Hey guys I need help with a poll real quick! Can you take it? 1 question.

DeletedUser

Guest
But...atomic power isn't that likely to be dangerous. Only 3 major incidents since 1979. Not too terrible, especially considering how they malfunctioned. Also, two of those three, there were no casualties directly related to the fallout.

/me sits down

Can you refresh my memory on those incidents? And while your at it, how many people died in them? Just because a nuclear accident doesn't happen often, doesn't mean it won't be terrible when it does.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Can you refresh my memory on those incidents? And while your at it, how many people died in them? Just because a nuclear accident doesn't happen often, doesn't mean it won't be terrible when it does.
Chernobyl, around 41 deaths.

Chernobyl wasn't Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Nuclear reactors aren't power-producing atomic bombs. The chemical reactions aren't even the same. They're extremely sophisticated, controlled and safe pieces of technology. Even more so for the newer models which use different methods. (nuclear energy spans a wide variety of reactors, all working differently. Look up thorium-based reactors for the real future ;))

Nuclear is a scary word and it scares uneducated people. Even though it's safer than every fossil fuel option. Do you realize how many people die in the coal industry? and after that the other fossil fuels? Honestly, you should embrace nuclear power with open arms as the only thing you should be afraid of is the climate change that is happening at a ridiculously high rate.

Allow yourself to be educated;

Deaths/trillionkWhr:
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

source

So please, next time you try to disregard the safest option available, look at the facts and don't be irrationally afraid of something that could benefit you in many ways.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Well I think the "safest" option is actually solar. Not the most reliable of course just the safest.
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
Chernobyl, around 41 deaths.

Chernobyl wasn't Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Nuclear reactors aren't power-producing atomic bombs. The chemical reactions aren't even the same. They're extremely sophisticated, controlled and safe pieces of technology. Even more so for the newer models which use different methods. (nuclear energy spans a wide variety of reactors, all working differently. Look up thorium-based reactors for the real future ;))

Nuclear is a scary word and it scares uneducated people. Even though it's safer than every fossil fuel option. Do you realize how many people die in the coal industry? and after that the other fossil fuels? Honestly, you should embrace nuclear power with open arms as the only thing you should be afraid of is the climate change that is happening at a ridiculously high rate.

Allow yourself to be educated;

Deaths/trillionkWhr:
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

source

So please, next time you try to disregard the safest option available, look at the facts and don't be irrationally afraid of something that could benefit you in many ways.

I think the world is focused on finding the cheapest way to get something done, not necessarily the safest. The video you linked about nuclear power said it was very expensive, so I suppose the world is looking for a low cost alternative. Which means sticking with things that might be less efficient.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think the world is focused on finding the cheapest way to get something done, not necessarily the safest. The video you linked about nuclear power said it was very expensive, so I suppose the world is looking for a low cost alternative. Which means sticking with things that might be less efficient.
Unfortunately this is true. It should be seen as an investment in the future though. Fossil fuels are cheap and give a lot of energy, but they are literally killing the earth and simply will not last.

Well I think the "safest" option is actually solar. Not the most reliable of course just the safest.
Well even though they're both extremely safe, solar still accounts for more deaths. (as you can see above)
Also, how unfortunate it might be, solar is still not efficient and, as you said, reliable enough to be a serious contender in the race to power the world with renewable energy. It would be great for something like a local stadium though, although you'd need a lot of solar panels to power it entirely by solar energy as it's still quite inefficient. But a solar/general grid hybrid is a step in the right direction!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Chernobyl, around 41 deaths.

Chernobyl wasn't Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Nuclear reactors aren't power-producing atomic bombs. The chemical reactions aren't even the same. They're extremely sophisticated, controlled and safe pieces of technology. Even more so for the newer models which use different methods. (nuclear energy spans a wide variety of reactors, all working differently. Look up thorium-based reactors for the real future ;))

Nuclear is a scary word and it scares uneducated people. Even though it's safer than every fossil fuel option. Do you realize how many people die in the coal industry? and after that the other fossil fuels? Honestly, you should embrace nuclear power with open arms as the only thing you should be afraid of is the climate change that is happening at a ridiculously high rate.

