• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Favor Nuclear Power?

Do You Favor Nuclear Power?


  • Total voters
    93
As an avid scifi fan and technology nut, I support nuclear power in theory. However, I do not trust private enterprise to operate nuclear power plants in the safest manner possible. Including dealing with the waste.

Last years BP debacle illustrates this well.

However, I don't have much more confidence in the govt. either. For other reasons.

If someone like the Dalai Lama, or whoever, took over operation of nuclear power, some group who took their safe operation as some kind of "sacred mission", I think that might work. I think Heinlein wrote a story along these lines.

Nuclear power could save us all, if corporate greed or govt bureaucratic incompetency didn't kill us all first.

Therefore I voted other.

Nuclear Jedi, anyone?

Heinlein is my favorite SF writer...
There should be zero tolerance when it comes to personnel problems at nuclear power plants. You either have the right attitude about safety, or you work somewhere else....
 
not counting chernobyl, a bad design, I am pretty sure that nuclear power has caused NO deaths....

SL-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was an accident that killed three Americans in 1961, but the system was not computerized, and the workers had to guess more of when to lift the rods. Even then, when you compare this to deaths from coal pollution or mine accidents, nuclear power is much safer. However, as pbrauer said, nuclear power, at least now is very, very expensive. A lot of this is due to regulation. I am not sure about how to reform the regulations to make building cheaper but still providing adequate safety.
 
I wonder if you and the others who support it are NIMBY's.

I don't care where it is, personally. If they want to build it in my area, fine with me.
 
SL1 was a small test reactor from the very early days of nuclear design, not a commercial nuke...
Rods were manually adjusted, the explosion was a steam explosion due to a rod being pulled up too far, too fast...
Why the operator did it? who knows?

SL1 was supposed to be decomissioned next month, they knew it had potential problems and were shutting it down. The earthquake was just bad timing.
 
This is the fourth worst nuclear disaster in Japanese history.

1. Hiroshima
2. Nagasaki
3. Godzilla
4. This.
 
This is the fourth worst nuclear disaster in Japanese history.

1. Hiroshima
2. Nagasaki
3. Godzilla
4. This.

no, they managed to turn a profit with Godzilla...
 
But at what cost?

Costs be damned, man !!!
It made a profit, that is all that matters. Plus there was the side benefit of Tokyo getting their downtown renovated.

Haven't you read the Ferengi rules of acquisition?
 
Last edited:
:2razz:

'splain that, Lucy......

This depends on how bad the situation actually becomes, but from the looks of it right now, I don't see the majority of the population being exposed to huge increases in radiation. However, small increases in doses of radiation seems to cause an increase in the amount of female children born to those men exposed to the small increase (at least this is what most of the nukes that I worked with have observed). We really wish that someone would do a study on this because the first thing you notice during nuke school is that most of your instructors and advisors have daughters. And almost any time a guy says his wife had a son, she got pregnant while he was either on shore duty or while the ship had been in a long shutdown period.

I found out that there is actually some scientific basis in this belief.

iBabydust - Timing Intercourse for Conception and Baby Gender

Some studies have shown that the sperm with the X chromosome - or female chromosome - are more robust and live longer than the than the sperm with the Y (or male) chromosome.

The Shettles Method of Conception Explained

It seems that there are fertility doctors out there that believe that the male sperm does not survive as well as the female sperm does, and although this information is generally only used to help trying parents to try to increase their odds of creating either a male or female child, it certainly could be used to help explain why there seems to be more female children born to male Navy nukes. Perhaps the small doses of radiation does kill off male sperm more than female sperm within the guy's body.
 
This depends on how bad the situation actually becomes, but from the looks of it right now, I don't see the majority of the population being exposed to huge increases in radiation. However, small increases in doses of radiation seems to cause an increase in the amount of female children born to those men exposed to the small increase (at least this is what most of the nukes that I worked with have observed). We really wish that someone would do a study on this because the first thing you notice during nuke school is that most of your instructors and advisors have daughters. And almost any time a guy says his wife had a son, she got pregnant while he was either on shore duty or while the ship had been in a long shutdown period.

