... to me nuclar power is completly fine... i dont sem to have a problem... its just common people have a frar of mutation and monster and stuff... if properly taken care of they would be okay.... what doyou think
nuclear power is a vastly unstable, dangerous power source and I regard it with undisguised contempt. It simply is too wasteful, and scientists have been hard-pressed to make a sign that will warn people ten thousand years later of nuclear waste
... fisrt do you even understand nuclear power... and second in 10000 years the urainum will shead its nproperty and basiclly become lead.. so that wont be a problem AND the dispose of waste is alot easier tht dumping it... there is more to it
Perhaps you should correct your spelling and grammar before assuming whether or not people understand what they are talking about. Correct spelling and punctuation are critical for anyone to take you seriously.
if we all wre to speke lke this, and i strtred to try and tll you that yor worng, do you tihnk that i wolud relly tke u serieously?
That's quite a long time. He thinks it is a problem, because, if not disposed of properly, that's 10,000 years of leaking radioactive waste.
AND the dispose of waste is alot easier tht dumping it
It is much harder than dumping it. It needs to be buried in concrete, or stored above ground in thick shells. Each overused nuclear rod has to be stored this way.
But it isn't that bad, imagine a landfill that we've been using, imagine one section of that landfill is closed, you could probably fit 250 years worth of rods from one plant onto that landfill.
So in truth, no, it isn't that hard, but the potential risk still lies there.
I like Nuclear Power. If the plant is funded well, kept up to date, and has security codes that pre-emptively shut down the plants, I don't mind it. It is not as Masterforger says 'Vastly unstable'.
In fact, it is very stable. It's like letting off an A-bomb inside a shell, sucking out the energy by heating water, and then slowly moving an evil plasmakill rod into a concrete container that won't bust for the next few millenia. The waste part is a bit of a problem but I'm sure that a giant concrete mass around a rod is good for 10,000 years.
Of course I understand it "Omnihero" You think I would be on this thread if I didn't? And no, the waste won't cut out that fast. It has a half-life of thousands of years! And where the heck are we supposed to keep the waste for at least ONE THOUSAND YEARS? That's a millennium. Hundreds of generations!
And where the heck are we supposed to keep the waste for at least ONE THOUSAND YEARS?
In a thick concrete-like container? You might be thinking 'Oh but tectonic plates and moving stuff and crap'. Well crap, if any radioactive material gets deep into the bubbling radioactive undercrust of our planet, that place is a burning furnace that is just as dangerous as our rods. And above ground storage works, as well. It isn't as if we can't monitor something enough to say 'oh, there's a crack, lets pour some more concrete on it'.
I think it'd be cool if we had all the radioactive junk in one place -- lets say, Canada, that spot nobody lives in. Over the many years... we'd have a gigantic, larger than Mt. Everest rockpiece of concrete loaded with nuclear radioactivity.
Of course that isn't the safest option considering nuking the mountain would cause a few problems, but whatever.
You know, I am sure that someone would definitely nuke the storage sector. I am not sure who or the reason, but be assured, someone will want to spread Canada and the top of America with radioactive waste. I know the sinister part of my mind is thinking it, and the sinister part is about two thirds.
see its beter to give an old salt mine a 15 mile radius of no ai traffic r any thing place them in drums... place them DEEP in the mines and them let them shead there nuclear property... think about it... if we what a nuclear power plant iin every state we could place all the waste in side the mine for about 100 years... and we dont need a power plant in every start... they make two much power
The only advantage of nuclear power is it's price. The biggest disadvantage is it's waste and radioactive pollution, short-term as well as long-term. I'm pretty much against it.
I think it'd be cool if we had all the radioactive junk in one place -- lets say, Canada, that spot nobody lives in.
Excuse me? I would like to point out that there are 33 million people (including myself) in Canada. Such a massive dump of nuclear waste would eventually seep out whether you take care of the facility or not.
As far as the OP: No, it' a really bad source of power. It is fine when not under meltdown (see chernobyl, and more recently, the Japan meltdown). Storage of waste is another issue since how many completely deserted will there be for bunkers when our global population is growing exponentially? Transport of the waste or of the fuel to the reactor/storage facility is also to be taken into consideration. If the means of transport fails along the way, that would be (literally) moving death/chaos.
I'm all for finding a energy source that has zero possibility of extreme danger. Nuclear is not such a source.
I think it'd be cool if we had all the radioactive junk in one place -- lets say, Canada, that spot nobody lives in.
That comment can be taken extremely offensive and I think it should be removed. You should think twice before posting something like that. As for my thoughts about nuclear power I think it's a good idea and is really good for us if we can use it correctly, which we don't do sometimes.
nuclar power is just bad. I prefer nuclear power. It is better than rip open the world and mine all the coal and burn it then use a process which makes less garbage.
I prefer nuclear power. It is better than rip open the world and mine all the coal and burn it then use a process which makes less garbage.
Nuclear waste is the worst waste ever, because it's active so long. We haven't any reasonable solution of how to correctly dispose of it as of now, maybe a few ideas and projects but nothing internationally agreed on. I prefer to pollute a bit more, than to leave things behind that will radiate for thousands or millions of years.
