I was just wondering if it is really as dangerous as I've always thought it is. I used to live near one a couple years ago and there were sirens everywhere in case of a meltdown. That doesn't really make too much sense to me... if there were to be a meltdown there wouldn't be time for the people to leave, right? The radiation would have to screw something up. I was also told that it pumped hot water back into the ocean damaging the habitat. I don't understand why we use something that is potentially dangerous when we could use cleaner sources of energy.
Well, there might be time to at least partially contain it to give people a bit of a chance. It's not a sudden thing, just a gradual process of overheating, could take hours, depending on the scale of the fuck up. The water pumped out into the rivers lakes and oceans is the water used in the cooling system, I don't think it's ever in contact with radioactive material, but the heat is what causes the damage. Nuclear energy is extremely efficient and releases no CO2 or other noxious gasses, and you get a lot of energy for a small amount of fuel; but we have no way to dispose of the waste. That and the threat of a screw up (3 Mile Island, Chernobyl) makes it much less friendly a technology in my eyes. It's just more of the same: we cause problems today to have our children clean it up tomorrow. Nuclear waste lasts for tens of thousands of years, and thats a fucked up legacy to leave behind.
one of the times I really disagrees with brother bob.... My issues with nukes go way back. my only arrest was for demonstrating at Comanche Peak in Texas. before it was built. As trippin said, the cooling water is discharged into the nearest water, often a river of resrvoir, and by heating up the area, the animals change. sort of a preview for global warming? perhaps. The wates breaks down, but earth dwellers will go through many generations before its done. Add the psychotic fundie freaks running around that believe if they screw up Jerusalem, or anywhere else they'll speed the moment their god returns, I don't want that waste ANYWHERE. the one and only plus to nuclear energy is a lack of air-borne contaminants. Its proponents have the gall to call it clean energy (even during the past election cycle a man running for Senate, Colorado's Pete Coors, said nukes were the way to decrease dependence on oil. He also said we should tap the ANWR, so I felt he was off base. I'm glad he lost. Very glad.) I'd rather have some airborne contaminants than barrels of potential weapons. we are using technology to use lower and lower grades of coal in power plants. I'd wager the ability to use lesser and lesser degrees of radioactive waste is either here or the contractions for its birth have started. Solar and wind are viable options. So is hydro, within reason. We are, as a species, smarter and more advanced than nukes. We need to prove that.
Nuclear power is like alcohol, its great if you treat it responsibly. Start dropping it out of aeroplanes and fireing neutrons into it over cities is likely to cause a lot of damage. However if its kept inside concrete blocks and carefully controlled it is a very powerful source of energy. The trouble comes with where to dump the waste though very deep holes usually provide some kind of answer though i suppose one day we'll lob it all into the sun or someting not a bad idea I suppose. There is an issue with warm water being released, this has nothing to do with nuclear radiation but is because it cheaper to let the water back in to the sea warm than it is to let it cool before releasing it. People seem to have this strange fear of the word nuclear, whihc i guess has somethign to do with weapons, but it is quite funny at times. For example nuclear fusion was another terrible invention however hydrogen fusion is going to answer all our prayers for power, they're the same thing. Also NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) scanners were taken out of hospitals and replaces with MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanners because people were worried about a nuclear machine. Again I doubt they so much changed the machine as the label, given they are identical.
