Why nuclear power is still a good choice

"What is needed is perspective. Nuclear energy is not entirely safe, as Fukushima clearly shows, even if the current radiation-related death toll is zero and will likely remain so. But coal and other fossil fuels are far, far worse. And insisting only on renewables risks worsening global warming as an unintended consequence. We need a portfolio of clean energy technologies, deployed in the most environmentally responsible way."

And not to forget that we DO have a present 'passive safe' system (CANDU 6) and the US spent billions in the 70's and 80's to find a 'passive safe' reactor for light water.

Go Nuclear sure, but go SAFE nuclear. Then the problems of radiation become nothing to worry about.

Unlike coal where the ash is highly laced with thorium, uranium, etc and worse, it is in small particles that lodge in the lungs..

How can nuclear be safe? Can the latest technology prevent toxic waste and radiation from escaping in case nature decides to rock us with another devastating earthquake?

Maxie007 wrote:

How can nuclear be safe? Can the latest technology prevent toxic waste and radiation from escaping in case nature decides to rock us with another devastating earthquake?

You should read what I wrote. And then check the FAQs on CANDU 6. It takes over an hour to go critical if things go wrong, unlike the 'high octane' enriched fuel light water reactors. It can be left safely in shutdown mode, with passive cooling ( one of the meltdown reactors aft Fikishima was shut off at the time, but melted down when cooling water was lost due to the flooding). Flooding a shut down CANDU reactor will do nothing. No power is needed to keep it safe for any period of downtime.

It REALLY should have been the choice of Japan for it's nuclear industry based on their risk of earthquake and tsunami but politics and short sighted greed took over.

Or there are newly evolving technologies that are also 'passive safe' but CANDU is the safest one with the longest record of development. THere is still some engineering design needed for 'rebuilding' a CANDU but the initial plant has been reaching construction records.

If not for heavy arm twisting by French and US firms to light water designs and a totally passive Canadian government, CANDU would be THE choice for a nuclear resurgence of most nations, IMO.

Donald Trump gets Obama to publish his birth certificate.

Maxie007 wrote:

How can nuclear be safe? Can the latest technology prevent toxic waste and radiation from escaping in case nature decides to rock us with another devastating earthquake?

You've got to wrap it up in concrete and steel; lead works too. Has anyone died in Japan from radiation? The brave workers who pulled the fuel rods from the reactor, aren't they still alive?

Devastating earthquakes aren't safe, if that had been clean natural gas it could have killed thousands.

Brian_G wrote:

Donald Trump gets Obama to publish his birth certificate.

And makes Trump look like a fool .

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>You've got to wrap it up in concrete and steel; lead works too. Has anyone died in Japan from radiation? The brave workers who pulled the fuel rods from the reactor, aren't they still alive?
Devastating earthquakes aren't safe, if that had been clean natural gas it could have killed thousands.

Still alive for now...radiation exposure can take time to show up with various cancers. Many of the workers will most likely die as will some of the people living in the area.

Dutch, all of the workers and all of the people living in the area will die; the earthquake and tsunami killed 14,662, radiation: zero.

Wait and see !!! Many of the workers received large doses of radiation. There is a price to be paid from such exposure.

Large doses of radiation result in rapid death; low doses may cause slower and less death; very low might cause no death or very slow death.

Very, very slow death; health and aging.

Brian_G wrote:

the earthquake and tsunami killed 14,662, radiation: zero.

Not yet.

Brian_G wrote:

Large doses of radiation result in rapid death; low doses may cause slower and less death;

So, from saying that radiation doesn't kill, you're now saying it does?¿?¿?
There are many diseases and poisons that kill people slowly and some are still incurable.
But then again, maybe you're right, it could be just imagination.

It hasn't killed because it's too weak. High radiation doses kill rapidly, lower doses are not as dangerous. Every day without radiation death tells us the dosage was low.

Well at least you agree that radiation can kill.

Radiation can kill. Sunburns can kill, third degree burns over 75% of the body can kill.

Brian_G wrote:

Radiation can kill. Sunburns can kill, third degree burns over 75% of the body can kill.

Do you just like to argue to hear yourself, knowing all the time you are wrong ?

Those workers who received large doses of radiation will never be able to go near the plants again. They have reached their lifetime doses. Time will tell as to what cancers they will eventually have and how long they will survive.

