7 votes

Nuclear power is NOT safe.

For those of you still arguing that nuclear power is "perfectly safe"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o

Watch this documentary and then we'll talk. Even if the nuclear power debate doesn't interest you, this is still a well made, powerful documentary that covers media & government suppression of the real story.

And for the thorium advocators:
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2008/thorium_unsafe

It seems not all experts agree on Thorium. It would appear that the agenda of pushing a new, more profitable nuclear power (which still has weapons potential) is a great motivator to attempt to convince the masses that it's "perfectly safe". When are we going to return from fantasyland?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was in northern Romania a

I was in northern Romania a few years or 10 years after. The number of deformed kids, cancer deaths - it was not cool. It still rained radioactive occasionally.

I agree that separating the initial deaths from the eventual (injury) deaths isn't proper, but we do need energy.

Removing government subsidies (insurance) will expose the true risk of nuclear power, it can kill and injure to death many people.

And I like nuclear power, and I am for the nuclear cesspool in Nevada, and I live there. A little more care from not having the free or subsidized insurance, and maybe these plants will be able to withstand total destruction, and not leak "much"

Okay - lots to reply to.

"Cold War style propaganda?" The heck? I made a joke about being unable to build a safe toaster - that was not my main point, since, generally speaking, arguments are not typically framed as jokes. My main point was that they intentionally shut down the safeguards as part of an experiment, and the fact that government control is inherently ineffecient. And what, precisely, do you mean when you claim their space program was "more advanced?" They launched a beeping piece of metal into space. Then they launched a dog, which got fried. Plenty of cosmonauts died in their program. Astronauts died in ours. I would say both were equally "advanced." The Soviets did have a good design with their space suits, though, so I guess that could count.

Regarding zero pollution - you are actually right, and I apologize for not clarifying. There is zero air pollution from the plant itself. The waste, however? You're correct, it must be disposed of properly. Buried in concrete containers in the middle of a God-forsaken desert would seem to be an acceptable solution. Also, there are theories that it would actually be possible to recycle the waste. I'm no physicist, so I've got no idea how that would work, but if it works out, the biggest problem is solved.

I'm just asking you to look at the numbers. Compare the confirmed numbers of deaths as a direct result of nuclear power to the number of deaths from basically anything else. Nobody at all was hurt in Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was a direct result of intentionally disabling safeguards, and the attempts to stabilize Fukushima were screwed up by the Japanese government - plus, the fact that they built it on the coast. Generally not a good idea, all things considered.

BTW, don't worry - I will watch the documentary as soon as possible. It'd just be kinda pointless to watch it without sound. ;) Also, I want to apologize for the sarcasm (in several posts on this thread). Sometimes I get really worked up when I'm writing, and it just kinda spills out.

I admittedly get a bit to

I admittedly get a bit t0o over excited, sarcastic, or demeaning in my comments as well. You forget sometimes you're talking to people, and things get ugly. Thanks for contributing to the discussion, I do like hearing the arguments of the other side. Have responded to quite a few of your comments.

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

Live within your means - that is what liberty requires.

Any of you able to make a nuclear plant? Nope. How about drill for and refine your own oil? Nope. You can't even dam a major river - not even a tiny creek on your own property in most places. If you want to be free, you can't suckle at their teats for energy.
Home sized solar and wind work, although there are much more useful technologies if you are willing to think outside the box. The reason solar and wind are not taking off is because they are not profitable to big corporations, not because they don't work for idividuals.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Guess what?

Large companies - that invariably will arise if the market is free - WILL require large-scale power. I'm all for home-sized solar power (would love to install a system myself), but you can't pretend that a modern economy requires no large-scale energy production.

How do you know? For 99 years the Fed has created bubb

How could you know? For 99 years the Fed has created bubble sized industries that were fat, inefficient and unsustainable.

Free Markets seek efficiency and sustainability by finding the lowest prices.

Fishy is right on. Industry will just have to fend for itself, without government subsidies et al.

