All of those disasters weren't really that legitimate, they were either trying to make bombs, were getting hit with record earthquakes or otherwise, if you just leave it alone in a nice safe place nothing will go wrong.
There's one in England near the southern shore, it's completely stable because it's super flat land and it's a quiet place, it provides energy with no threats.
Offline
I agree with Slugger.
I live in PA. There was nothing that bad, just a cloud of white stuff.
Offline
For the record, there wasn't an emergency in Pennsylvania, I believe it was New York. I assume you're referring to Three Mile Island.
Coincidentally, last night I wrote a 600 word research essay on nuclear power. If anyone is intested I'll post it in a code format so that it gets a scroll box.
Alex [b][color=red]REDACTED[/color][/b] Writing I Research Essay II 10/17/12 A mushroom cloud over a big city, or a slow, silent leak of radioactivity contaminating anything it touches. These are some of the fears of nuclear energy. Disasters like that at Fukushima have increased fears over using nuclear as an energy source. However, nuclear technology used today is old. As reported in Popular Science, thirty years have passed since the United States approved the most recent nuclear reactor. The same article, titled "Next-Gen Nukes," much research has been done in the past thirty years. A new fuel, Thorium, has been found to replace the fissile Uranium. It is three hundred times as efficient as Uranium, and is far safer. Popular Science interviewed John Kutsch, an engineer with the Thorium Energy Alliance, who said that "you could have 1,000 pounds in your basement, and nothing would happen." Unfortunately, a switch to Thorium as the primary fuel source for America is unlikely. Much of early government funding for nuclear energy was directly linked to the government's nuclear proliferation, and energy companies themselves still operate primarily with coal because of the restrictive factors - both in cost and in paperwork - needed to build and run a nuclear reactor. Nuclear power is highly overshadowed by nuclear weapons. When a nuclear radiation leak occurs, everyone becomes attentive. Doubts are cast about the safety of the power source. Unfortunately this is a quite biased news coverage. Constantly our limited supply of coal is harming the atmosphere and creating acid rain and smog, why are these effects not receiving more attention? While coal has been used for centuries, nuclear power is still in its first century. If it is noted that the most recent reactor in the United States was approved in the early eighties, that leaves less than half a century of development. Another thirty years of unimplemented research could roll out a new generation of safer, cleaner reactors. Another thing that must be taken into account is practicality of nuclear energy. According to the Earth Island Journal's article "Nuclear Power is Safe, Sound...And Green," a nuclear plant that can generate 1,000 megawatts takes up under 1/3 of a square mile, while the same energy production would require 50 square miles of a solar farm and 200 square miles of a wind farm. According to the Popular Science article, one pound of Uranium can be used to produce the energy of over 10,000 pounds of coal, in a normal reaction burning under 5% of the Uranium. The rest of the Uranium is left as radioactive waste, another concern with the safety. In theory, Uranium will need to be stored safely for thousands of years. A single pound of Thorium, when used in a reaction, can produce the same yield as 300 pounds of Uranium: a whopping 3.5 million pounds of coal, in a reaction that uses 99% of the Thorium, leaving only a minute amount of waste that is less radioactive and cannot be weaponized. Fear is holding back progress. No, fear is allowing the human race to continue destroying the planet. Global Warming is the accepted belief of the scientific community, and even if it wasn't, there is no alternative for when the planet's coal is depleted. The current power grid can not last another century without massive overhaul. We must pull nuclear power out of the sixties and into the 21st century to power the cities of tomorrow. [color=red]Note: this is an MLA citation that is pretty out of format here, it looked good in Pages on my iPad when I wrote it, and I'm not going to bother cleaning it up because it will look out of format without page guidelines.[/color] Works Cited Brand, Stewart. "Nuclear Power Is Safe, Sound...and Green." Earth Island Journal. Winter 2011: 48. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Oct 2012. Thompson, Kalee. "Next-Gen Nukes." Popular Science. Jul 2011: 58. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 Oct 2012. "Nuclear Power." City-Data.com. 11-5-08. 10-17-12. < http://www.city-data.com/forum/ members/aoldsalt-429187-albums-australian-political-cartoons-pic14340-nuclear- power.html>
Offline
CatPerson wrote:
Do you or do you not agree with the ussage of Nuclear Powerplants? Personally I dont with what happened with the Chernobyl disaster, and the smaller disaster in Pennsylvania, and the well known one in Japan.
Please remember what this forum is all about - discussing things that you are Reading or Playing (that you find inspirational). It's not an open topic discussion area. If you found an inspirational article about nuke plants that you want to discuss - that would be fine, just reference the article and keep the discussion focused on the points raised in the article.
Offline