Safety is a major public concern for nuclear power. So here are some facts:

1) Three Mile Island (built 1974) was caused by a machinery failure resulted in 0 deaths

2) Chernobyl (30yrs old in 1986) the worst nuclear accident in history, killed 28 workers and 15 residents. Cause was a poorly planned experiment where the safety systems were deliberately disabled.

3) Fukushima resulted in 0 deaths and was caused by a massive freak of nature. Fukushima released just 4.5% of Chernobyls radiation. Fukushima was 40 years old.

Over 15 years, 4,290 energy-related accidents across different technologies, deaths from coal attributed to 25 workers per terawatt hour, 36 for oil, 4 for gas, and hydro, wind, solar and nuclear all less than .2. Expected fataity rates are lowest for western Hydro and nuclear power plants.

Modern reactors cannot run out of control in the way Chernobyl did because water plays the role of both the coolant and the moderator. Risk of core damage for a modern reactor is 1 in 24 million (compared to 1 in 20,000 for a 1970's design).

In relation to radioactive waste, we have mines.. perfect places for radioactive waste, much better than the waste that is emitted from gas and coal power stations that are pollute the atmosphere.

So.. where is the problem again?

Rob in Adelaide wrote:

Safety is a major public concern for nuclear power. So here are some facts:
1) Three Mile Island (built 1974) was caused by a machinery failure resulted in 0 deaths
2) Chernobyl (30yrs old in 1986) the worst nuclear accident in history, killed 28 workers and 15 residents. Cause was a poorly planned experiment where the safety systems were deliberately disabled.
3) Fukushima resulted in 0 deaths and was caused by a massive freak of nature. Fukushima released just 4.5% of Chernobyls radiation. Fukushima was 40 years old.
Over 15 years, 4,290 energy-related accidents across different technologies, deaths from coal attributed to 25 workers per terawatt hour, 36 for oil, 4 for gas, and hydro, wind, solar and nuclear all less than .2. Expected fataity rates are lowest for western Hydro and nuclear power plants.
Modern reactors cannot run out of control in the way Chernobyl did because water plays the role of both the coolant and the moderator. Risk of core damage for a modern reactor is 1 in 24 million (compared to 1 in 20,000 for a 1970's design).
In relation to radioactive waste, we have mines.. perfect places for radioactive waste, much better than the waste that is emitted from gas and coal power stations that are pollute the atmosphere.
So.. where is the problem again?

All BS....the deaths caused by radiation leaks from these reactor disasters have and will continued to kill indirectly for many years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-bennett/fu...

Let's start with the most extreme measure of risk -- fatalities. Here nuclear's number is pretty easy to remember: zero. That is the death toll from the worst American nuclear energy accident in history, at the Three Mile Island plant in 1979 (where the injury total was also zero), as well as every other radiological incident at American nuclear plants in the entire history of our civilian nuclear energy program. No one has ever been killed by a radiation release from a nuclear plant in an OECD country. So far, no one has died from the nuclear accident at Fukushima.(The only fatal nuclear energy accident in history was at Chernobyl in 1986, but that was a direct result of the shoddy Soviet plant design, bad training, and extreme human error.)

Brian_G wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ matt-bennett/fukushima-nuclear _b_1234077.html
Let's start with the most extreme measure of risk -- fatalities. Here nuclear's number is pretty easy to remember: zero. That is the death toll from the worst American nuclear energy accident in history, at the Three Mile Island plant in 1979 (where the injury total was also zero), as well as every other radiological incident at American nuclear plants in the entire history of our civilian nuclear energy program. No one has ever been killed by a radiation release from a nuclear plant in an OECD country. So far, no one has died from the nuclear accident at Fukushima.(The only fatal nuclear energy accident in history was at Chernobyl in 1986, but that was a direct result of the shoddy Soviet plant design, bad training, and extreme human error.)

No deaths ??? You must be blind or just plain stupid if you think leaked radiation into the atmosphere causes no harm. Increased cancers are documented in relation to leaks in these areas. Some just don't want to admit it. A report by researchers at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill concludes that increases in lung cancer and leukemia near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant suggest a much greater release of radiation during the 1979 accident than had been believed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national...