Posted on 08/22/2012 9:24:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Nuclear power is safe....Tell that to the Russians...and the folks in Hiroshima.
Oooonly Threeee Thousand Yeeeears! Thaaaat’s not sustainabllllle!
< /watermelon>
Interesting. Very interesting. Thorium is another good source for fuel.
Not to put too fine a line on it, but my impression is that “fusion based” nuclear power, when things go wrong, results in a melt down, but “Fission based” nuclear power, when things go wrong, results in a rather large, uh, “things go boom”.
But I am no expert and could be wrong about this. I was wrong about something once in the third grade, so it’s possible.
A buddy took delivery of a Rossi-Focardi Nickel-Hydrogen fusion reactor a few weeks ago. He paid $4K for it and so far is satisfied. Why isn’t fusion being considered as a cheap energy source by this article?
I don’t know. There’s been a huge increase in thyroid abnormalities in children in Fukushima (the area around the plant). Things may not be as sunny as the Japanese gov chooses to portray it. http://thyroid.about.com/b/2012/08/06/fukushimas-children-facing-high-rate-of-thyroid-irregularities.htm
[Tell that to the Russians...and the folks in Hiroshima.]
Given that the technology used in both places was ancient (better than 50 years old) that is a moronic statement. Compared to current technologies, it is like faulting stone age technology for being inefficient. In fact, anti-nuke protestors have delayed the adoption of new technologies, and have guaranteed future deaths.
Thanks for nothing.
I was expecting a thorium update here......
Brings new meaning to the sign some scientists put on their door “Gone fission.”
nuke power ping
by the same reasoning (or lack there of) bath tubs aren’t safe, just look at how many people have died in them.
It’s only safe for grown ups.
bump
I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’ve read that both plants were very old tech. In addition both plants were poorly managed, and with safety protocols ignored, and especially at Chernobyl. There are apparently ridiculously safe methods now available. Question is maybe whether you can get them built.
It's my understanding that in commercial nuclear power plants, intended for the generation of electricity, the enrichment level of the uranium is too low for "boom".
Not absolutely certain, but that's the claim I've heard.
“cold fusion” is more of a electrochemical reaction than a nuclear one.
It is not totally understood yet and it is interesting but the lack of neutron emissions indicates it is not fusion.
Fusion is the direction of the future. Just not an easy one to sustain for more than miliseconds.
I am a Hazmat fire officer. We drill frequently with local military teams and state and local authorities using radiation detection equipment to prepare for different scenarios. It always amazes me the amount of misinformation that people believe regarding the dangers of ionizing radiation. People fear most what they know the least about regardless of the actual risks.
bflr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.