|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack (1) | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Where's g? He had that quote in his signature about one man changing the world.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131 |
|
|||
|
I'm sorry, but I don't think dumping any waste into the ocean is a good idea. No idea what the ramifications would be in the future. Underground is best, but not on a fault line! [-X
__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan |
|
||||
|
Our reprocessing it to ensure a supply for hundreds of years would be even better.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131 |
|
|||
|
to nuke proponents in the US:
Yucca Mountain, where the US government wants to dump YOUR nuclear waste, is a hundred miles from here in MY backyard. no thanks. and don't think this fight is over. so you like nuke plants in, that's fine with me, build all the ones you want, build them on every street corner if you're that much taken by them. that fact that you don't want to accept the true operating costs and hazards due to waste products and want to put anyone else but yourselves at risk is also understandable, but it is also fundamentally dishonest. Nevada does not want your nuclear wastes. keep it yourselves. helluva complex way to boil water. |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131 |
|
||||
|
I'll admit, I was once caught up in the mass hysteria of the Nuclear Plants of [)(o)(o)/\/\...until I started to realize, by reading here and there, that it wasn't so bad.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were highly publicized (I have a game on me Commodore 64 called Chernobyl!), and mass media has a way of hitting the most people with junk information. Hollywood has had its fair share of atrocities when it comes to dealing with nuclear power, also. At our house in VT, my mother and father and I have been discussing ways to cut power costs for our house, to save money. We've been thinking of a combination of solar and wind to help out. I think it would be wonderful if we could reprocess the spent fuel rods and use them again. Which brings me to an important question: Is that what North Korea is doing? So they can run their power plants longer? I've been awefully wary of what Mr. Bush has been touting ever since he decided we needed to fight the Iraqis. Not trying to start a political debate, tho. Is that a possibility for the N. Koreans? Mass media has been making a big deal about them building weapons with the spent rods. Hmmm... |
|
||||
|
Spent fuel consists of three components. Uranium that was unused in the initial reaction. Plutonium that was formed by neutron absorption. And radioactive fission products. The uranium and plutonium are comparatively stable, at least when compared to the other stuff, and are used again. The fission products consist of some stuff that decays in the initial cooldown period and other more stable nuclides that could be used for other purposes like in RTGs or in various medical technologies.
__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
The reason that we don't reprocess fuel is entirely political. Only about 1% of the fissionable uranium in a fuel pellet is used during its time in the reactor, and a good amount of fissionable plutonium is there also. Almost all of the nuclear waste has vast amounts of fuel in it to be reprocessed. Quote:
One of the reasons why Yucca Mountain costs three times what a manned Mars mission would is because it is safe. Many billions of dollars and years of effort have gone into selecting and preparing the site. I would not feel at all unsafe living near Yucca Mountain. Quote:
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that you would receive far more radiation from a luminous watch, television, radon gas, limestone, or even your own bloodstream than from nuclear waste buried in a mountain which is over 100 miles away from you. I'd like to ask what you're really afraid of. Ionizing radiation is made up of three things - alpha radiation, which can be stopped by paper, beta radiation, which is stopped by metal, and gamma radiation, which can be stopped by several meters of lead or concrete. Clearly Yucca Mountain has far more protection than that. Quote:
Plus, nuclear fission is far more efficient at boiling water than any chemical forms of heating, as Glom pointed out. Actually, it's not as frivolous as Wirraway made it seem - power is currently produced by making steam, and to make steam, one must boil water - and one gram of uranium has the heating power of 20 million tons of coal. Just think of the pollution from that much coal. Nuclear power does heat water - very efficiently. And that's not all it does. I have a friend who had a brain tumor, and had it treated with radiation. Without radiation, he may not have survived. When used properly, as it is in the US and UK, nuclear power and even radiation are two incredibly powerful and beneficial tools.
__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745 |
|
|||
|
we get a lot of solar radiation cuz' the sun shines a lot here, its what we're famous for. since this fact concerns at least one poster, my advice is to use sun block (when it rains, you might want to come out of it). apart from that brilliant observation....
like I said, if you're in love with nuke radiation, that's ok by me, build as many as you want, wherever you want, any design you want. its your decision. just accept the full costs with the benefits instead of doing the moral equivalent of polluting the river downstream. there are actually laws preventing that, even in this country. 100 miles or 10 miles, its our backyard. its our state. you're using the worst kind of justification for pollution possible -- "as long as it doesn't bother me and kinda sorta doesn't bother you". right? Nevada was chosen because it has minimal political clout. Surely you're not so naive to think that safety alone was the dominant consideration. is anyone you know of actually begging to become the country's nuke dumping ground? are you? Nevada and its residents are fully capable of deciding what kind of energy sources and the associated environmental/health costs are acceptable -- coal fired plants OK. Lake Mead and the power plant there -- OK. for us to bear the costs associated with YOUR nuke use isn't acceptable. this is not "irrational fear", this is a decision of the residents here. UNLESS you're going to lecture us on what's best for us, and what we should or should not be afraid of. the question you'll never get around to addressing is, why not keep nuke waste yourselves? you're not afraid of something, are you? tell me why you don't want nuke waste in your backyard. I'm listening. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nuclear power plants are also far easiser to operate than coal plants. Coal plants require thousands of trainloads of coal a year to operate. A nuclear power plant only requires a few truckloads of fresh fuel per year. To get this coal, coal plants also must constantly run mining operations to get coal, in which many miners die. The volume of waste produced is actually more than the orginal fuel. And this waste has to go somewhere, too. Coal plants are so dirty that it makes nuclear waste seem clean by comparison. Would you rather have a coal plant releasing pollutants which are proven to cause cancer and other respiratory dieseases, are proven to cause acid rain, and kill many miners each year, or a nuclear plant whose only waste is nuclear waste which can be safely stored at the bottom of swimming pools? I don't understand how you are opposed to both radiation and nuclear plants at the same time. If I wanted to stay safe from radiation, I would replace all coal plants with nuclear ones. Nuclear plants provide almost no radiation exposure to people whatsoever. Wirraway, before you go on, view the file here. It is a breakdown of your radiation exposure sources. As you can see, the amount of radiation you would receive from wearing a luminous wristwatch is seven times what you would get from living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor. You don't live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, but you do live within 50 miles of two coal plants, each of which provide three times the radiation dosage that a nuclear plant would. Watching TV provides about 100 times the radiation that living near a nuclear plant would, and living in a stone, brick, or concrete buliding is a factor of 7 more. But you have to understand that none of these doses are serious. The .01 mrem you would receive if you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, which you do not, is simply not important. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745 |
|
|||
|
I just wanted to say that I used to live in Oak Ridge, TN, where they did a lot of the work for the first nuclear bombs our country built alongw with building plenty more after that.
I lived not 15 miles from the X-10 and Y-12 plants where not only did they used to build nuclear weapons, but they are currently disassembling existing ones. Yet, I'm not glowing, and you have to be in a real dark room to notice the water glowing.
__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. |