For you, one life (or few) has no meaning, right? Some others have lost some relative due to being evacuated.

Btw. In my opinion, one single life should have more meaning than everything.


[Src: greenpeace web]

Attached Thumbnails

 

Of course for me one life has meaning which is why I think it would be good if less people lost their lives -- this would be true if we changed to nuclear as backed up by the figures I showed before.
A plea to emotion is not a valid argument for proving one thing is safer than another.
I'd be surprised if a nuclear reactor didn't use less rare earth metals than the equivalent wind turbine also so you'd be cutting down on pollution and death due to their mining.

Most serious studies show that you can readily get energy (relatively) sufficiently with Solar, Wind, and other additional sources. So?

The population is ignorant, so they eat all what comes. Actually they do not matter or care about that, since they have their own problems.

The earth is a responsibility of each of us, and especially not to accept things that could be different and better.

Nuclear energy is easy and cheap for everyone. Mostly the problem is politics and people that do not care about it (population).

Attached Thumbnails

 

As I said, I'd wager that the amount of rare earth metals used in the creation of a wind farm equivalent to a nuclear power plant would be a lot more than the power plant. I also hope that you're not going to buy any more consumer electronics because when you do you have blood on your hands:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...lage-pollution
Just one example, there are many, many more out there.
Rather than appeal to emotion how about some figures which prove I'm wrong?
Your "green energy" doesn't look very green to me.
All energy will cost lives and will damage an environment somewhere and to think otherwise is just delusion. The only way to prevent loss of life is not to use power at all.

There is a huge problem here. You take 1 plant disaster and pit it up against dams (the s indicates a plural meaning mmore than 1) are you talking about every dam failure ever? The fact that 1 nuclear disaster has had a very negative impact adn that you have to have many dam failures to make a bad point indicates you are not really looking at this issue with a clear view.

Sorry, I meant that the terrible nuclear incident killed fewer people than many terrible damn disasters have individually. I've a feeling if you look into it you'd find as many people have lost their lives due to damn failure as nuclear plant failure also but I'm willing to be corrected as I am in all my assertions here.

More sources:

I looked up a bit and I got up a findings about effects of radiations. Surely it causes more cancers.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...ety/radiation/

The question is how much Millisiverts is bad. Actually even without a nuclear plant next to you, lot of colon cancers can be unfortunately diagnosed in population.


From my experience, I suspect that even a small elevated mSv dose can cause some years later some unexpected bad results. Man, radiation is so crap.


Believe me, this is not crap what they say below. I have seen the experience unfortunately.

I might suspect that if you are more than 100 km, it starts to be less present (this radiation thing) than being close. In my opinion, I would say that you need at least a distance of 100 km to observe much less issues on the population.

The worst of the worst is once cancer hits, sometimes, you cannot do much about it. That's crap.

Of course radiation causes problems but, as I said, so do damns and so does rare earth mining to create wind turbines.
Why choose one and demonize the other?
It seems that some take it as a self-evident truth that nuclear power is bad but the truth is it is far from that simple.

The problem with nuclear fuel use is the storage of the waste for millions of years. Even a low probability of an accident or misuse, compounded over the time span involved, shows that nuclear is more dangerous (and more expensive once the costs of storage for so long are internalized, as they should).

I'll be honest and say I don't know how much risk that adds, but I will say I'm confident it does not add enough to make nuclear suddenly "OMG IT WILL KILL US ALL!!!!!!" as seems to be the tone of some posts on this thread.
I'd be willing to bet that the very small risk of an accident due to the many measures taken to stop one occurring means that the added risk is almost negligible.
Of course, disposal is expensive, but that's another argument entirely. The French, for example, seem to think though that nuclear is a viable option financially, so perhaps it is?

I like the fact that the State of Texas has been working on being the single greatest location for wind generation. That has also sadly been at the sake of billions of winged animals.



It would depend of the type of reactor and the fuel. I have handled depleted uranium many times. This was not fuel from a common reactor.


There is actually some good news. Hydrogen fusion plans from Lockheed may be practical in 8 years if you believe the news reports.

Again, humans will find some way to waste the resource.

The only green way is to not use energy and products.

Simple things like: (smaller) windmills (that don't cost life(mo$tly hype again$t)), waves and solar everywhere.

Around here if you invest in going off the grid the power company can pay you!

The problem I see with nuclear is there are way to many things, lets call them variables, that can influence it's gathering, use, containment. No one can tell what nature (planets forces) will do. No one can tell if some worker who for all intents and purposes is a good person has had a bad week and lets his/her guard down and all of a sudden we have a Chernobyl. No one can tell if the way we are storing spent fuel will be safe in a hundred years let alone the actual life of the contaminant.

I personally object to its use, and I have even had it for medical purposes which saved my life, and believe that nuclear has made us lazy when it comes to researching other viable alternatives. This of course is just my opinion but it will take a pretty good discussion, without the "it's clean it cheap its ......" debate, from the opposite side to sway me from it. If the natural, human, and after use variables could be dealt with I might be happier about it but let's face it they can't. Australia is one of the worlds biggest suppliers of yellow cake and the amount of environmental damage that has occured mining for it is criminally negligent let alone morally wrong.

Uh, no, expense isn't "another argument entirely." EVERYTHING comes down to expense. The expense of lives lost or damaged from one form of power source or another. The expense of not having enough power. The expense of construction, operation, and demolition. The expense, in the case of nuclear, of having to build something that will last for millions of years (which we have never done) to hold the waste until it ceases to have dangerous levels of radioactivity.

And the expense, in the case of nuclear, of us getting our sums wrong and having all this radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Remember, we can't externalize costs. Therefore, the cost of nuclear waste storage must be factored in.