Free includes debt-free!

Yeah...

I never argued for subsidies, so I'm not entirely sure what you're objecting to with that last paragraph.

oil is not a fossil fuel

it is a renewable resource

do the research

But without the raw materials how does it renew.

YOu need an endless supply of carbon and hydrogen for an endless supply of abiotic oil. Where do they come from?

Free includes debt-free!

There is several ways to make

There is several ways to make oil. They have even made it out of sewage. Different ways are faster than others and make different qualities.

Still need material inputs to get real outputs.

I agree it is possible. But the Earth is not like the Federal Reserve. If we allow the earth to make something from nothing, it makes no difference to the Earth.

They are burning of tons of natural gas at landfills around the country. Monetary, energy policy and subsidies have all but destroyed the energy markets by restricting competition and regulating new entries to the field to death.

Free includes debt-free!

Nuclear Power is heavily SUBSIDIZED by the government.

This is the bigger problem.

Big industry can get their primary costs (cost of electricity) subsidized if we move more toward Nuclear Power.

This is the bigger issue. It is not CHEAP. It is expensive and only the biggest companies benefit the most.

How would you like free or reduced priced electricity if you were running say... a major chemical plant where the cost of operation is otherwise PROHIBITIVE.

This is the way they do things in Europe. We don't need this big industry system of taxation here in America where you pay taxes to subsidize Dupont.

You people who think that we have all the oil we need left...

...need to wake up. Oil will not last forever. People don't fight wars over resources that have an infinite supply.. or even an abundant supply.

I'm not advocating for gov subsidies. I'm just saying that when the oil curve starts to hit the downward slide, you'll be begging for nuclear. It will be the only thing that's feasible and the free market will make it happen.

There has been development on

There has been development on several methods of making oil, including using sewage. If the wars really are about oil, then they are fighting them out of ignorance. It seems the wars are more about the control of currencies and just plainly for making money on weapons . . . things like that. Oil and drugs are probably secondary if at all.

People do fight wars over

People do fight wars over something of sufficient supply if the actual objective of the war is for arms manufacturers to sell more bombs and guns, and for the government to blame conflict in the middle east, instead of inflation, for the increase in prices of goods and the looting of the taxpayers.

I think you're still spinning your wheels and you should rethink your knowledge of nuclear and look at it from a different perspective. Watch the documentary, and think logically and rationally about whether or not the prospect of another, perhaps even worse, Chernobyl is worth the amount of power provided by nuclear. I'm not saying get all teary eyed over babies being born missing limbs, eyes, or perhaps vital organs, which is a side effect that still persists today in Russia and other parts of Europe, because that "emotional crap" obviously doesn't sway you.

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

the most dangerous thing about nuclear power is

that its regulated by the state.

I can't imagine Walmart

I can't imagine Walmart getting into nuclear. Spending the least money possible to offer the lowest price and make the most profit. I could see a meltdown happening on a weekly basis if they got into the business without any oversight whatsoever.

You're right though, the government is worse, because they would condone half-assedness for a cut of the action, and they don't give a crap about the safety of the people.

Free market or no free market, I would still be against nuclear, and as a consumer, that is my right. I don't think I would be alone, and the consumer outcry in the market would have nuclear shut down in no time.

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

And replace it with WHAT?

We can confirm deaths due to pollution from coal power. Number of confirmed deaths due directly to nuclear power, outside of the exploding plants themselves? Zero. In Chernobyl, the only people who died were blown up in the explosion. Nobody died - or was even affected - by Three Mile Island, and there have been no confirmed deaths due to radiation from the Fukushima disaster.

Mind you, that's exactly three accidents in the last, what, sixty years of nuclear power's existence? Forgive me for not being too worried about these kind of things.

Also notice that Chernobyl was due ENTIRELY to government stupidity, and Fukushima was partially due to government stupidity.

