4 replies to this topic

[nick87]

Nuclear energy doesn't create the same air pollution that burning carbon does, but it produces a ton of nuclear waste that they don't even know what to do with yet. Just storing all the nuclear waste in a temperature controlled area isn't going to work in the long run when they run out of room, the waste will keep on growing. There are some companies with plans to bury it in a low populated area, but does that really sound like a good idea? We don't know much about nuclear effects yet, but burying it doesn't sound all that safe. What are your thoughts? Is nuclear energy worth it?

[Hayden]

No, that does not sound like a good idea. Seems we always look at the immediate benifits and ignore looking at things long term. It's sad really. Its also why the Japanese are trying to force their government away from nuclear power. In the US there's a lot more nuclear plants and nuclear weapons than what we would expect.

Just a quick Google search and it seems there's ways for all of us to get involved, petitions etc in our area:
http://reid.senate.g...ca_petition.cfm
http://epetitions.di.../petitions/1035
http://www.europarlt...a6-9eed011dfe70

[zararina]

There is a controversial nuclear power built here before that had never been used but had cost a lot for maintenance so that it will not cause any radiation/chemicals problems. So sad fact that a lot of money is just wasted and will be wasted on such plant instead of using funds on more important matters that seems to lack enough funds here like in education and medical aspect. There are some who would want to make that plant active/functional and I am a bit glad that a lot are not wanting it to happen since it will not be a all good thing in the future. And I think the nuclear power  plant problem in Japan should be a clear proof that it was not safe at all, not matter how advance the technology specially when our nature strikes back to us.

[nick87]

zararina, on 24 September 2011 - 08:15 AM, said:

And I think the nuclear power  plant problem in Japan should be a clear proof that it was not safe at all, not matter how advance the technology specially when our nature strikes back to us.

I completely agree with that. Those who are in favor of nuclear power say that it's completely safe, unless something happens. But as the earthquake in Japan proves, disaster can strike at any moment, and when something bad does happen, the results are catastrophic. We know that natural disasters happen, we know that accidents occur, and we know that human disasters happen, so why would we go on the assumption that the worst case scenario won't occur? Nuclear power kills less people than burning fossil fuels if everything goes right...but if everything goes wrong, it kills more people and continues to kill people long afterwards. Just look at Chernobyl. It's still not even inhabitable.

[el canadiano]

nick87, on 23 September 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

Nuclear energy doesn't create the same air pollution that burning carbon does, but it produces a ton of nuclear waste that they don't even know what to do with yet. Just storing all the nuclear waste in a temperature controlled area isn't going to work in the long run when they run out of room, the waste will keep on growing. There are some companies with plans to bury it in a low populated area, but does that really sound like a good idea? We don't know much about nuclear effects yet, but burying it doesn't sound all that safe. What are your thoughts? Is nuclear energy worth it?

As long as you have the regulations to defend the nuclear power plant against disasters (ie. Chernobyl or Fukushima) and if you can safely store the nuclear waste, I would be personally fine with it. After all, Fukushima would have easily been preventable had they made the safety measurements to withhold and earthquake of that magnitude (this was all confirmed in a WikiLeaks cable).