› Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Nuclear Energy - is it worth the risk?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nuclear Energy - is it worth the risk?

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Wow - come on Canada, let's get with the safety programme please!

This is scary.
post #2 of 13
I think it's worth it.

Not far from where I live in Pinawa, Manitoba, we have one of the oldest, if not the oldest nuclear plants in the country. I remember going there as a kid for field trips.

I don't put much into "Greenpeace" statements because they tend to exagerate their points in order to cause fear.

Nuclear power plants must meet strict regulations and guidelines and are closely monitored.
post #3 of 13
Not worth the risk.
post #4 of 13
i dont see we have a choice if you want to keep the same life style you have now. just dont bulid them on fault lines.
post #5 of 13
This is hogwash.

Tritium is near harmless. It's a beta emitter and beta particles can't even penetrate your skin. It CAN become harmful if you ingest several hundred millicurie amounts of it (it might kill off all your gut flora), but chances of that high a concentration are not possible unless you literally go to a radiochemistry lab and swallow a concentrated solution of it (which if in a glass beaker, you'd get no exposure to any beta particles even if you held onto it all day). Even in your body, most of your tissues stop the beta particles from ionizing very far, you run a higher risk of getting cancer from standing in the sun without sunscreen on for an hour. Do you have a tritium illuminated watch? Or a military compass? Those contain tritium, but the glass and steel block all the beta particles so that you get zero exposure even from wearing it all day. If tritium caused birth defects, then the thousands of radiochemists that work at hospitals everyday would have stillborns and miscarriages, or be completely sterile from all the positron and gamma particle exposure they get daily.

I would worry more about that guy who just came out of the hospital after a bone scan and is urinating gamma emitters in the bar bathroom, than any amount of tritium in my water or the air. Hospitals also eject radioactive carbon gas out into the atmosphere through their stacks all the time. C11 is a positron emitter too (easily penetrates through your body and can penetrate through thin lead). Sure it only has a half life of 20 minutes and is virtually gone in about 2 hours, but the stuff is still floating around in the atmosphere. Planes and helicopters probably fly through clouds of the stuff all the time, and those particles are shooting straight through the glass and aluminum.

Nuclear energy is by far one of the cleanest energy technologies in existence. But it needs to be done right (proper and FUNCTIONING safety and control systems in place), or can easily lead to another disaster like Chernobyl.
post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
There was a woman on the news last night who lives within spitting distance of the Pickering plant - she is expecting her 4th child - she is afraid now that this report has come back. 2 of her existing kids have autism, and supposedly there is a higher percentage of autistic children living in her area. Can it just be a coincidence? I don't know.
post #7 of 13
not worth it.
post #8 of 13
They are now so embedded in American life, it would be difficult to keep the same livestyle without them, I agree with theimp98
post #9 of 13
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post
I don't put much into "Greenpeace" statements because they tend to exagerate their points in order to cause fear.
Ain't that the truth. Of course, it's also true of modern-day governments such as yours and mine.

Nuclear power. Hmmm. I know next to nothing about it so shouldn't really pass comment. I don't think it's worth the risk, but again, I don't have the knowledge about the subject for that opinion to be final.
post #10 of 13
I live within 75 miles of a major nuclear facility,and the biggest worry I have is thinking of how much damage and fatalities would occur if some terrorist org. decided to target it for an attack! It is VERY frightening when you think about it.
post #11 of 13
I get freaked out by its affect on the water supply. Tonnes of hot water is constantly being released into the sea, i can't help but wonder what thats doing to the fish and maybe even the polar ice-caps.
post #12 of 13
Nuclear power makes the most technical AND political sense of most of the energy sources. Greenpeace is not a reliable source of information on anything-they are irresponsible fearmongers.
Many laypeople are currently kidding themselves into thinking that these "hybrid" cars or solar panels are good for the environment. As far as total efficiency nad energy balance goes, you are better off with a Hummer than with a Prius.
Same thing with solar cells. It takes so much energy to produce the silicon chips (silicon does not occur naturally in the earth's crust) that a solar panel would have to operate for about 20 years to recover the energy that you have to sink to it just to make it. Most crack or fail before then.
There is always foreign oil, and if you insist on avoiding nuclear then you buy the political situation of dependence on unstable countries. Personally I would enjoy seeing the need for it dry up, then the Middle East would lose its interested for the US.
Nuclear is pretty much the only game in town and the sooner we would collectively realize it, the more stable our economy and the world political situation would be.
post #13 of 13
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
As far as total efficiency nad energy balance goes, you are better off with a Hummer than with a Prius.
Did you miss the warning stating "take these figures with a grain of salt, nobody has seen the supporting data"

The figures make no sense, given that a hummer starts off costing double a hybrid...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Nuclear Energy - is it worth the risk?