Man, you guys and your

Man, you guys and your statistics that show a spotless record for nuclear energy. The fact is there have probably been 100s of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl fallout and from nuclear waste dumped wherever these power plants feel like dumping it, through cancer, birth defects, and other illnesses. Nuclear waste doesn't just dissipate into the atmosphere, it sits in barrels (sometimes at the bottom of the ocean, the source of all life), remains radioactive for 1000s of years, and will just keep piling up, unless of course we use it to build weapons and continue to hold the world hostage of WMD wielding maniacs the politicians are always going on about.

It sounds like you're all fine dumping 1000s of tons of nuclear waste on future generations without a care in the world, because it won't effect you in your lifetime. And why? Just to be "right" about nuclear energy? Silly.

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

cold fusion is the future

not fission. jmo

I agree it has promise...

...but promises don't keep the lights on. Nuclear is already doing that.

Without subsidy, nuclear would fail financially.

Borrowing to keep the lights on will only last so long.

Free includes debt-free!

bump

I agree 100%.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

I don't believe in any nuclear power actually..

But that's another debate.

So many people think they're all harmless when that couldn't be further from the truth. Look at Depleted Uranium and there's your proof.

Just mentioned depleted below

Just mentioned depleted uranium below. People all over the middle east will suffer the effects of depleted uranium shells used in Desert storm for its half life which may as well be an eternity.

I don't buy any nuclear power either. I think it causes way more harm than good, through the waste, and the weapons which are a byproduct. The world would be better off if it were never discovered.

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

Sure, if you take something radioactive and shoot up...

...a country with it, it's going to cause problems. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about killer politicians with no morals committing murderous crimes. I'm talking about safer, cleaner energy for our families.

Face it, you can't put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Someone somewhere will always be trying to use it as a weapon. That shouldn't prevent us from putting the technology to GOOD use as well.

This is one of the few things

This is one of the few things that I disagree with Ron about. He likes it, and I don't. Fooling around with atoms is not a good idea, imo..:)

Yup, same here. I think Ron

Yup, same here. I think Ron is a brilliant man, but we can't all agree on everything. He is very much focused on the monetary policy and foreign policy, and rightly so. I think if he took a closer look at energy policy, he would see the light that nuclear is a dangerous route for this country, and the world. Of course, he advocates that the free market handle energy, and as one commenter posted, nuclear would likely be dead in a free market, because it makes consumers nervous and unhappy (like THIS consumer).

I think if the entire world dropped nuclear power and nuclear armament, we wouldn't have MOST of the foreign policy problems we do have these days. We have abundance of energy with the sources we have now, and the demand is shrinking with the efficiency of devices, and so much stuff being battery powered, we don't need to go to the extreme with risky nuclear power to "solve our problems".

Also, who advocates nuclear power more than anyone? Politicians. You have to wonder why?

Stop feeding the propaganda machine. Turn off your TV.

Ron Paul is a practical man...

...who is not easily swayed by emotional crap like the anti-nuclear documentaries push on people.

I could show you documentaries about pollution too.. that would make you equally mad.

Ron Paul seems like he's a man of intelligence who would look at the numbers and realize that WE ARE going to run out of fossil fuels some day. It's a finite resource. He would probably look at the numbers and realize that per kilowatt-hour nuclear power is the safest power source we have found.

And besides, I'm not advocating for gov subsidies. You'll see... when the oil curve does start on it's downward slide, and prices start to skyrocket... you'll be begging for nuclear. And the free market will make it happen.

Reserves of uranium in the

Reserves of uranium in the world (2009): 5,404,000 tonnes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_re...
Uranium demand per year: 68,000 tonnes in 1996; expected to increase to 80-100 kilotonnes by 2025
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#Uranium_demand

5,404,000 / 68,000 = 79,4

That means with uranium consumption being stagnant at the 1996 level, there would be enough for 80 more years. Note that this is not a scientific calculation, it is more of a rough estimate. Nontheless we are going to run out of nuclear energy as well.