My point is: the low probability of accidental explosion overweights the high shortage of basic need. Shouldn’t we start to build nuke stations? Should we saty trapped scared by merely one accident? Anyway, do we actually even have a choice about whether to nukise or not in time?
A couple o’ things:
-
Nuclear power plants create 500 pounds of matter, of which one gram is enough to kill every living human being on the face if the earth, every year, and it lasts for five thousand years. The US curently has over 100 plants. That’s 50 thousand pounds of this matter a year.
-
I believe we don’t have a choice but to use nuclear power because we are going to run out of affordable oil (soon). I would prefer to cut our energy use by 90 percent, but that won’t happen!
CHERNOBYL comes to mind. 
But, the potential devastation of that low probability of an accident happening, what Membrain is trying to point out, is so…well…devastating. Now, right now, maybe the low incidence is due to low number of nuke plants. What if we increased the number of plants? Would that probability increased as well? I don’t know much about it.
I don’t think that this kind of probability is something very much of a random nature. The more we get to know about this matter, i.e. the more plants we build and mantain, the less chance we’ll left for an accident to happen. Same as all new technologies, e.g. cloning, I think we should at least give a try, try to improve.
"hershey p.a.- three miles near
empty assurance- nothing to fear
the nuke is down- poisoned the ground
hush it quick- the cows are sick
ah, and there’s nothing like the face of a kid eating
a radioactive chocolate bar- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
cancerous fish- cancerous rivers
cancerous kidneys, stomachs and livers
no, they don’t give a f*ck
just want to make a buck
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
buy american- buy hershey
they sell you death- with no mercy
yes, they’re gonna gain their wealth
and maybe risk your health
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever
radioactive chocolate- forever and ever" -MDC (Multi Death Corporation)
(the lyrics may not be exact, the record came out in 1983 and it has been a while since I heard it…)
-Imp
impenitent, the same can be said about soap.
ah yes… I almost forgot that one…
Geza X, 1981
Isotope Soap…
bits and pieces…
“…isotope soap, isotope soap…
…wash my head, now my brain is dead…
with isotope soap, isotope soap
…wash my ear, couldn’t hear for a year…
isotope soap, isotope soap…”
…wash my di*k, now my babies are sick
isotope soap, isotope soap…"
excellent tune…
-Imp
A nuclear accident is devestating, but the amount of waste produced hrough the use of nuclear power is minimal. The damage to the enviroment is far less through using nuclear power than through the use of fossil fuels. As technology develops, so does the safety of relying on nuclear power as our primary energy source. We must find a way of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The North American way of life is under constant threat as long as we depend on oil, because in our modern world, money is power, and “the one who pays the piper calls the tune”. The US is trying to gain a foothold in the Middle East for this reason. If we could find a way to significantly reduce the monetary power of the Middle East, we could all rest a little easier. Terrorists have a hard time operating without financial backing.
fission power likely doesn’t have muhc of a future. the waste products it generates are indeed more lethal than most polutants, and have half lives in the thousands of years. There is no safe place to store them on earth, except to bury them deep in the crust.
The obvious answer is to dump nuclear wastes off-planet. An unmanned cargo rocket could takes loads of wastes in sealed containers and fly into the sun.
Of course, rockets carry the risk of exploding and scattering fallout, effectively sterilizing a large swath downwind of the accident. The solution then will be a space ladder (many miles of carbon nanotube or diamond column connected to a space station in geosyncronous orbit). Then wastes can just be pulled up the ladder, and with a small booster, launched safely.
My guess is that we will develop fusion power before we will develop such construction technology, rendering fission power obsolete.
A nuclear accident is inevitable. It may not happen for 100 years, it may happen tomorrow, but it is inevitable. In the former case they will be one every 125 years, in the latter one every 25, this is assuming Chernobyl was one, which I think is one thing we can agree on. Lets hope we can develop alternative means of producing power before the inevitable happens.
So is it fair for me now to make a little summary about what’s being written (even as poetry): most of us at least intend to have a go on nuke, because this is not a choice from the looks of now, especially when you consider the problem of global warming. Sure the effect of the rising sea level would make nuke explosions sounds like popping noises.
