[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16509668 ]Nuclear power is actually very safe. Apparently.[/url]
But we've all been duped into believing it's dangerous by a reckless spy fiction author.
Not because of the Chernobyl disaster. Or Fukushima. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents ]Or any of these other events.[/url]
Yep - nothing wrong with nuclear power at all. It makes me wonder why there's all that fuss about Iran.
surely this is worse?
Druidh under the non proliferation treaty [ dont think iran signed iirc] we agreed to share nuclear power station technology of they agreed to not develop weapons so the fuss is about weapons not power [ its not its about oil and influence but you get the point]
[img] 
[/img]
As druidh says. If nuclear power is so safe why not share it with Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe etc If its so crucial to stopping global warming we should be giving it to everyone
its a pity I have used up my stupid argue quota for the day 🙂
If nuclear power is so safe why not share it with Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe etc If its so crucial to stopping global warming we should be giving it to everyone
The technology and information to generate electricity from nuclear power is available to any county on the provision that it does not develop weapons and as such can be made available to all those countries. Indeed civilian reactor technology was offered to Iran by Russia but was rejected. The only thing preventing these countries from having nuclear power is their own governments.
Nuclear power is relatively safe, infact in industrial terms it is one of the safest working environments that you can be in.
Nuclear weapons have been shown to be an effective deterrence against aggression. On that basis, why shouldn't every nation want them?
And while past performance is no guarantee of future intention, there is only one country ever to have used a nuclear weapon against another. Yet they're still allowed to have them....
Is it physically possible to make the waste safe and we just haven't figured out the mechanism so far? I read somewhere that a reactor produces enough waste to fill an olympic sized swimming pool every 40 years, which doesn't seem a lot, but if more reactors are built and we've no way of getting rid of waste (except weapons of course, yay!) how long before it becomes a real problem?
All the nuclear waste (and weapons) we currently have is actually viable nuclear fuel - for reactors not based on 1950's designs. It can be used, drawn out, enriched, used, drawn out, enriched, until there's "none" left.
More about James Bond:
[url=
Far too sweary for work, or for anyone who doesn't like swears.
klumpy - MemberAll the nuclear waste (and weapons) we currently have is actually viable nuclear fuel - for reactors not based on 1950's designs. It can be used, drawn out, enriched, used, drawn out, enriched, until there's "none" left.
All the nuclear waste? what even whatever it is in the ponds at sellafeild?
its also complex, expensive and creates more (medium and low) waste reprocessing it
Has anyone actually done this on a commercial scale yet or is it more pie in the sky promises that the nuclear industry makes from time to time?
"If nuclear power is so safe why not share it"
Because you can make WMDs out of the by-products.
TJ is right about the UK's stockpiled waste which exists, AFAIK, because the programme to develop the reactors needed to deal with it were cancelled due to costs and the money put into cheaper MOX which has failed. I'm not convinced that a 2nd attempt at MOX re-processing was the way to go.
Is that a BAD thing?buzz-lightyear - Member
"If nuclear power is so safe why not share it"Because you can make WMs out of the by-products.
no irs a MAD* thing
Mutual assured destruction to ensure peace ...worked in the cold war....just