrial gas is burned. Think, if millions of tons of these "fire products/substance" in not burned what would be the temperature of earth.

There must be volcanic activity under the glaciers and ice-deposit regions of the world because of which world ice is melting.

Heat from big cities cannot travel more than 20 miles or 30 miles. Forget big cities heat reaching antartica, siberia, alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the world.

Global warming is limited/trapped/exists in big cities only. Camp 15 miles outside a big city and you will shiver in the middle of the night. But sleep in open space/ground. Do not sleep inside a tent/camp. There is no global warming in antartica, siberia, alaska and other ice-deposit regions of the earth. Abandon/leave big cities.

I was travelling by plane and the instrument in the front seat displayed outside temperature as -25 c. This means heat cannot travel more than 1000 or 2000 feet high.

Global warming is a myth. Anyone remember the global cooling fad in the 70's? It's all about money. Politicians have found a scare tactic to inflate their own pockets.

Scientists were recently caught manipulating data since the 90's to create the illusion of global warming. I think george carlin had it right.

Everybody, set fire to all the waste plastic, waste rubber, waste paper which are lying around for many years and nobody is recycling them. Basically burn all the trash/garbage in the world and create some open and clean space. There is no such thing as global warming.

Global warming is the biggest fraud in human history.

Some 7 billion tonnes of coal is produced worldwide per year which is equal to weight of 14,000 world trade center buildings (9/11).

Worldwide oil production for year 2010 was 30 billions of barrels.

http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/coal-mining/

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/worldoilreservesevol.html

wrong thread bro

[kahless]

You do realize that for Chernobyl to occur, just about everything had to go wrong, right?

The people running it were complete idiots with no experience. The reactor had no containment. The coolant was not water (as is standard in most plants) but graphite, making it effectively explosive. Even WITH all these factors, the morons running it had to disable all of the safety features first.

I never mentioned anything about Chernobyl.

Just look a the safety history of US plants. You do not need a meltdown to make people sick. If you are actually paying attention what goes on day to day at plants in the US and not simply looking at the science of it, as if procedures are always followed, which they are not, a helluva allot can go wrong. You have issues with operators cutting corners on safety and you have human error. Sometimes you can blame operators and others employee incompetence and negligence. An operators best efforts to follow safety protocols mean nothing if the employees do not follow them.

The fact is man is fallable, corruptable and prone to making mistakes with a science that is unforgiving.

[specsaregood]

Just look a the safety history of US plants. You do not need a meltdown to make people sick. If you are actually paying attention what goes on day to day at plants in the US and not simply looking at the science of it, as if procedures are always followed, which they are not, a helluva allot can go wrong. You have issues with operators cutting corners on safety and you have human error. Sometimes you can blame operators and others employee incompetence and negligence. An operators best efforts to follow safety protocols mean nothing if the employees do not follow them.


Source? What evidence do you have of nuclear power operators in the US cutting corners?

[One Last Battle!]

I never mentioned anything about Chernobyl.

Just look a the safety history of US plants. You do not need a meltdown to make people sick. If you are actually paying attention what goes on day to day at plants in the US and not simply looking at the science of it, as if procedures are always followed, which they are not, a helluva allot can go wrong. You have issues with operators cutting corners on safety and you have human error. Sometimes you can blame operators and others employee incompetence and negligence. An operators best efforts to follow safety protocols mean nothing if the employees do not follow them.

The fact is man is fallable, corruptable and prone to making mistakes with a science that is unforgiving.

Examples of plants resulting in death?

Three Mile Island, the most high profile incident, resulted in no death.

[kahless]

Oh that is right unless it a big accident like Chernobyl or 3 mile island there is never any contamination or releases. No one ever gets sick or dies unless the MSM makes a big deal about it. :rolleyes: You guys have your heads in the sand.

I suspect the story would be different if you ask the non-union laborers whom work at these plants not those in management. Do a search of news articles related to any of your US nuclear plants and you will find wide spread contamination. Then check the cancer statistics in and around US nuclear plants. The information is all freely available. The MSM is not going to hand this information to you on a silver platter since just like education in this country the nuclear industry lobby from plant operators, to political parties and unions are far too powerful.

The MSM will do whatever it can to promote nuclear power as safe, secure and vital. Just like they will do whatever they can do promote Neocons and Progressives while ensuring a liberty candidate like Ron Paul is marginalized.

[specsaregood]

//

[daviddee]

...

[johnrocks]

Nope. Need energy and what can I say.....

Shit happens.

[AGRP]

There's a time and place for nuclear power, but I'm siding with Murphy's Law on this one.

We should be far more interested in other power generators such as geothermal.

From a capitalism/libertarian POV, we can probably assume that public opinion on nuclear power will be taking a nose dive anyway.

[Eroberer]

We could use nuclear power but with thorium instead of uranium. I have read that thorium doesn't produce waste that is as dangerous as the latter and isn't so bad in the case of a meltdown.

I think they are also cheaper than the conventional reactors.

[doodle]

Nope. Nukes are still safe, clean, and efficient if done properly. But building them in earthquake-prone zones is not the brightest idea.

I would also have their location far away from population centers and with muti layer stringent safety mechanisms built in. I'm for limited use and instinctively against aggressive reliance on them.

The ideo of all natual, organic hydro electric station somehow seems romantic to me.

[daviddee]

...

[hazek]

Nope. Nukes are still safe, clean, and efficient if done properly. But building them in earthquake-prone zones is not the brightest idea.

+1

[South Park Fan]

I wouldn't say I'm either support or oppose nuclear power. The solution here is to eliminate coercive power monopolies, thus allowing the consumer to choice which form of energy to use.

[Texan4Life]

We could use nuclear power but with thorium instead of uranium. I have read that thorium doesn't produce waste that is as dangerous as the latter and isn't so bad in the case of a meltdown.

I think they are also cheaper than the conventional reactors.

+1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLo73k3OG0&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

[Maximus]

I don't oppose it. I mean the reactors didn't fully withstand the strongest earthquake in Japan's history. You can't plan everything. It would seem that future plants would need to look more into back up generators to ensure that the backups don't fail in the same ways the Japan reactors did.

[Chase]

I've heard of nuclear fuel pellets that burn themselves out if they get too hot. I think the problem with these reactors are that they're really old technology.

That said, I also oppose energy subsidies, so it depends on whether or not the market could produce it economically were the government to fully get out of the way.

[wildfirepower]

Some 7 billion tonnes of coal is produced worldwide per year which is equal to weight of 14,000 world trade center buildings (9/11).Worldwide oil production for year 2010 was 30 billions of barrels.
If the world factories would have been working for 12 hours a day only for past 50 to 100 years, then only 50% of world's resources would have been consumed today. The world economy would have easily survived for another 100 years without any problem. There would have been no financial crisis and multi-trillion bailouts for next 100 years and more. The human greed to develop very fast and competition has led to the downfall of world economy ultimately. Example, if there is 200 storey building, you will reach the top of the building by elevator/lift or staircase. If you use elevator you reach the top in 2 minutes and then you have to come down. If you use staircase, you reach the top in 2 hours and then you come down.

All the world factories should be shut down for 12 hours a day. There should be death silence so that everybody and animals can rest in peace and the Earth can cool down for 12 hours a day.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD40J45zjIM&feature=uploademail

[sratiug]

Nuclear power is stupid. For all practical purposes, I have a physics degree. And nuclear power is dumb. It is stupid to risk generations of people on power that may not even be needed 5 or 10 years from now. Stupid and immoral.