Allow yourself to be educated;

Deaths/trillionkWhr:
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

source

So please, next time you try to disregard the safest option available, look at the facts and don't be irrationally afraid of something that could benefit you in many ways.

I watched that video you linked, and if anything it has pushed me away from nuclear energy. Surely there are options out there humanity could use that are safe and efficient apart from nuclear. Guaranteed. Also, nuclear energy may not account for many deaths in the energy industry, but it can be used for far more dangerous things than coal, etc. Have you ever heard of a coal bomb that can kill millions of people in an instant AND affect people years to come? Don't think so.

Also, lets say somewhere next to a city containing around a million people, a large nuclear plant is built to provide energy. Could it do more harm to that city if a large nuclear accident occurred or would a coal plant that had a large coal related accident occurred do more? I think the nuclear plant has more of a possibly of doing more harm if something wrong was to ever happen. (I'm talking possibilities, not how likely)

You're thinking, "Meh, nuclear energy never hurt anyone in the long run" but the possibilities of the damages it could do make me want to avoid everything nuclear in general. As I stated earlier, I think humanity can find better options than nuclear. I'd hold it off as last resort at best.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I watched that video you linked, and if anything it has pushed me away from nuclear energy. Surely there are options out there humanity could use that are safe and efficient apart from nuclear. Guaranteed.
They will exist at some point in time, sure. However they don't at the moment.
Also, nuclear energy may not account for many deaths in the energy industry, but it can be used for far more dangerous things than coal, etc. Have you ever heard of a coal bomb that can kill millions of people in an instant AND affect people years to come? Don't think so.
Like I said in my previous post, an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor are not the same thing. They are different technologies. Therefore this comparison is erroneous.
Think of it like coal and diamonds. They're both made up from the same element, carbon, yet a coal plant can't use diamonds instead of coal. An atomic bomb needs a special kind of uranium which needs to be prepared specifically for the bomb. Feel free to PM me if you want to know more.


Also, lets say somewhere next to a city containing around a million people, a large nuclear plant is built to provide energy. Could it do more harm to that city if a large nuclear accident occurred or would a coal plant that had a large coal related accident occurred do more? I think the nuclear plant has more of a possibly of doing more harm if something wrong was to ever happen. (I'm talking possibilities, not how likely)
Ignoring the fact that you are grossly overestimating the damage a nuclear plant can do, making decisions based on small probabilities makes no sense. Why don't you move out of the US before the Yellowstone supervulcano erupts? Why ever go outside if there's a chance you'll be hit by a car?
Also, I would argue that the coal plant would do more damage with its CO2 emission. :p

You're thinking, "Meh, nuclear energy never hurt anyone in the long run" but the possibilities of the damages it could do make me want to avoid everything nuclear in general. As I stated earlier, I think humanity can find better options than nuclear. I'd hold it off as last resort at best.
I think, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that you (and many others) are afraid of something you do not understand. Nuclear has become a word like chemical which has a negative connotation because of ignorance. Nuclear only means it has something to do with the nuclei of atoms. There are many types of nuclear reactors.
I assume you did not look thorium reactors which I mentioned in my last post as thorium has none of the 'dangers' you mentioned. Thorium reactors cannot melt down. There are no 'thorium bombs'. They can explode as much as a coal plant, alloy factory or a enormous walmart can. What would you have against a thorium reactor?
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Why don't you move out of the US before the Yellowstone supervulcano erupts?
that's actually overdue for an eruption currently. Same with a major asteroid impact.
What I'm trying to say is that we are screwed lol.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
that's actually overdue for an eruption currently. Same with a major asteroid impact.
What I'm trying to say is that we are screwed lol.
While there isn't an exact ''due date'' on these things, you're right in that they haven't happened for a long time and the probability of it happening is higher than normal. However being overdue with these things means it should happen somewhere in the next 10000 years. I wouldn't worry about it :p Also an asteroid large enough to do big damage we'd see coming.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
They are feared for a reason,the reason is that the consequences of mishaps are tremendous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Not everyone protesting these are uneducated/ignorant.:)

A chemical gas leak was catastrophic? Thousands of deaths/injuries. I see your point. But your point is...poor.

