Ralph Nader on The Nuclear Power Nightmare'

[bikerdruid]

If all you can think of to do with the energy of fissioning plutonium is to turn cities to ash, then you should be allowed access to any plutonium.

Those of us who are not fixated on fire and destruction are capable of coming up with more creative uses for this power source.

what are you babbling about?
i have never once, ever, supported the use of nuclear weapons.

i got the impression, from the original post, that plutonium was somehow useful in metallurgy.
i was asking him for clarification.
see what you get from butting in in other people's discussion?

 

[theprestige]

i got the impression, from the original post, that plutonium was somehow useful in metallurgy.

Really? Did you think that the "swords" were literal swords, too?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

i got the impression, from the original post, that plutonium was somehow useful in metallurgy.

Wow... really?

I've read that violent personality types are generally poorly educated, but a case this bad is truly extraordinary.

 

[bikerdruid]

Wow... really?

I've read that violent personality types are generally poorly educated, but a case this bad is truly extraordinary.

violent personality types???
please illustrate where i have ever, once, advocated violence.
where the hell do you get off with casually throwing underhanded insults like that?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

violent personality types???

Anti-semitic, too.

 

[bikerdruid]

Anti-semitic, too.

off topic and a lie.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

where the hell do you get off with casually throwing underhanded insults like that?

it is not much of a secret that you do hold hatred for muslims.
so....why do you hate arabs so?

Add hypocrisy to the list.

But I digress.

As I was saying, the peaceful uses of nuclear technology are as great as its capacity for destruction. That some people can only think of bloodshed and destruction, shouldn't be used as a club against those of us with a more enlightened and optimistic outlook.

 

[Travis]

I'm still having a helluva time wrapping my brain around the fact that the only energy solution we can come up with is nuclear.

Surely someone can come up with a better one eventually ?
We need the perfect solution... one that's 100% safe and 100% sustainable and makes 100% sense, not some temporary quick fix.
This may not be a popular opinion in this forum, but I for one do not want a friggin' nuclear plant nor its waste product buried underground in my backyard.

I don't give a damn how much "safer" the engineering claims to be today... Mother nature has a way of surprising us with unexpected scenarios that slap us back into the reality of our delusion of being indestructable.

The Titanic was unsinkable too. But today's knowledge of engineering tells us that idea was a ridiculous delusion. Who's to say in 70 years from now that today's so-called indestructable nuclear plants was also just a naive delusion ?

You clearly have no interest living within the constraints of this thing called "reality." I suggest you detach yourself from it as quickly as possible. There is probably a good meadow nearby for daydreaming.

There are no "perfect" solutions for anything. Stop demanding the impossible and join is in pragmatically finding workable solutions. Remember that where reality meets ideology reality will still win.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's quite hard to do more than £100 million or so (someone managed to drive their car onto a railway and derail a train) damage with a car. With a nuclear power plant the upper limit is less clear.

True. But one has also take into account the number of accidents actually happening, the fatalities caused.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[BenBurch]

You are in unique circumstances which are simply not feasible for the majority of the population.

Doesn't matter to him.

 

[pipelineaudio]

the most active voices against greenhouse gasses are usually pro-nuclear to at least some degree.

In which universe do you live? I'd sure as hell like to move there

 

[LashL]

Stick to the topic, which is not each other, and be mindful of the Membership Agreement to which you each agreed when you signed up here. Also, refrain from importing arguments from other threads. And if you simply cannot stand each other, the Ignore option might be your friend.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[PhantomWolf]

And surely anything that prevents people using the products of the reactors for science is a bad thing.

Swords and plowshares, remember?

Also, having less swords lying around is always a good thing, right up until the moment you find you need a sword, and then they become quite handy. I don't think we need a lot of plutonium bombs, and I'm definitely against proliferation. But I do think it'd be nice to have some plutonium bombs, and I think it'd be nice to keep open the option to build more. Meanwhile, plutonium can be used for science and technology.