Somebody mentioned the world “fission”. When we become easy with “fusion”, we have one more reason to go nuke.
Why give the terrorists reasons to bomb america in the first place? When terrorists are out of their heads, shortage of money can hardly stop them. Aggressive foreign policies adopted by the us such as embargoes, make sure that america will always have reasons to spend so much on defence. I suppose this is my old novice: you be nice, I be nice, vice-versa.
I hope this is the case. (Again, pardon me, I’m not knowledgeable about this topic). So, NASA for example, given the two major “accidents”–Challenger and Columbia—happened when they should have been well maintained and well known. Of course, the devastation of a shuttle crashing like that is nothing compared to the devastation a nuke would create.
My chemistry teacher said, the Chernobyl accident is really not an accident. It was a miscalculation by human. They should have put another five-feet thick wall around an already existing wall or two, in case of explosion, to absorb most of the impact.
My point exactly: we learn from mistakes. The human history is all about inventing and innovating, progressing and improving. That has been the case because we try. Guess what happens when we try. Also, imagine what would happen if we don’t try. I say we would die out soon enough.
We humans need to learn how to differentiate between what is harmful to our species and what is harmful to the earth as a whole. Chernobyl may have adversly affected the human population surrounding the area, but the effect on the enviroment was minimal. We have this strange,superstitious fear of nuclear power, which is highlighted by the popular media. 20% of the energy consumed by the US is nuclear, yet we seldom hear about the nuclear power facilities that have operated without incident for 10,20,30 years. Burning fossil fuels is slowly killing the planet and cannot be sustained. Our energy demands will only increase as time marches on, and we need a solution now.
Arendt (great name,how could any Heideggerian Jew like me not immediately like you) is right about Chernobyl. Communist mismanagement lead to the accident. If you rule by fear and punish anyone who brings errors to the attention of superiors, people remain silent and cover up mistakes. God save any person working at Chernobyl who dared to suggest that the plant needed improvements and questioned those above them.
American nuclear power plants are not run like Chernobyl( or like Montgomery Burn’s plant for that matter). A system of checks and balances is in place and the industry is highly regulated. Was anything produced by Communist Russia comparable to the American equivalent?
It is really not a matter of if nuclear power will replace other energy sources, but how soon.
The sooner the better. Maybe the UN should set up a team to maintain nuke plants in countries like the Soviet.
Okay, then, the next question would be: Nuke plants should be selectively managed and owned. Some countries would obviously be the wrong ones to handle nukes–mismanagement, lack of funds, dubious intention, etc.
Have to agree with this, but this leads to be a concern. Perhaps one of the reasons our plants are so well regulated is that there are, comparitively, few of them. This makes it easier to have a focused task force to regulate the industry. I am not saying it should not expand (i think it should), just that we need to be careful how quickly we expand, and not allow our rgulatory agencies to be over-extended. For every new plant planned, we need to be willing to commit the money and training necessary to keep up regulations.
Well, there are currently 104 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states, which is the highest number of plants for a single country in the world. France is #2 with 58, followed by Japan with 53. There are 440 nuclear power plants worldwide.
Look Nuclear Power plants dont just suddenly explode or have meltdowns and they dont waste some 50 thousand pounds of matter every year. Yes I agree that the older models are wastful but there are better and newer models that reuse those matterials untill that matter is harmless and easily stored, these are called breeders and they create and break down the atoms cause alot of power and they even use the rods and the minimal nuclear waste to boil water to power tubines and thereforer increase power output. So i say that nuclear energy is the new wave of the future hence why im becoming a nuclear engineer…
Oh and the nuclear power plant that failed and cause all the crap about ho their not safe, was in russia poorly manned,and all their safty features were kaput. (reason why i say it was in russia is becaue they didnt care if they died or not they were communist at the time…) Todays power plant have so many safty feature that if theres even 1 millionth of a percent of radiation on you the stick you in a room to decontaminate you. and the plant automatically shuts down if 1 little thing fails, and to prevent tthe stuff from failing the check it contantly.