I found out that there is actually some scientific basis in this belief.

iBabydust - Timing Intercourse for Conception and Baby Gender



The Shettles Method of Conception Explained

It seems that there are fertility doctors out there that believe that the male sperm does not survive as well as the female sperm does, and although this information is generally only used to help trying parents to try to increase their odds of creating either a male or female child, it certainly could be used to help explain why there seems to be more female children born to male Navy nukes. Perhaps the small doses of radiation does kill off male sperm more than female sperm within the guy's body.

well, from a man's viewpoint, more women on the planet is a good thing.....
 
Yes on Nuclear Power......

.........and I thinks its a disgrace that the United States--Birthplace of Nuclear Energy.......has sat back and watched the rest of the world advance our creation........as we remain hostage to Democrat Sierra Club NO-Energy Policies.
.
.
.
.
 
well, from a man's viewpoint, more women on the planet is a good thing.....

I wasn't saying anything bad about it, I would just like to know whether it is true or not. It would be interesting to know if there is any basis in our observations and conclusions. I'm married. I'm not worried about competition.
 
I wasn't saying anything bad about it, I would just like to know whether it is true or not. It would be interesting to know if there is any basis in our observations and conclusions. I'm married. I'm not worried about competition.

I'm old, can't compete, just wishful thinking on my part. Eventually I will need full time nursing care, and most nurses are women, hope it stays that way, don't want my sponge baths done by a man....:2razz:
 
Yes on Nuclear Power......

.........and I thinks its a disgrace that the United States--Birthplace of Nuclear Energy.......has sat back and watched the rest of the world advance our creation........as we remain hostage to Democrat Sierra Club NO-Energy Policies.
.
.
.
.

I believe the Sierra club is changing its tune on Nuclear Power....
 
I believe the Sierra club is changing its tune on Nuclear Power....

I believe you are wrong; the Sierra Club's “tune” has been pretty consistent for thirty-five years now.

The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending:

  1. Development of adequate national and global policies to curb energy over-use and unnecessary economic growth.
  2. Resolution of the significant safety problems inherent in reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and possible diversion of nuclear materials capable of use in weapons manufacture.
  3. Establishment of adequate regulatory machinery to guarantee adherence to the foregoing conditions. The above resolution does not apply to research reactors.
Adopted by the Board of Directors, December 12-13, 1974

Sierra Club Conservation Policies - Nuclear Power

Sounds pretty good to me.
 
And Tokyo wasn't suppose to be subject to such severe earthquakes. Just sayin'.

yes, it was …

Excerpted from “Japan earthquake is a seismic curveball” By Joel Achenbach, “Achenblog” (blog), The Washington Post, Posted at 10:20 AM ET, 03/11/2011, my added emphasis
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he epicenter of the earthquake was about 15 miles below the sea floor and about 80 miles east of the coastal city of Sendai. Tremors are common throughout Japan, and this one was near the Japan Trench, where the Pacific plate, the speediest of the earth's major slabs of crust, dives beneath the islands of Japan in what's called a subduction zone. There was a major tremor, magnitude 7.9, just two days ago - what now looks like a foreshock.

But although this is a seismic zone, part of the so-called Ring of Fire that lines much of the Pacific, until recently it wasn't considered one of Japan's most vulnerable areas. A 2009 paper by Japanese scientists discussed the possibility of a major earthquake in this part of Japan. Science does not instantly alter public policy, however.

The Japanese government has been prepared since the 1970s for the Tokai Earthquake, the idea of which emerged from the study of previous events along the Nankai Trough, another plate boundary that slides along the underside of Japan. This is among the most complex seismic zones in the world.

The plate boundary off the coast of Sendai had not had a "mega-quake" in the modern era. It may not have suffered a major rupture like this for more than 1,000 years. The closest analog may be a tremor recorded by monks in the year 869, according to Dave Applegate, a senior earthquake specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey.


I phrased my comment poorly. Certainly Tokyo is subject to significant seismic activity; but, other areas of Japan were considered to be more likely candidates for where the “big one” would strike.

Which should humble all those who are in the business of situating nuclear power plants.

“Pride goes before destruction.” — Proverbs 16:18
 
I will say no, because I believe there are other sources of energy that are safer - they just have to be researched and developed faster. I would support nuclear energy if it became absolutely necessary, but until that point I would prefer political focus be directed at safer and effective alternatives.
 