You said that not everyone protesting the utilization of certain methods was uneducated or ignorant. However educated they may be, that does not mean they are not acting foolishly.

The denial of a source of power due to a fear of potential risks impedes advancement - all advancement. There were significant risks to electricity. Several deaths, thousands of injuries, and thousands of fires occur each year. Does this then mean electricity is not a viable field to venture and mean we should abandon electricity? Certainly not. Simply improve upon safety measures with electricity.

Similarly, nuclear power and chemically related applications should certainly be put under the scrutiny of said fear, but not denied because of it. Nuclear power is, as proven earlier, the safest power source as of yet. The scrutiny and safety measures are already there. Just like electricity has safety measures and is used, it is about time we stop letting our fears limit necessary progress and advance ourselves into the nuclear age.

The consequences of mishaps are tremendous, yes. But those consequences are rare - more rare than any other source for power and less catastrophic in the grand scheme of things. History, science, and logic all show that to be true. Sadly, the emotional argument against it has blinded the educated and the knowledgeable into proclaiming that we should not go through with progress because of some half-witted fear they concocted in their dreams.

Allowing fear to impede progress is anti-evolutionary. Allowing fear to progress safety measures is logical.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
A chemical gas leak was catastrophic? Thousands of deaths/injuries. I see your point. But your point is...poor.

You said that not everyone protesting the utilization of certain methods was uneducated or ignorant. However educated they may be, that does not mean they are not acting foolishly.

There were significant risks to electricity. Several deaths, thousands of injuries, and thousands of fires occur each year. Does this then mean electricity is not a viable field to venture and mean we should abandon electricity?

You certainly havnt got my point,if you think risks to electrical mishaps are same to chemical mishaps,there isnt realy a point debating you.It isn't.Deaths and injuries are spontaneous, but the whole surrounding area suffers,suffers for generations,as in this case deformed babies are born even after 31 years,the ground water,soil still remains contaminated.There isn't anything other than emotional,and emotions are pretty much needed in case you want to be a human or sound like one,believe me its far more worse on the field.(i might sound like batman there but am not,lol.),and anyway the protesters against these are mainly lobbying for rigid regulations and additional safety measures in utilities majorly,dnt think they says to ban them completely.To sum it up,it should be used as the last resort,not when you have other options.

That wasn't my point realy,my point was to emphasise the sufferings behind chemical/nuclear mishaps has been so great,that is the reason behind them fear.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
A chemical gas leak was catastrophic? Thousands of deaths/injuries. I see your point. But your point is...poor.

You said that not everyone protesting the utilization of certain methods was uneducated or ignorant. However educated they may be, that does not mean they are not acting foolishly.

I support sandip81's argument relating to the disaster at Bhopal and the very real fear that has been generated throughout Madhyar Pradesh and beyond not just by the horrific consequences of gas leak but also by the fact that establishment and construction of the plant had been so driven by profits, revenues and fiscal futures that there was inadequate research carried out on the toxins developed at the plant and no research done relating to antidotes in the event of an accident/leak.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/30-years-bhopal-gas-tragedy-continuing-disaster

This argued more fully in Narain and Bushan's appraisal shown on the above link which illustrates that a particular type of resource or power source does not just depend on scientific, logical nor evolutionary progress, as you seem to say below.
The denial of a source of power due to a fear of potential risks impedes advancement - all advancement. There were significant risks to electricity. Several deaths, thousands of injuries, and thousands of fires occur each year. Does this then mean electricity is not a viable field to venture and mean we should abandon electricity? Certainly not. Simply improve upon safety measures with electricity.

Similarly, nuclear power and chemically related applications should certainly be put under the scrutiny of said fear, but not denied because of it. Nuclear power is, as proven earlier, the safest power source as of yet. The scrutiny and safety measures are already there. Just like electricity has safety measures and is used, it is about time we stop letting our fears limit necessary progress and advance ourselves into the nuclear age.

The consequences of mishaps are tremendous, yes. But those consequences are rare - more rare than any other source for power and less catastrophic in the grand scheme of things. History, science, and logic all show that to be true. Sadly, the emotional argument against it has blinded the educated and the knowledgeable into proclaiming that we should not go through with progress because of some half-witted fear they concocted in their dreams.

The reported list of nuclear power accidents does not support your contention that nuclear power is the safest power source. Far from from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8396

Guest
You certainly havnt got my point,if you think risks to electrical mishaps are same to chemical mishaps,there isnt realy a point debating you.It isn't.Deaths and injuries are spontaneous, but the whole surrounding area suffers,suffers for generations,as in this case deformed babies are born even after 31 years,the ground water,soil still remains contaminated.There isn't anything other than emotional,and emotions are pretty much needed in case you want to be a human or sound like one,believe me its far more worse on the field.(i might sound like batman there but am not,lol.),and anyway the protesters against these are mainly lobbying for rigid regulations and additional safety measures in utilities majorly,dnt think they says to ban them completely.To sum it up,it should be used as the last resort,not when you have other options.

That wasn't my point realy,my point was to emphasise the sufferings behind chemical/nuclear mishaps has been so great,that is the reason behind them fear.

Are injuries with nuclear/chemical more tragic than electrical? Sure. Not sure how that really matters. My point was that denying electrical due to potential suffering isn't a grand idea. Similarly, Coal's suffering could be considered much greater than chemical or Nuclear, as it causes a significantly higher death rate (170,000 thousand deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours). Or, are you saying suffering isn't applicable once the subject is dead? Didn't think so. No, I think the suffering of those 170,000 families that no longer have a father would be much greater than the significantly smaller portion that have a deformed child. No, I'd say the 170,000 mothers that can no longer call their child suffer more than the pathetically small number that have contaminated water. No, I'd say that the 170,000 daughters that won't have a father to have walk them down the aisle suffer more than the small amount of people that have poisoned soil. You want to talk about suffering and how chemical is so great with suffering? Death is worse. Coal causes more of the worse. Now, it's about time we stopped looking at this through an emotional lens and glanced at the more logical side of things.

Sure, your point is to emphasize the sufferings. I get that. But your point is only applicable in rarities. Extreme rarities. The safety measures are already there and already working.

The sufferings of people are ingrained in every power source, but death is the chief of suffering. So, whatever point you make, whatever deformities Nuclear may cause, relatively few they may be, I'm going with the one that allows a husband to return to his wife each night.

Nuclear causes the least deaths. Mishaps are incredibly rare. There's simply no argument to be had here. If I'm given the choice between a Nuclear Power Plant with the minuscule risk of a meltdown or a coal plant with statistically proven death rates each year, I'm going with Nuclear. In fact, the "surrounding area effect" you speak of is applicable to every power method. Look at smog. China's air is horrendous.

And sorry - but emotions must be purged here. Unless you want to make Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Fear fallacies all day, that is. The choice for a new power source can't be an emotional one, but a logical one - no matter how much it makes you feel unhuman. So I'll leave you with my last point:

Allowing fear to impede progress is anti-evolutionary. Allowing fear to progress safety measures is logical.

I support sandip81's argument relating to the disaster at Bhopal and the very real fear that has been generated throughout Madhyar Pradesh and beyond not just by the horrific consequences of gas leak but also by the fact that establishment and construction of the plant had been so driven by profits, revenues and fiscal futures that there was inadequate research carried out on the toxins developed at the plant and no research done relating to antidotes in the event of an accident/leak.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/30-years-bhopal-gas-tragedy-continuing-disaster

This argued more fully in Narain and Bushan's appraisal shown on the above link and illustrates that a particular type of resource or power source does not just depend on scientific logical nor evolutionary progress as you seem to sau below.


The reported list of nuclear power accidents does not support your contention that nuclear power is the safest power source. Far from from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

Scroll through the fatality column real quick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser23986

Guest
We are making some serious assumptions considering nuclear power to be safe. Biomass has been used for centuries, fossil fuels for decades. Nuclear power is relatively new. Saying it is safe based on some statistics is not logical. For one, it has not been around for long enough. It is being used by only a few countries. If nuclear fuels were all so safe, I don't see why countries are afraid in selling nuclear fuels, why there have to be so many regulations.

Also statistics of accidents don't take into account safety standards and carelessness of people. Assuming your argument that people have irrational fear of "nuclear" stuff to be correct, then once this fear is gone, we might see a substantial change in the statistics. The safety standards of a nuclear plant can't be compared to a coal one. Nor can be the attitude of workers.

Also, Science is continously evolving. Assuming that we know everything that happens in a nuclear reaction is foolish. When fossil fuels came into use, no one was bothered about CO2 emissions. They were not aware of the effects/consequences. Can we say for certain that there are no by products in nuclear reactions which can cause harm over time. The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
We are making some serious assumptions considering nuclear power to be safe. Biomass has been used for centuries, fossil fuels for decades. Nuclear power is relatively new. Saying it is safe based on some statistics is not logical. For one, it has not been around for long enough. It is being used by only a few countries. If nuclear fuels were all so safe, I don't see why countries are afraid in selling nuclear fuels, why there have to be so many regulations.
Basing something on statistics is as logical as it gets so yea. There is alot of regulations to ensure the fuels remain safe. Same reason why we regulate fossil fuels alot.

Also statistics of accidents don't take into account safety standards and carelessness of people. Assuming your argument that people have irrational fear of "nuclear" stuff to be correct, then once this fear is gone, we might see a substantial change in the statistics. The safety standards of a nuclear plant can't be compared to a coal one. Nor can be the attitude of workers.
No we wouldn't see a major change in the statistics just cause people feel safer. Just cause you feel safer doesn't make safety regulations go away. Also the safety standards can be compared and so could the attitude of the workers. You compare safety standards by looking at the safety standards and deaths. You compare workers attitude by talking to workers.

Also, Science is continously evolving. Assuming that we know everything that happens in a nuclear reaction is foolish. When fossil fuels came into use, no one was bothered about CO2 emissions. They were not aware of the effects/consequences. Can we say for certain that there are no by products in nuclear reactions which can cause harm over time. The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties.
Yes. Assuming that the laws of physics won't change is highly foolish.
No one was bothered about the emissions cause like today some just don't care because money.
Can we say for certain that there are no by products in burning fossil fuels which can cause harm over time. The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties.

Also to whoever said that nuclear energy could ruin areas for generations to come. Well i see your couple miles of land and raise you the whole planet and probably human civilization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser23986

Guest
Basing something on statistics is as logical as it gets so yea. There is alot of regulations to ensure the fuels remain safe. Same reason why we regulate fossil fuels alot.
Well, not if the size of the statistics are inadequate. If you take a coin and toss it once and then start taking out probability of getting "Heads" using the data, it would be either be 1 or 0. Now won't that be stupid? Only if you toss it a few times, you will be able to get closer to 0.5. Assuming that the current statistics are enough is stupid not logical, when only certain countries use nuclear power and they only meet a small fraction of needs.

No we wouldn't see a major change in the statistics just cause people feel safer. Just cause you feel safer doesn't make safety regulations go away. Also the safety standards can be compared and so could the attitude of the workers. You compare safety standards by looking at the safety standards and deaths. You compare workers attitude by talking to workers.
Says who? To save money, companies will prefer less regulations. If people don't feel unsafe, there will be no reason to keep extreme regulations. There is quite a bit of difference in the safety standards in developed countries as compared to developing countries. Now we don't see nuclear plants in most of the developing countries. So comparing deaths worldwide is just not correct.

Yes. Assuming that the laws of physics won't change is highly foolish.
What?

No one was bothered about the emissions cause like today some just don't care because money.
Can we say for certain that there are no by products in burning fossil fuels which can cause harm over time. The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties.
There is just not enough energy liberated in a chemical reaction(burning of fuels) to cause any change at the subatomic level.

Also to whoever said that nuclear energy could ruin areas for generations to come. Well i see your couple miles of land and raise you the whole planet and probably human civilization.
Ofcourse a couple of miles of land. Someone bombs down a building and US govt starts mass spying on people and governments worldwide, but when it comes to power, its just couple of miles of land. (BTW land is not measured in miles, is it?)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Wow, lot's of posts since I last checked. Some stupider than others.

They are feared for a reason,the reason is that the consequences of mishaps are tremendous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Not everyone protesting these are uneducated/ignorant.:)
I'm not sure what you're trying to proof here? Can a specific type of pesticide plant working with certain chemicals be dangerous when something goes wrong and this specific chemical leaks? Yes, absolutely.
Does this mean everything chemical is dangerous? No. Your face is chemical. The food you eat is chemical. The very fact that you are alive is a result of chemical reactions. Don't be ridiculous an say s0mething like chemical (or yes, nuclear) is dangerous because the word on itself doesn't mean anything. Methyl isocyanate gas is dangerous, nitrogen is not. They're both chemicals. It's like saying humans are dangerous because one of a million people is a murderer, it's utter nonsense.

That wasn't my point realy,my point was to emphasise the sufferings behind chemical/nuclear mishaps has been so great,that is the reason behind them fear.
The problem is that people are confusing different kinds of nuclear 'accidents' with eachother due to: Ignorance.

Archon of Corinth;938410 The reported list of nuclear power accidents does not support your contention that nuclear power is the safest power source. Far from from it. [URL said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country[/URL]
Eh? Did you look at your own link? Look at all those 0's in the fatalities column.


--


And now for the nonsensical post in the thread so far.. I expected better of you Hasan..

We are making some serious assumptions considering nuclear power to be safe. Biomass has been used for centuries, fossil fuels for decades. Nuclear power is relatively new. Saying it is safe based on some statistics is not logical. For one, it has not been around for long enough. It is being used by only a few countries. If nuclear fuels were all so safe, I don't see why countries are afraid in selling nuclear fuels, why there have to be so many regulations.
Every single sentence in this quote makes literally no sense.
What assumptions? So far all my claims have been supported by evidence. Nuclear power has also been around for decades, in fact, most of the active plants are over 30 years old. Saying something based on statistics is the definition of logical. It's being used by over 30 countries all of which are leading the world in terms of technology. What d you mean with 'nuclear fuels'? I'm not sure that exists. Finally, all the regulations in place are the freaking reason nuclear energy is so safe.

Also statistics of accidents don't take into account safety standards and carelessness of people. Assuming your argument that people have irrational fear of "nuclear" stuff to be correct, then once this fear is gone, we might see a substantial change in the statistics. The safety standards of a nuclear plant can't be compared to a coal one. Nor can be the attitude of workers.
This is an assumption based on nothing. Nothing suggests the only reason nuclear energy is so safe because of the fear (which btw is much more prevalent is some areas than others *cough* America *cough*) so you cannot claim this as truth.

The standards of a nuclear plant will always be higher than that of a coal plant because one requires an actual education.

Also, Science is continously evolving. Assuming that we know everything that happens in a nuclear reaction is foolish. When fossil fuels came into use, no one was bothered about CO2 emissions. They were not aware of the effects/consequences. Can we say for certain that there are no by products in nuclear reactions which can cause harm over time. The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties.
What? I literally can't even.
"Assuming that we know everything that happens in a nuclear reaction is foolish."
We do understand it, almost completely. This is the only reason nuclear energy can be utilized. Because of our understanding of it.

"When fossil fuels came into use, no one was bothered about CO2 emissions. They were not aware of the effects/consequences."
Correct.
"Can we say for certain that there are no by products in nuclear reactions which can cause harm over time."
Yes because unlike back then, we now have to tools to monitor everything which is released/emitted by the reactions that happen inside a nuclear plant. Every byproduct is known. Solely because of the advances in science we can look at new power sourcing without unexpectedly finding it is killing the earth.

"The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties."
Yeah no. Leave the thinking about this to the scientists would you.

Well, not if the size of the statistics are inadequate. If you take a coin and toss it once and then start taking out probability of getting "Heads" using the data, it would be either be 1 or 0. Now won't that be stupid? Only if you toss it a few times, you will be able to get closer to 0.5. Assuming that the current statistics are enough is stupid not logical, when only certain countries use nuclear power and they only meet a small fraction of needs.
Small sample size? What? There are hundreds of nuclear power plants worldwide and they account for 17% of the world's energy need. In what universe is that a small sample size.


Says who? To save money, companies will prefer less regulations. If people don't feel unsafe, there will be no reason to keep extreme regulations.
Regulations are not put in place because people 'feel unsafe.' They are put in place because it could become dangerous without said regulations. Fortunately, regulations do exist, resulting in a very safe environment. Furthermore, power is a utility, not something you start for the profits. In addition the regulations are legally binding, you can't stop following them. Finally you're again making assumptions and claiming things as truth based on said assumptions.

There is just not enough energy liberated in a chemical reaction(burning of fuels) to cause any change at the subatomic level.
Lol isn't it fun creating your own truth? So when it's nuclear energy there could be things happening too small for us to detect but you DO know for sure this does NOT happen in combustion, even though we can't detect it to know for sure? Give me a break and let's keep the real world's science when discussing something like this.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Wow, lot's of posts since I last checked. Some stupider than others.


I'm not sure what you're trying to proof here? Can a specific type of pesticide plant working with certain chemicals be dangerous when something goes wrong and this specific chemical leaks? Yes, absolutely.
Does this mean everything chemical is dangerous? No. Your face is chemical. The food you eat is chemical. The very fact that you are alive is a result of chemical reactions. Don't be ridiculous an say s0mething like chemical (or yes, nuclear) is dangerous because the word on itself doesn't mean anything. Methyl isocyanate gas is dangerous, nitrogen is not. They're both chemicals. It's like saying humans are dangerous because one of a million people is a murderer, it's utter nonsense.


The problem is that people are confusing different kinds of nuclear 'accidents' with eachother due to: Ignorance.


Eh? Did you look at your own link? Look at all those 0's in the fatalities column.


--


And now for the nonsensical post in the thread so far.. I expected better of you Hasan..


Every single sentence in this quote makes literally no sense.
What assumptions? So far all my claims have been supported by evidence. Nuclear power has also been around for decades, in fact, most of the active plants are over 30 years old. Saying something based on statistics is the definition of logical. It's being used by over 30 countries all of which are leading the world in terms of technology. What d you mean with 'nuclear fuels'? I'm not sure that exists. Finally, all the regulations in place are the freaking reason nuclear energy is so safe.

This is an assumption based on nothing. Nothing suggests the only reason nuclear energy is so safe because of the fear (which btw is much more prevalent is some areas than others *cough* America *cough*) so you cannot claim this as truth.

The standards of a nuclear plant will always be higher than that of a coal plant because one requires an actual education.


What? I literally can't even.
"Assuming that we know everything that happens in a nuclear reaction is foolish."
We do understand it, almost completely. This is the only reason nuclear energy can be utilized. Because of our understanding of it.

"When fossil fuels came into use, no one was bothered about CO2 emissions. They were not aware of the effects/consequences."
Correct.
"Can we say for certain that there are no by products in nuclear reactions which can cause harm over time."
Yes because unlike back then, we now have to tools to monitor everything which is released/emitted by the reactions that happen inside a nuclear plant. Every byproduct is known. Solely because of the advances in science we can look at new power sourcing without unexpectedly finding it is killing the earth.

"The subatomic products which are so small that we couldn't even detect them for years, leave alone being able to study their properties."
Yeah no. Leave the thinking about this to the scientists would you.


Small sample size? What? There are hundreds of nuclear power plants worldwide and they account for 17% of the world's energy need. In what universe is that a small sample size.



Regulations are not put in place because people 'feel unsafe.' They are put in place because it could become dangerous without said regulations. Fortunately, regulations do exist, resulting in a very safe environment. Furthermore, power is a utility, not something you start for the profits. In addition the regulations are legally binding, you can't stop following them. Finally you're again making assumptions and claiming things as truth based on said assumptions.


Lol isn't it fun creating your own truth? So when it's nuclear energy there could be things happening too small for us to detect but you DO know for sure this does NOT happen in combustion, even though we can't detect it to know for sure? Give me a break and let's keep the real world's science when discussing something like this.

Quoted for truth.
 
Top