How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
being a russian does not mean you automatically know more about Chernobyl,
and I too lived in USSR at that time

the thing is, and it is proven, that the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals

and that is all, facts speak for themselves, your subjective opinion has no weight in this
 
Avatar said:
being a russian does not mean you automatically know more about Chernobyl,
and I too lived in USSR at that time

the thing is, and it is proven, that the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals

and that is all, facts speak for themselves, your subjective opinion has no weight in this
Click to expand...

My "subjective opinion" :D you british or whatever you are...lol...I lived there and I know what it is like there, because I am one of the people who come from that area of Chernobyl. And your opinion that the radioactive zones play a positive role in biodiversity is true only to some extent. That is why if you would have read carefully I said "the use of radioactivity to the full extent" in the previous post, to the full extent means to the full extent where people get killed from the heat wave the radioactive blast creates, thus all humans dies. Whereas cockroaches, which have been proven to be highly unsusceptible to radioactivity, will exist. And by saying that opium plants ,around Chernobyl, grow bigger I am proving that to a some extent radioactivity plays a positive role on plants existence and biodiversity.
 
Last I heard people, cats and monkeys are quite abundant in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
 
oooooooh, how strong would you like it to be?

you talked about -> in the previous post, to the full extent means to the full extent where people get killed from the heat wave the radioactive blast creates, thus all humans dies.

and an atomic bomb is all the full extent you could wish for
so get your facts or stand quiet

the thing is -> abundant life restarts and goes on a short while after the blast
and what is a few years in 4.5 billion years of our planet? nothing
 
Avatar said:
oooooooh, how strong would you like it to be?

you talked about -> in the previous post, to the full extent means to the full extent where people get killed from the heat wave the radioactive blast creates, thus all humans dies.

and an atomic bomb is all the full extent you could wish for
so get your facts or stand quiet

the thing is -> abundant life restarts and goes on a short while after the blast
and what is a few years in 4.5 billion years of our planet? nothing
Click to expand...

well lets hope that in the next life restart, there want be any humans evolving, just cockroaches. So thats great for nature, no humans means peace

Nagasaki bomb wasn't enough so get your facts straight, there are still human survivors from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima blasts.
 
Besides I don't see how this talk about nuclear bombs is relevant in nuclear power production.
There are hundreds of nuclear power stations all across the planet and everything is ok,
besides the new pebble bed reactors wouldn't allow an accident like that of chernobyl to repeat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Nuclear power is safe, safer than most other things we use for power production
 
Nagasaki bomb wasn't enough so get your facts straight, there are still human survivors from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima blasts.
Click to expand...
Of course, in an area of 100km
But I bet no survivors in an area of 100m
 
Avatar said:
Of course, in an area of 100km
But I bet no survivors in an area of 100m
Click to expand...

Well there were survivors in area of 2km.

Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly energy, however humans should use it to the fullest extent, where all humans die, none of that hiroshima and nagasaki accident where there are survivors, real bombing.... SO that nature will be free of humans, but some life will survive and the next evolution will not have humans destroying environment.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1707312005

DOnt get me wrong...I love humans...its just this thread asked what is the most environmentally friendly energy...and nuclear energy makes environment as friendly as it never been...free of humans that deplete the environment that is...
 
Your talks about an apocalyptic war have no place in this discussion about nuclear power production.
 
Let me copy paste what I have typed above: DOnt get me wrong...I love humans...its just this thread asked what is the most environmentally friendly energy...and nuclear energy makes environment as friendly as it never been...free of humans that deplete the environment that is...
 
draqon said:
Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly energy, however humans should use it to the fullest extent, where all humans die, none of that hiroshima and nagasaki accident where there are survivors, real bombing.... SO that nature will be free of humans, but some life will survive and the next evolution will not have humans destroying environment.
Click to expand...

I don't understand people like you. The moment someone mentions the word 'nuclear', you all straight away start thinking about nuclear bombs and nuclear holocaust and the end of the world. However nuclear power has nothing to do with destruction at all.

I find it really stupid, that all the unhappiness, anger and frustration caused by nuclear weapons is being taken out and vented on clean, safe, enviromentally friendly nuclear energy.

Even if there were no nuclear power plants on earth, I assure you that there would still be nuclear weapons. So there you go.

As for the disposal of nuclear waste, I don't see a huge problem. Why we couldn't just dig a huge pit and just throw everything inside? After all, where did you think the uranium used in nuclear reactors comes from? It is mined from the ground, and then depleted inside reactors. So you could just dispose it by simply 'returning it to the earth'.

As for the subject about depleted uranium, although not very relevant here, there is no solid scientific proof that it causes cancer, radiation poisoning, birth deformities, or any other illness claimed by many countries that DU has been used on.

Check out this PDF
www.notinourname.net/downloads/du_myths.pdf
 
i wonder who next is gonna turn up adding to the pro nuclear camp...?
regarding what you say--and btw i cant open your link. my tv digital box is too limited--yes, going too much into the DU isue will derail this already serious thread. i thus recommend you bring about that to anoter thread i will try resurrect, to of course i am sure we may mention about DU in te corse of tis thread. just so as not tho for it to derail.....just to say. i HAVE read many accounts tat DU is very serious indeed, regarding detrimental effects to people, environment-----pciture i have seen of children suffering genetic damage due to DU radiation are SO horrific i haven'tbeen able to even look at them for more than a second
 
duendy said:
i wonder who next is gonna turn up adding to the pro nuclear camp...?
Click to expand...
Oh, Duendy, you were thinking of me, weren't you my love. I cannot disappoint.

Let me set my stall out very clearly from the outset. I am a left wing, tree hugging, liberal. I think the planet is overpopulated and many of our problems would go away if there were only fewer of us. One route to reducing the number of people is to raise their living standards - look at declining birth rates in the affluent west. A prerequisite for that is inexpensive energy. What are our options:

Oil: what a waste of a potent chemical foodstock. Natures spends millions of years creating this chemical cornucopia and we burn it.
Coal: there is more radiation expelled into the atmosphere by an order of magnitude by coal fired power station than by nuclear ones.
Fusion: clean, safe, and still a few dacades away.
Renewables: definitely worth pursuing, but the dams screw up ecologies, the windmills chew up birds and are ugly, etc
Fission: the only downside is a Chernobyl type accident. Compare the deaths from Chernobyl with the deaths from coal mining in China. Chernobyl actually comes out as safer. And Chernobyl was a crap design, run with all the saftey measures removed.

I vote for a very strictly controlled fission program, implemented globally.
 
I vote for a very strictly controlled fission program, implemented globally.
Click to expand...
What about the statements that there is not enough uranium around to support world's needs for more than a few decades if implemented globally instead of all fossil fuel plants?

p.s. I like how wind farms look, quite futuristic, sci-fi romantic :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top