|
I would be pro nuclear power if I trusted the people who worked in the field more
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Why don't we just put solar panels on the moon
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
now we're talking
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 18:34
|
|
Not a Step posted:I was at a Democratic platform meeting last night and this older lady used her speaking time to rant about nuclear power. Then she got back in line, waited patiently, and gave another three minute anti-nuclear rant. I don't get how someone can be pro-science and anti-nuclear at the same time. It's not contrary to be pro science and anti nuclear
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
I'm willing to like, have my mind changed here but I don't understand why nuclear energy is worth the risk of a disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima? I recognize that these sort of events are incredibly uncommon and even that Fukushima probably wouldn't have happened had it not been for that tsunami.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:02
|
|
rudatron posted:Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design (that the designers knew about but which the plant technicians were never informed of) and fukushima wasn't nearly as bad aa the reaction to it would have you believe - the evacuation occurred as a precaution but its not as if the entire site was irradiated, it was mostly leakage into the ocean. This is immensely helpful, thank you.
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:25
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Chernobyl was a fundamentally bad design that was made on the cheap in the first place and then not maintained whatsoever. They used graphite rods to control the reactor, so when things got too hot, the graphite burned and an explosion happened (note, not a nuclear explosion, just a regular chemical one) and that released a bunch of radioactive junk into the air. It's hard to do good estimates, but maybe 50 immediate deaths and 4000 overall deaths came from it over a decade or so. For context, Coal mining kills 5000+ directly a year, and heaps (greater than 4x) more if you include blacklung and other stuff related to it. This too, thank you. I think nuclear energy is good now
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Wait one follow up question I have is what do we do about nuclear waste
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:28
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Burying/entombing it being the better option because then if we ever get serious about recycling spent fuel we'll have easy access to it. How can the waste be recycled? What is it used for?
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
But what happens after those reactions? Is there still waste? Thanks for actually explaining this I really appreciate it
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:42
|
|
Triangle Shirt Factotum posted:Always some unusable radioactive stuff, but if you do it right and chain the nuclear reactions to favor generating certain kinds of radioactive waste, the waste eventually turns inert and no longer radioactive after a few years or decades. And then you can use that lead for nuclear shielding, right? The whole problem solves itself?
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 14:02 |
|
resar posted:if radiation didn't exist that would kick rear end If radiation didn't exist we wouldn't have radio
|
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 05:22
|
|