I will say no, because I believe there are other sources of energy that are safer - they just have to be researched and developed faster. I would support nuclear energy if it became absolutely necessary, but until that point I would prefer political focus be directed at safer and effective alternatives.

R&D doesn't grant success according to some time table, not even when liberally supplied with money.
the only alternative to nuclear is coal. Wind and solar are at best supplements, never will be alternatives.
Coal and nuclear are base load sources, and available 24/7. Wind and solar will never be that available, and no, there are no adequate storage devices for that large a load...
 
Last edited:
R&D doesn't grant success according to some time table, not even when liberally supplied with money.
the only alternative to nuclear is coal. Wind and solar are at best supplements, never will be alternatives.
Coal and nuclear are base load sources, and available 24/7. Wind and solar will never be that available, and no, there are no adequate storage devices for that large a load...
I think the future of energy is in some kind of artificial oil, not in any of the things mentioned above. But such an alternative will need lots of investment before it can actually become feasible.
 
I fully support Nuclear Energy. It;s about time to start building new plants here in the USA. It's clean and once Yucca Mountain is done we will have a safe place to store the spent fuel. Look at France the majority of there energy comes from Nuclear Plants and they seem to be doing just find.

Re-read your statement.
Something is not CLEAN if it produces such toxic waste that we have to hull out a mountain to store it. And for how many mellenia will this 'clean nuclear waste' be stored safely before it leaks and destroys the surrounding eco-system or worse?

My truck engine does not run CLEAN because it produces a toxic gas as a byproduct of function.

Or is this a "out of sight, out of mind" factor at work, here?

I have family who live in the danger-zone if our state's nuclear facility has a disaster. They have special radios in their home that will notify them through a nuclear-emergency system if something goes horribly wrong and they have to evacuate.

Yes that's "clean" and "efficient" for you - my ass.
 
Last edited:
Re-read your statement.
Something is not CLEAN if it produces such toxic waste that we have to hull out a mountain to store it. And for how many mellenia will this 'clean nuclear waste' be stored safely before it leaks and destroys the surrounding eco-system or worse?

My truck engine does not run CLEAN because it produces a toxic gas as a byproduct of function.

Or is this a "out of sight, out of mind" factor at work, here?

I have family who live in the danger-zone if our state's nuclear facility has a disaster. They have special radios in their home that will notify them through a nuclear-emergency system if something goes horribly wrong and they have to evacuate.

Yes that's "clean" and "efficient" for you - my ass.

Clean as in it's doesn't spou crap into the Air. Also how many people have died to Nuclear Energy Plants and the production of the Material needed vs Coal Plants. Nuclear plants have a very good track record. It just when something does go wrong the Media is all over it. Also the Movie the China Syndrome ( which is a good movie) along with the Three Mile Island Scare forever made America fear Nuclear Energy

Store the wast in the secure Facility or keep relaying on foreign energy sources I.E. oil.hmm am Going with Nuclear Energy.
 
Clean as in it's doesn't spou crap into the Air. Also how many people have died to Nuclear Energy Plants and the production of the Material needed vs Coal Plants. Nuclear plants have a very good track record. It just when something does go wrong the Media is all over it. Also the Movie the China Syndrome ( which is a good movie) along with the Three Mile Island Scare forever made America fear Nuclear Energy

Store the wast in the secure Facility or keep relaying on foreign energy sources I.E. oil.hmm am Going with Nuclear Energy.

Oh - clean as in 'it's toxic byproduct is liquid' Ok - gotcha.

Oh - I must point out, here, that we don't use nuclear energy in our VEHICLES - we use nuclear energy to create *electricity* - I'm SURE I don't get any of my non-nuclear electricity from the Middle East. Unless you're referring to the failed notion of an electric car :) that portion of your argument does not apply.

On that note - I do support us becoming a larger figure in the oil-industry - but that's not related to nuclear-production of electricity at all. Oil itself has it's drawbacks and concerns but they're nominal in regard to the nuclear-energy 'idea'
 
Last edited:
You want something as dangerous as a nuclear power plant to have no regulations?

I think you're misjudging what he means. Free market with determine the economy using it in a given area. Safety regulations are fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom