What is Digg?227 Comments
- BassMastr, on 03/31/2008, -1/+211Why exactly is nuclear power bad? You prefer fossil fuels? I agree it's not perfect by any means, but if there was a perfect option we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- mwrl, on 03/31/2008, -14/+174Nuclear power isn't bad at all. Hippies have just made it appear to be bad.
- TwineHornet, on 03/31/2008, -2/+91We've had this nuclear technology for ages---people are just ignorant about it. What happened at Chernobyl was unique--they were using *****, outdated technology even for the time. Most of Europe is nuclear right now, and safely so.
- donjacko, on 03/31/2008, -2/+82really, nuclear power is not bad. the safety risks and environmental risks are massively overplayed and it astonishes me how few people actually know the facts.
modern reactors cannot melt down. its impossible.
a tiny amount of waste is produced which is less radioactive than that of old reactors.
many new reactors are pebble bed reactors which mean that the radioactive fuel would be hard to do anything with if seized by terrorists.
oh, and BTW- the technology to recycle spent fuel already exists - BigManOnCampus, on 03/31/2008, -3/+58The United States has more nuclear reactors operating in it than any other country. We have more nuclear powered vessels in use than any other nation. We have never had a single accident that resulted in any release of nuclear material. And yet, we have more nuclear-ignorant-people in this country who want to believe in a boogeyman and stop nuclear power from being used than in any other country. ***** wake up you ignorant saps, nuclear power is not dangerous. If it were, every developed nation in this world would have suffered some kind of major disaster by now.
- zeitgueist, on 03/31/2008, -0/+44You are aware that TMI didn't hurt a single person in the world, right? TMI is actually a success story in terms of nuclear safety.
- doctechnical, on 03/31/2008, -0/+40The difference between TMI and Chernobly is like the difference between a flight delay and a fully loaded 747 crashing into a mountain. They really shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
- zeitgueist, on 03/31/2008, -2/+40Meltdowns are impossible with current reactors. Not unlikely, impossible.
- inactive, on 03/31/2008, -1/+30Buried as inaccurate for the title. I'm sure after I read the description and the article I'll want to bury it again.
- SeventhSon, on 03/31/2008, -0/+26The amount of radiation released at Three Mile Island was practically nothing. Several Independent studies have found that those who were exposed to said radiation were hit with one millirem. A chest xray clocks in at 6 millirems.
- slvrbullet87, on 03/31/2008, -0/+24People caught in the area of 3 mile island got about as much radiation as getting a chest x ray. That is for all purposes harmless
- Nougat, on 03/31/2008, -0/+23Don't put words in my mouth. I dispute this.
- lastoftheidiots, on 03/31/2008, -0/+21Not to mention at Chernobyl they had no personnel with any real knowledge of how the reactor worked on site. And they were running a test that no one who's even remotely educated about nuclear tech would even dream of running.
- puter, on 03/31/2008, -0/+20just an explanation as to why.
Current nuclear reactors use two methods to prevent a meltdown. The first isolates each reaction in its own globe, if that reaction goes critical then that module is just removed. This would make the meltdown unlikely, not removed.
What makes a meltdown impossible is that the current design of reactors use the coolants AS a reactant. What this means is say you have a problem and the coolant supply gets cut off (which is what makes a reaction go critical), the result of this would not be a meltdown because the coolant itself is needed for the reaction. If the coolant evaporates off, or a delivery system gets damaged, the reaction would simply stop. This makes a meltdown impossible. - trogdor282, on 03/31/2008, -0/+18Coal has so much natural uranium in it that you're much worse off with a coal plant in your neighborhood than a nuclear plant. Nuclear so much higher in watts per acre that it makes solar and wind look like a blight on the planet. The only thing that makes nuclear unsafe is that people wont let them build new plants, so we're stuck with the 50 year old ones that are literally falling apart.
- repmekevets, on 03/31/2008, -0/+17i'm a hippie and i think we should be building more nuclear power plants. yes it creates nuclear waste, but when stored in a geologically stable environment (like yucca mountain) we don't really need to worry about it. other than this waste, all it produces is water vapor. yes, water vapor. i guess you could call this thermal pollution, but i'd much prefer it to coal smog.
- SeventhSon, on 03/31/2008, -0/+17"but if this technology could be made to work, I could get behind it as a temporary measure."?
The technology does work. And nuclear power isn't exactly temporary. Nearly all of the nuclear plants build in the US are still functioning, and have had their operating licenses renewed. They'll be good to go 24/7 263 days a year for hundreds of years. And that's the last generation of models. - scoottie, on 03/31/2008, -2/+19"I know nuclear power is bad, but ..."
Ummmm wrong - GOVStooge, on 03/31/2008, -4/+21Gad damn I hate hippies
- lastoftheidiots, on 03/31/2008, -0/+16Seeing as how the courtroom they were holding the hearings in after the TMI incident had more radiation in it than was released into the environment from it, I'm inclined to agree. Chernobyl on the other hand...
- bxblox, on 03/31/2008, -3/+19You know, nuclear power is not bad and.... buried.
- inactive, on 03/31/2008, -0/+16More people have died in Senator Kennedy's car than from Nuclear power here in the US. I say go Nuclear with all our new technology, its far more superior.
- minoss, on 03/31/2008, -6/+20Yes, because the hippies exploited these events as if they are indicative of modern day nuclear reactors.
- yojiffyskippy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+14Eating peanut butter is bad because of the risks. No one disputes this. And it kills more people each year than nuclear power plants.
- theskyisblue, on 03/31/2008, -2/+16idiot. nuclear power isnt bad. it is actually safer than any other source we have besides wind and solar panels. in terms of radioactivity, you actually get more radiation annually from sleeping next to your spouse than living withni a 15 mile radius of a nuclear reactor. These are facts; I did a whole research paper on these things. USA refuses to do nuclear power because all the leaders of this nation own coal and other fossil fuels, thus making them more money by giving their own companies coal contracts. A lot of uranium, which is the typical nuclear fuel, comes from countries like Russia and various other places (I forget which ones), but not a lot of them, if none at all, are on USA soil and they arent owned by the same rich USA leaders. They dont want to help people in other countries, especially like Russia, by buying uranium contracts.
- inactive, on 03/31/2008, -2/+15Exactly. They already do use waist from nuclear reactors to further make energy.
***** hippies, I swear to god, the far left is just as dumb as the far right, except more annoying because they're pseudo-intellectuals. - furbyboy, on 03/31/2008, -3/+16Nuclear power is ***** awesome!
- lengau, on 03/31/2008, -1/+14If the rocket blows up, that's a problem.
The three current solutions advertised as permanent are that, burying under mountains, and burying at the bottom of the ocean (as near to the molten core as possible).
(That said, I'm pro-nuclear power) - TGrimace, on 03/31/2008, -0/+13I dispute this also
- Nitrodist88, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12The risks that are already being shown from using oil are much more than any perceived risks taken from nuclear energy.
- neferiousrich, on 03/31/2008, -1/+13buried for being submitted by k-fed.
nobody wants to hear it. - BigManOnCampus, on 03/31/2008, -5/+16Your facts are somewhat distorted. Going off-grid using solar and proper insulation is only viable in places that get enough sunlight during the winter or lots of wind all the time. This means the sunbelt or lower. I wish good luck to Europe with their law, but historically speaking their continent doesn't get enough sunshine year round to avoid going completely off-grid.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed and re-used. This is a process that greenies have succeeded in banning in the United States. It reduces the final amount of radioactive waste when you do this.
decentralized power generation would be ideal, but the rest of your third paragraph reeks of paranoia. You're even insinuating that just because something is run by a corporation, it will not be regulated and safety will be a factor. That isn't a problem now with nuke plants, why would it be so in the future? - unpolloloco, on 03/31/2008, -1/+12buried for lameness - at talk about details, rather than philsophically weighing the values of various power devices
- consoneo, on 03/31/2008, -1/+12That's because of the stigma placed on nuclear power. Once those stigmas are removed, the prices of real estate near nuclear reactors will be higher than those, comparatively, near coal burning plants.
- PhantomRogue, on 03/31/2008, -0/+10Nice uninformed opinion there. There is Zero risk of Meltdowns with todays reactors (as mentioned above) the process is all automated, with technicians there to monitor the automation. If you look at three mile island now, its blooming with wildlife. There was a really good article about three mile island in a recent issue of GQ ( http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6 ... ).
There is such a stigma about the word Nuclear Power, that people make blanket and wrong assumptions ("Nuclear is bad because of the risks and the waste"). France recycles most of their nuclear waste, as well as the "waste" of other countries reactors, and ends up selling the refined rods back to those countries, at a profit to France. So please, inform yourself before you make blanket assumptions about technology you know little about.
And lastly, our Government REFUSES to refine our own nuclear waste, which if we refined all the waste it would open up additional lines of revenue. Its sad how many people are scared of the Nuclear Plants because of some archaic news clipping. - davidrools, on 03/31/2008, -0/+10The waste is much more easily contained and stored than the GHGs and particulates released in fossil fuel burning
- BassMastr, on 03/31/2008, -17/+26I'd have to say that that whole three mile island and Chernobyl (yes i know it's a different technology, but most people don't care.) didn't do the industry any favors.
- whereiseljefe, on 03/31/2008, -0/+9If our politicians would legalize it, one very effective solution for spent fuel rods is recycling. Yes, spent fuel rods still have a very large amount of usable material and recycling technology is actually in use right now in France and a few other countries. The only downside is weapons grade plutonium is a byproduct, which is why the US outlaws recycling.
- zephyear, on 03/31/2008, -3/+12nuclear power isn't bad. nuclear power is the ***** best.
- SteelChicken, on 03/31/2008, -2/+11explain why you think nuclear is bad.
- sgiffy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+10Meltdowns, leaks, and mini black holes. The end of all we know and love.
- mr.gates, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8Besides it can't (not wont can't) happen again how the reactors are designed now if it gets above a specific temperature the walls that hold back the coolant will melt and the coolant will flood into the reactor and stop the process. Additionally nuclear power does not release anything into the atmosphere like coal. Wind will never be a good source of power, solar isn't there quite yet and nuclear power is not the bogeyman you wish it was.
- flashingcurser, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8What is really interesting is that the French are somewhat left of the United States politically, yet they produce most of their power from nuclear.
- Nougat, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7There is a lot less waste and a lot lower risk than people think.
- DCGUY12, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Type Four Reactors are virtually meltdown proof. Type Five "Theoretically" will have almost no waste from the process.
All of the Type 1 Reactors in the world exist in Russia, and have been upgraded to not meltdown. - silverweed, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Nuclear power is awesome, I want nuclear.
- thcobbs, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8how bout a rail gun powered by a nuclear reactor? :)
- ypSami, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6I'm really sick of hearing people make absolute statements about stuff they are clearly ignorant of.
- rstarr, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6How about a space-escalator...?
Because it will never break...it will only become space-stairs...
Sorry for the convenience...you can still get things in orbit... -
Show 51 - 100 of 227 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is