Nuclear Protests Turn Violent

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 18 comments

With nuclear waste being dangerous, it's the AMOUNT 1 is exposed to. Where was it written that nuclear waste is safe? What they must do in the U.S. with nuclear waste is 1st reuse the spent fuel rods which reduce the amount & then after the energy is used put the rods (nuclear waste) in deep underground repositories-which they bury anyhow in containers. As far as terrorism, terrorists have way easier ways to kill many. For terrorists to kill with nuclear waste, they would need large amounts & easier means exist. Biological weapons such as anthrax, plague, etc. can be used. Terrorists could crash planes & terrorists could use large amounts of chemicals found in solar panels (arsenic, chromium, just to name a few) & put them into the H2O. The nuclear weapons argument of using atomic waste is moot because if a nation has knowledge to make atomic weapons, they'll be able to do so with or w/o nuclear waste-again Uranium & Centrifuge. The 2 nations to be concerned about in terms of nuclear weapons are Iran & Venezuela. But again, it must be said that the nations who have atomic weapons-China (1960s), India (1970s), France, U.S.(Manhattan Project of WW2), Israel (rumored), Russia(1949), etc. all did so before they had nuclear powerplants & Israel as of 2009 hasn't had nuclear powerplants. Yes, we must be concerned about Iran & Venezuela getting nuclear weapons, but that doesn't require nuclear waste. North Korea in 2006 tested atomic weapons underground & if not mistaken, they were able to do so w/o nuclear powerplants. South Korea has nuclear power & most Koreans are happy with this.
As to the article on corruption, of course this must not happen. But there must not be corruption in any industry. Automotive manufacturers must not knowingly sell defective cars. Of course the nuclear industry must be honest like any other industry. Clorox has done it's share of environmental problems & they've given money to Sierra Club who puts their logo on the Clorox products. Finally Fondue, just because windmills & solar panels don't produce waste, with solar panels, they do have dangerous chemicals which can be toxic to H2O. Also with solar panels & windmills, you need more materials. If 1 visits a hill, it's better to see the beauty of snow covered hills, than hundreds of windmills littered with dead birds. Windmills & solar panels must be done with moderation because you use more land, more materials & get less energy. What is being asked is that Environmental Impact Statements be tougher for windmills & solar panels, because they're not the perfect energy sources as Fondue keeps selling them as.

With nuclear waste, it's the amount that 1 is exposed to. But nuclear waste is here & it's not going away. What they must do is figure out how to make nuclear waste harmless & how to reuse it. In France & Japan, they reprocess the spent fuel rods & this reduces the amount of nuclear waste. Yes, there is plutonium byproduct, but if a nation understands how to make atomic bombs, they'll be able to do so with or w/o nuclear waste. The newer nuclear powerplants do generate less waste, so the nuclear physicists are learning more advanced ways to reduce this.
The arguments rerun against nuclear power which just reruns what has been said since the 1970s is more on politics & less on science. While the main ideas of science remains the same, how things are done advances & nuclear power has advanced since the 1970s. Chernobyl wouldn't happen in the U.S. because the engineers in Chernobyl used a faulty engineering design which didn't contain the explosion. Besides the Ukraine has built newer nuclear powerplants. Stephen Tindale former executive director of Greenpeace U.K. & founder of Climate Answers has said that the arguments against nuclear energy are based on the 1970s religion that in order to be an environmentalist, you have to be anti-nuclear, but he changed his view to support nuclear power after rethinking.
Quite a few of the environmentalists you hear who support nuclear power were intially against this. Gwyneth Cravens is an environmentalist who used to be anti-nuclear but is now pro-nuclear. During the 1970s & 1980s, the environmental movement spent much of their time protesting nuclear, but in 2010, environmentalists are split on this.
Nations policies have also changed. During the 1970s & 80s, different nations such as Austria (1978) Sweden (1980) & Italy (1987) passed laws to phase out nuclear power & in Austria they forbade building nuclear powerplants by ending Zwentendorfen. Italy actually phased out nuclear power in 1991. Well Italy in 2009 voted to bring back nuclear power & France's Areva is helping Italy build new nuclear powerplants. Sweden in 2007 ended the phase out program & Sweden is now planning to build new nuclear reactors. Austria is reevaluating the 1978 Zwentendorfen because when Austria didn't pursue nuclear, they got their energy from coal & natural gas & thus the air quality is bad.
Yes, we must be prudent about nuclear power, but we must be prudent with any industry whether it's automotive, aviation & the renewables. That's why we have the N.R.C. & EPA monitoring nuclear powerplants. Nuclear power is not evil & it can be compatible with environmentalism. People such as Stephen Tindale of Climate Answers understands that nuclear powerplants can be beneficial to the environment. To learn about wind industry risks, click www.wind-watch.org
Finally, Paniscus, to learn more about the coal & natural gas waste emitting more radiation, click Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific ...


Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. By burning away all ... product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more ...


www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-

Until we have found a way to safely store lethal nuclear waste it seems to me that nuclear energy will remain too dangerous. snowisfun, did you think about your post before you clicked on it? This is simply nonsense: "Natural gas & coal (fly ash) emit 100* more radiation” and this is stupid: "The arguments against nuclear power rerun the same things that we have heard since the 1970s" Well duh! Of course they have, because the objections are still valid. The disposal of nuclear waste remains a massive problem, actually more serious now than it was in the 70's because of the rise in terrorism. And the possibility of a major accident like Chernobyl remains. In addition the proliferation of nuclear power invariably means the proliferation of nuclear weapons as we can see clearly in Iran. The nuclear industry and it’s cheerleaders have not yet presented credible answers to these objections and your confused, rambling comments certainly tell us nothing new.