I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
Chernobyl was a defective basic physics reactor run by people that had NO IDEA of how reactors work.
So Chernobyl is a FAILURE of the PEOPLE. Not nuclear power.
you will notice NO ONE in the west even has a TINY graphite reactor..........They are stupid - period.
No PWR has ever failed because of the reactor or the design. ONLY the people running it. ( three mile islend)
The message is clear. Reactors run by people FAIL. Arrogance, hubris, greed, and the litany of human shortcomings lead the charge.
No they do not.
That is what the PWR proves. When the people screw up, the reactor STOPS the PEOPLE from a outside the fence accident.
(and no I am not counting irrelivant and harmless noble gasses releases)
Looking at the title of the thread, "Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?" I selected Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?.
I interpret the question as asking about independence from other energy sources here in the U.S. (such as coal); and not asking about independence from other countries' energy sources (such as the importation of oil from the Middle East).
I believe that currently the U.S. receives less than 10% of its energy supply source from nuclear power (and 100% of that energy supply is in the form of electrical power). While current energy supply could be increased with the building of more nuclear power plants, I am against expanding their role in the country's energy production.
I have never been convinced by the arguments of those who advocate that nuclear energy is clean. Even when these plants are functioning safely, the waste they create is long lasting; damaging to the environment, and deadly. Spent fuel rods and contaminated water and equipment must be isolated and stored. Unfortunately, no matter how many precautions are taken when doing this, contamination still happens. Often, companies will seek to find the cheapest alternatives to store contaminated equipment and waste, and this does not usually equate to the safest methods.
Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has (in the past) been viewed as complacent in their approach to the nuclear industry. This complacency can lead at minimum to reactionary (instead of proactive) approaches to regulation of the industry itself and in the worse case scenarios would lead to, as Barrack Obama once phrased it, an NRC that would become "captive of the industries that it regulates."
Terrorists (both home grown and international) logically view nuclear power plants as targets for potential attacks. This places these plants in danger from computer, electronic, and physical attacks that not only the industry but the local/state/federal governments must also prepare for and prevent. Finally, as seen by more recent events in places like Japan, natural disasters can bring about catastrophic events at these plants.
While some of these problems are shared by other plants using different fuel sources, the nature of the fuels and means of producing energy by nuclear plants makes them far more dangerous when considering the previously mentioned points. In the instances where these types of plants have failed; the consequences are on a larger scale, longer lasting, and more deadly than in the cases of failed plants using other fuel sources.
I believe that current, as well as future energy policies should include all possible sources. In the case of nuclear power though, I would advocate a policy that would keep nuclear power production at current levels; and if future resources and technology permit growth in production that can keep up with the demands I would even suggest decreasing the role of nuclear energy.
Please Note: Being new to the site, I thought that perhaps this would be a good place to start practicing debating. If the post was too long for a reply to a poll thread, I apologize.
Plebeian of the Republic
I would have said absolutely if we had a plan for long term entombment of the tons of plutonium we will create as waste product. Besides being the easiest material to make atom bombs out of, Plutonium is the most deadly POISONOUS substance on the planet, it doesn't even exist in nature. It would be extremely foolish to manufacture large quantities of it and leave it sitting around, waiting for something to go wrong.
Human folly could really end us this time.
Last edited by iguanaman; 11-23-12 at 10:32 PM.
If terrorists want to terrorize us, there are many easier ways to do it....
I can think of several unguarded locations where it would be easy to cause serious illnesses or even death to thousands. How hard would it be for a terrorist to spread anthrax from a small plane? or put something in our water supply? shoot down a commercial airliner with a small rocket?
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.