LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-23-2013, 01:15 PM   #1
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Debian Land
Posts: 1,389

Rep: Reputation: 88
Mass loves Nuclear, but it will kill us all ;)


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.

Last edited by Xeratul; 02-23-2013 at 01:17 PM.
 
Old 02-23-2013, 07:19 PM   #2
linosaurusroot
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Distribution: OpenSuSE,RHEL,Fedora,OpenBSD
Posts: 869
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 216Reputation: 216Reputation: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeratul View Post
If you really knew guys, what is going on....

"Enjoy eating your radioactive apples and drinking your radioactive milk "
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 plantŚa by-product from burning coal for electricityŚcarries 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
 
Old 02-23-2013, 08:22 PM   #3
fogpipe
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Distribution: Slackware 64 -current multilib
Posts: 359

Rep: Reputation: 95
Quote:
American Heritage Dictionary:
die-off

Top
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
(dī'˘f', -ŏf')
n.
The elimination of a species, population, or community of plants or animals as a result of natural causes.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/die-off#ixzz2Lm87n5TD
We're due.
 
Old 02-24-2013, 03:17 AM   #4
floppywhopper
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Albany, Western Australia
Distribution: Mageia 4.1, SME Server 8
Posts: 627
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 55
Quote:
"Enjoy eating your radioactive apples and drinking your radioactive milk
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
 
Old 02-24-2013, 08:22 AM   #5
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,450
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381
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...
 
Old 02-24-2013, 11:25 AM   #6
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,455

Rep: Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172Reputation: 1172
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.
 
Old 02-24-2013, 10:34 PM   #7
sag47
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Philly, PA
Distribution: Kubuntu x64, RHEL, Fedora Core, FreeBSD, Windows x64
Posts: 1,505
Blog Entries: 35

Rep: Reputation: 383Reputation: 383Reputation: 383Reputation: 383
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.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 08:20 AM   #8
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD
Posts: 1,407

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 09:00 AM   #9
sag47
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Philly, PA
Distribution: Kubuntu x64, RHEL, Fedora Core, FreeBSD, Windows x64
Posts: 1,505
Blog Entries: 35

Rep: Reputation: 383Reputation: 383Reputation: 383Reputation: 383
I know, facts can be so bothersome. Let's just ignore logic.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 11:44 AM   #10
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Distribution: OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD
Posts: 1,407

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by sag47 View Post
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...
 
Old 02-25-2013, 11:57 AM   #11
DavidMcCann
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Salix
Posts: 3,216

Rep: Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820Reputation: 820
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.
Quote:
Stand outside this morning and bask in the warm glow of your very best source of power.
Not round here!
 
Old 02-25-2013, 01:15 PM   #12
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88
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.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 04:59 PM   #13
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,450
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381
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!
 
Old 02-25-2013, 06:21 PM   #14
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,650
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095Reputation: 4095
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxieman99 View Post
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.
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.
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:00 PM   #15
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 413

Rep: Reputation: 88
Moderator, please delete -- duplicate post.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Restart a user's server, or mass-kill processes ? Sabinou Linux - Security 2 01-30-2013 01:38 PM
LXer: The Nuclear Option LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-19-2007 06:01 AM
nuclear energy foo_bar_foo General 103 02-22-2006 10:36 AM
gnome panel went nuclear imbaczek Linux - Software 0 10-08-2004 02:23 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration