So, um, quick question: How many planes have ever targeted a nuclear reactor? (Re: The ad in the center of the page.)
Maybe they ought to read up on the many advances in nuclear power over the last few decades. A plane crashing into a nuclear power plant would do little against the six-foot-thick reinforced-concrete secondary containment unit. Think of a pop can slamming into a wooden box with three-inch-thick walls.
Anyway, just another example of fear being the default method of getting people to support your cause. Terrorists, nuclear power, Iran’s gonna have a bomb!, whatever. Be afraid… be very afraid… of everything, and do whatever anyone asks you who promises to make the scary things go away.
The thing with nuclear power is it has undergone a lot of advancements over the years, and people fail to realize it. They think Chernobyl, which was a shitty plant run in a crappy way, and think all nuclear reactors behave in the same way.
One of the newest developments is Pebble Bed Reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
So, basically, it’s impossible for them to melt down.
Part of the problem is an irrational fear in the public mind to the world ‘nuclear’. The type of experiments I do in the lab are called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Very similar to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Why was the ‘Nuclear’ dropped off of MRI? They were worried that patients would be more afraid of the machine and refuse to go in, even though it has NOTHING to do with nuclear reactions. What’s really funny in this case is that the other type of magnetic resonance is done on electrons instead of neuclei, and this would require that you be microwaved every time you go in
.
The comment about the generation of nuclear waste is valid, but only because we refuse to reprocess our nuclear waste. Yes, the nuclear reaction of U235 generates plutonium and other bad stuff. But wait! We can put THAT into the reactor. That generates bad stuff too? Put THAT bad stuff back in. Eventually, you get down to stuff with a half life of 3 days and you get salt water coming out at the end. There, I’ve handled our nuclear waste problem, as well as increased the power output ~100 fold. This is how France does things.
Many of the arguments both for and against nuclear power seem to stem not from a plus/minus determination, but from justifying a decision the author has already made.
You might find my website interesting. It contains a techno-thriller about nuclear power endorsed by Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog. There’s no cost. See the homepage comments for reader reviews. I’ve spent many years in the US nuclear industry, but have tried to keep an open mind to all possibilities. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
Watt: Indeed. With most modern reactors, the likelihood of a meltdown is somewhere in the range of the likelihood of every person on a street winning the lottery concurrently, in alphabetical order.
Oh, speaking of nuclear power–Banas has been working for a nuke plant in Vermont. Heh, he’s been complaining about all these protestors up there trying to keep the plant from getting its license renewed, or somesuch. They’re freaking out about the cooling towers, which is amusing because the amount of radiation they give off in five years is about as much as one day out in the sun.
James: Yeah, this wasn’t intended to be a well-researched essay on the subject–just my blowing off a little steam.
I’ll check out the site, thanks.
Yeah, it’s funny when you tell them that more radiation is generated from using coal than using nuclear power. People just have an irrational fear from the word ‘nuclear’.
Heh, which is why I’m a little surprised they take so well to the term “nuclear family”. HOLY SHIT IT’S GONNA EXPLODE!