You are confusing your plutoniums. Plutonium-238 is what is used in RTGs as batteries for space probes, it is non-weapon capable. Plutonium-239 is weapon's grade when pure, and is the stuff we don't want getting into the wrong hands. Note in my posts I have been saying we don't need reactors that make plutonium for weapons, that is 239, not 238.

The difference is that 239 (and 240) is what you get out of Nuclear Power Reactor, with 238 only making up as much as 2% of the Plutonium from a reactor, and that isn't usable in RTGs anyway. 238 is specifically created by irradiating Neptunium-237, so it has to be made specially. Reducing the number of Pu-239 generating reactors will have little overall effect on the amount of Pu-238 we can make, only the number of plutonium based nuclear weapons.

As to the whole, well it might be nice to have one if needed, the US and Russia still have enough to wipe out virtually every living creature on the planet, and then there are those held by the UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. I don't think we have to worry about a shortage of them. It's not like conventional weapons don't actually work just as well in war anyway, in fact when was the last time a Nuke was used compared to the thousands of tonnes of conventials that have been used since 1945.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

...speak for your self.
i produce my own.

Not today you're not.

I took this pic and posted it today in another thread explaining to another forum member why roads can't be used as solar panels:

The reason the picture is so dark at 5:00 pm is because the sky was overcast today. How are those solar panels working out for you?

 

[geni]

True. But one has also take into account the number of accidents actually happening, the fatalities caused.

You take them into account but it takes an aweful lot of small acents to make an entire area uninsurable. The possibility of one gobsmackingly large accident is more of a problem.

 

[BenBurch]

Even alternative energy kills people; http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

 

[tyr_13]

You are confusing your plutoniums. Plutonium-238 is what is used in RTGs as batteries for space probes, it is non-weapon capable. Plutonium-239 is weapon's grade when pure, and is the stuff we don't want getting into the wrong hands. Note in my posts I have been saying we don't need reactors that make plutonium for weapons, that is 239, not 238.

Actually you can make a weapon using Plutonium 238 or with up 7% 240, but the yield and reliability are less.

Not today you're not.

I took this pic and posted it today in another thread explaining to another forum member why roads can't be used as solar panels:

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/whysolarroadscantwork.jpg[/qimg]

The reason the picture is so dark at 5:00 pm is because the sky was overcast today. How are those solar panels working out for you?

I have to remind certain green friends of the limitations that different environments put on some technologies, specifically solar and all electric vehicles. However, it doesn't snow everywhere for that long. Even just turning all the Wal-Mart parking lots in the south to solar voltaic surfaces would supply a huge chunk of electricity that could be distributed on a sufficiently advanced grid, or even used in hydrogen fuel production or CO² sequestration into carbon based fuels.

 

[qayak]

The other thing people have to remember is that the plants that are failing are old . . . really old.

Newer safer nuclear technology is available and is used everytime a new plant is built. It isn't a problem of nuclear being unsafe, it is that their are known problems with old technology but people don't think about it until something bad happens. Upgrading and replacement of nuclear technology is important to its safety just like it is for everything else.

How safe, efficient, and reliable was your 1920's Ford compared to your 2011 Honda? Not even close. So, no one expects first generation automobile technology to be up to today's standards but we expect first generation nuclear to be up to them.

This isn't so much a technology problem. This is a social problem.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Even just turning all the Wal-Mart parking lots in the south to solar voltaic surfaces would...

...result in the pointless destruction of billions of dollars worth of solar cells from driving SUV's and motorhomes back and forth over them ten thousand times a day.

And even if they weren't destroyed right away, their energy production would drop to zero in days from the thin layer of dust oil and tire rubber that accumulates on every road surface in the country.

 

[lomiller]

In which universe do you live? I'd sure as hell like to move there

The real one, you really stop listening to Fox news and try it. Support for nuclear power among people concerned with global warming is rather overwhelming.

As for these forums, well less than 2% of the forum population are against nuclear power outright and I don’t know of a single person who regularly posts about global warming who opposes it for any other reason than they think renewable are preferable.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203862