It's Time to Lobby Against Nuclear Power

At one of my jobs, donuts can't go under a certain temperature...

...And we have procedures outlined to make sure that bacterial growth cannot occur on the donuts by keeping it in a safe temperature zone that bacteria cannot harbor in.

...I would risk losing my job if we screwed up the donut temperature...

...But these "professionals" at nuclear plants (not to mention oil rigs) with the potential lives of millions in their hands...

...Have zero legitimate safety procedures outlined for events like this that would begin to poke at the amount of collateral damage that could happen here, not to mention the lives that are at risk...

Nuclear power is POINTLESS AND DANGEROUS... how long is it going to take us to realize that we need to get rid of this shallow idea of a source of electricity? Right now we're content to let them dump ridiculous amounts of toxic waste into our waterways, let their security be compromised by nature and risk peoples' health and ultimately lives... I gave nuclear power a chance, and they blew it like it was their job to screw it up in the first place.

If you can't have 100% control of the situation at all times with something this big that can affect so many people, you don't deserve to be making money off of it. Period.

Dearest nuclear power -- you're fired.

P.S. I suggest everyone start eating lots of berries and citrus to keep your body alkaline and make sure your children do the same (A dominantly alkaline body cannot support new forms cancer cells; it's scientifically impossible for the cancer to grow).

Nuclear power is efficient and safe*.

We do have plans to fix things if they get messed up, look at Three Mile Island.

If there wasn't such a stigma around it (mostly thanks to Russian incompetence at Chernobyl) then we wouldn't be burning so much coal and polluting the atmosphere.







*In geologically stable areas.

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


THE HUGE RED FLAG WAS WAVING IN THE AIR AFTER THE JAPAN INCIDENT!!! ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN FOLLOWING THIS DISASTER!!!

By all means do away with nuclear power. We can cook over an open fire, read by candlelight and use a wind-up laptop .......

Odd that no-one campaigns against coal power, even though coal kills more people in the USA every year than nuclear has in the whole world ever. And more issues are being found all the time, ie just this week:

Large numbers of birth defects seen near mountaintop mining operations

If we're going to lobby against anything it should be coal.

And what will the electricity come from? Dangerous coal? Expensive renewables? Unicorn farts?

Nuclear is still one of the safest energy sources per TWh produced. Modern reactors and eventual thorium reactors are much more safer than ancient Fukushima or Chernobyl types.

Originally posted by Essan
By all means do away with nuclear power. We can cook over an open fire, read by candlelight and use a wind-up laptop .......

Odd that no-one campaigns against coal power, even though coal kills more people in the USA every year than nuclear has in the whole world ever. And more issues are being found all the time, ie just this week:

Large numbers of birth defects seen near mountaintop mining operations

If we're going to lobby against anything it should be coal.

Who said coal should stay? Not I!

This is about natural disasters exploding nuclear plants and infecting millions of people with long term diseases. Besides, how many coal mines have exploded recently due to water, exactly?

I wonder what the Japanese would have to say about the safety of nuclear power....

...don't try to tell any rabbits about it, though, they are no longer born with ears after Fukishima and you might have a little trouble getting your message across. You'd have better luck explaining it to the still-birthed children.

Please stop buying these "facts" that are pushed by nuclear power companies, yet "coincidentally" leave out any and all information that would incriminate themselves.

Your coal argument is like saying "Let's keep Fidel Castro in power, at least he is not as bad as Hitler!"

Eat up the crap, folks. Eat it up. Whatever makes you feel "safe".

Brownsville Levee

...Woops..?

Originally posted by Maslo
And what will the electricity come from? Dangerous coal? Expensive renewables? Unicorn farts?

Money is not a higher priority than innocent human life to me.

We blow billions of dollar every year on a pointless military excursion to pad corporate wallets, anyways.

Originally posted by Maslo
And what will the electricity come from? Dangerous coal? Expensive renewables? Unicorn farts?

Nuclear is still one of the safest energy sources per TWh produced. Modern reactors and eventual thorium reactors are much more safer than ancient Fukushima or Chernobyl types.

Where is the proof to back this "SAFER" statement up?? Are you looking into Nebraska with your "safer" answer also?? How about the multiple nuclear plants that have leaked radioactive materials that "they" never reported?? Show me some safety specs and assure us on here that nuclear energy is safe!!!

(crickets chirp, while we watch the tumbleweed roll down the road)......

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


nextbigfuture.com...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

 

nextbigfuture.com...

Other air pollutants also cause health impacts but the scientific cause and effect is the most clear with particulates.

Death of the living is not the primary concern when it comes to nuclear waste, but that the toxicity creates long-term illnesses and mutations.

This is kind of pathetic to say the least, we don't ignore the realities of the negatives by comparing them to other negatives? Like I said in relation.. Saddam Hussein was no Hitler... so I guess we should have just let him continue killing innocent people and his own family? Negatives aren't justified by other negatives...

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


Nuclear is as safe as renewables per energy produced. People just fear nuclear because it was used in bombs and because they do not understand it well (fear of the unknown). If old reactors were replaced by new types, it would be the SAFEST source we have, you would have greater chance of death by wind turbine falling on your head. But nuclear was quite neglected in the past decade or two. That is going to change tough, developing countries are building many new reactors, because they cannot afford expensive renewables.

Even getting rid of coal is completely unrealistic right now. Getting rid of nuclear is a pipe dream, in fact, nuclear will grow fast despite Fukushima, to replace even more dangerous coal.

And when it comes to money or cost, the cost represents Earth resources and human work. So let me rephrase that: Renewables require far more Earth resources and human work to achieve the same energy output. Its not greed, its reason.