Hello,

After being actively doing several surveys among a green organization, it seems that the population do still not disagree with using nuclear energy.


Well, the problem is the mass is not well informed of the problems of nuclear (treatments, possible leaks, ...)

Here another one, minor still, since it wont go to Japan or other EU countries.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/t...-governor-says

From most survey, nuclear is a possible cheap way to get energy, and it is reliable. If you really knew guys, what is going on. You would probably not vote for x, y, or z gov.

My friend told me on the phone:
"Enjoy eating your radioactive apples and drinking your radioactive milk " Just kidding.

It is a disaster.

Nuclear is a sensible option that should be used more to get a diverse mix of sources (unless you're in France). If you'd worked a few years in the field you'd know more about it. Everything is radioactive and a bit of radiation is normal; the point is not to increase it by a large amount.

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

We're due.

what are you complaining about ???

glow-in-the-dark apples would make it easy to harvest at night time
cheaper for the farmer, cheaper for the consumer
solar panels under every apple tree means low cost power for the farmer - another win

milk that glows would save a fortune as all those refrigerator lights could be got rid of
supermarkets could get rid of whole banks of fluoro lights and have hanging bottles of milk

its not a disaster
its an opportunity

Green technologies follow the same effects as Moores-law and have been around for a long time, so if it wasn't all about the benjamins...

Stand outside this morning and bask in the warm glow of your very best source of power.

The reason why this source of power is not avidly solicited is that it is non-centralized. You can generate power for your own home on your own roof. Per contra, the entire business model of power generation is centralized ... massive generators, transmission lines, storage facilities. A tremendous amount of fuel is consumed generating power that no one ever consumes. If a large percentage of the population took advantage of the terawatts of power that land every daytime moment on their tens of millions of collected rooftops, the business equation for power generation would be drastically different.

The leak from the tank in the article you cited is coming from the storage of waste from producing nuclear weapons during the cold war. You're comparing apples and oranges because nuclear power plants don't produce that much waste that quickly for it to be such a storage concern. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm bored of the proponents of nuclear energy recycling the same old cherry picked facts straight out of a text book... facts which ignore the very real possibility of Fukushima or Chernobyl type incidents.

I know, facts can be so bothersome. Let's just ignore logic.

That's not what I'm saying... proponents of any particular technology always focus on the positives just as opponents do on the negative aspects. I tend to look at it on a human level in that I would not want to live in fukushima or chernobyl or go through what some of those people have been through. I suspect that were also told the "facts" etc...

It depends on where you live. Fukushima happened because they didn't design for an earthquake and a tsunami. Chernobyl happened because of poor design and seriously stupid operating staff. France has lots of reactors and no problems: better technology and training than the old USSR, only tiny earthquakes, and no tsunamis.

I'm not keen of nuclear power, but fossil fuels have brought us climate change and renewables are not up to scratch yet.
Not round here!

Sing and dance all you want. We do not have the ability to safely store spent nuclear fuel for the millions of years it will take for the radiation to get down to safe levels, therefore, we should not be building nuclear.

Debate "logic" for things only seem infinite(\beyond-comprehension)...

If nuclear is better than coal more will te$t. A faster way to wreck Earth is the b☢mbs!

Then we should also not build power plants that use fossil fuels, since we do not have the ability to reverse the effects on climate, and don't forget cars here, same problem. We could change to electric cars, but that only shifts the problem to the producers of electricity.

What we should do is to research clean energies, so that we can produce electricity safely and cost effective, but in the meantime we have to reduce the harm that we do with producing electricity either way to a minimum.
So the real point to argue about is: What is better, us having problems with radioactive waste or us having problems with climate change. While I am not a fan of nuclear power I think that climate change is the worse problem.

Moderator, please delete -- duplicate post.