# Is the fear related to nuclear energy rational? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978 "2014-08-30T17:56:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/21 "2014-08-31T19:41:51Z")
If you ask the question “What’s the worst that could happen?” nuclear energy evokes a pretty bad response. The thought will be a about a short term disaster. The result of using oil for energy has been pretty bad, but people don’t tend to fear long term consequences as much as the immediate effects. I would say those who fear our ability to maintain safety and security at nuclear power plants are being rational, while at the same time those who don’t fear the continued use of oil for power are being irrationally unfearful. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/22 "2014-08-31T20:17:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The cores (at least for the US subs) have not breached, and the surrounding waters are periodically monitored. It’s my understanding that, in a hundred years or more, the cores will eventually start to corrode into the ocean. This will be very gradual and will not result in a significant release of radioactive material at once – essentially a very slow flaking/dusting of tiny pieces of the core. This should be easily absorbed, and releases much less radioactive material then, say, an average undersea volcanic eruption. > > These cores are designed so that any disturbance results in the control rods “[scramming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scram)” (slamming down) into the core itself, which shuts down all reactor activity but some residual decay heat. So it’s sort of as if a bunch of fuel rods got dumped into the sea, rather than like a Chernobyl or Fukushima melt-down? Low-level contam, but not a “hot spot?” Thank you! Ignorance is not bliss! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/23 "2014-08-31T20:20:17Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Nuclear fission is nuclear fission. How fast the energy is released from how much fissile material is the difference between a weapon and a power plant. . . . So a piece or iron rusting away slowly is “the same” as a thermite fire, because only the rate of energy released is different. Tell ya what: you hold the thermite reaction in your hand, and I’ll hold the rusting iron in mine. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/24 "2014-08-31T21:32:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nothing here contradicts what I showed, you are wrong about Carter and **iiandyiiii**. You are repeating a tired conflation about nuclear power with the issue of nuclear weapons. > > The main point I made stands too, I do indeed trust Carter when he tell us about nuclear energy being a very important part of our development. And you don’t know anything about physics. Both processes use the _exact_ same fission process to generate energy. The only difference is the control of the speed. Nuclear power reactors can and do engage in runaway and uncontrolled fission and that is a meltdown. A bomb is also controlled to happen all in an instant. If that goes wrong, and it can, it will meltdown and be really ugly. Not as bad as an explosion, but really ugly and with more long term consequences. Your failure to understand the basics of nuclear fission, while pretending to, makes me question your judgment. I don’t think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. \*\*But in the interests of exploring your point of view further, please explain why, other than speed of the reaction, this is a different physical phenomenon. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/25 "2014-08-31T21:57:34Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > And you don’t know anything about physics. Both processes use the _exact_ same fission process to generate energy. The only difference is the control of the speed. Nuclear power reactors can and do engage in runaway and uncontrolled fission and that is a meltdown. A bomb is also controlled to happen all in an instant. If that goes wrong, and it can, it will meltdown and be really ugly. Not as bad as an explosion, but really ugly and with more long term consequences. > > Your failure to understand the basics of nuclear fission, while pretending to, makes me question your judgment. I don’t think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. > > \*\*But in the interests of exploring your point of view further, please explain why, other than speed of the reaction, this is a different physical phenomenon. \*\* :rolleyes: There must be a fire sale on straw and red herrings today. Understanding that the phenomenons are related does not undermine the point that you are employing a fallacy to press on your FUD. This is like declaring that all uses of nitroglycerine are evil because is used on TNT/bombs, but that point is really dumb when one takes into account their uses in mining and in lower quantities, as medicine for heart conditions. To drive the point, in this case it would be like if you are telling us that a doctor recommending the **continuing** use of nitro in medicine should be ignored because he also condemned the use of it in the military. Or declaring that others are ignorants for not knowing that there are the same stuff. Well, duh, it is the same stuff; but that is not the point that I’m making, nor the point that you are avoiding. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/26 "2014-08-31T22:29:02Z")
Enough with the analogies, let’s get to the scientific facts: \*\*please explain why, other than speed of the reaction, this is a different physical phenomenon. \*\* I believe you can’t explain because you don’t know what the similarities and differences are. I know exactly what the similarities and differences are. I know that a bomb like Little Boy will release about 15 percent of its energy at once and is used as a weapon and has a small fraction of the energy potential of a modern power reactor. I know that a power reactor when properly maintained and run correctly will far more efficiently use all the fuel available to it, and will not have a bomb like explosion under any circumstances, but left unattended _ **will melt down and release a huge fraction of its potential energy and leave a huge area of land uninhabitable by people.** _ I cite Chernobyl and Fukashima as examples of this. It is far safer to live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, even immediately after the bombs dropped, than anywhere near Chernobyl or Fukashima. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/27 "2014-08-31T22:43:01Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Enough with the analogies, let’s get to the scientific facts: \*\*please explain why, other than speed of the reaction, this is a different physical phenomenon. \*\* :rolleyes: Doubling down on the straw and the herring I see. The context would tell you that that is not the point me and many others are not making, the problem is your FUD of not recognizing that there is a difference on how **the same reaction/stuff** is used in other contexts. And that Jimmy Carter is not shying away of supporting nuclear energy even after Chernobyl. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/28 "2014-08-31T22:56:18Z")
BTW, the analogy is valid still, the Dr. in that analogy that still recommends the use of the stuff for energy purposes is Jimmy Carter. \*\* The very same one that you declared to rely on regarding if we should use nuclear energy.\*\* Sucks then that you brought him into the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/29 "2014-08-31T22:58:33Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Enough with the analogies, let’s get to the scientific facts: \*\*please explain why, other than speed of the reaction, this is a different physical phenomenon. \*\* . . . Sure. Easy. One destroys cities, the other powers them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/30 "2014-09-01T00:12:18Z")
They are not related, it is the exact same reaction. I see you are still unwilling to try to explain to people why nuclear fission in a bomb is different than nuclear fission in a reactor other than the time it takes and the amount of fuel. That is because it isn’t different other than the time and amount. You seem to have zero conception of how many hundreds, if not thousands of times more fuel a reactor has. You seem to ignore that on many occasions such reactors have gone tits up. You reduce the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukashima to FUD. No, they really happened. And the dozen or so nuclear accidents that have occurred in the past will be repeated as long as there are nuclear reactors. Go on, explain the different contexts and dangers and different laws of physics. Since you are into analogies, I’ll make one. Mother nature can create flash floods (and nuclear reactors, google Oklo). Mother nature does flash floods all the time. The dozen or so at Oklo are the only ones known on earth, but it is safe to say under the same circumstances it could happen on trillions of other planets. Humankind can prevent river floods by the construction of a dam. The Yangtze river is just such a river that periodically floods and kills thousands. The Three Gorges Dam will in fact prevent all river flooding on the the Yangtze, assuming it was built correctly and is maintained correctly and is eventually (200 years?) taken down correctly. But if it does break, a hundred million people may die. Do dams break? Yes, indeed they do. There is indeed much whining that nobody could have anticipated an earthquake and tsunami at Fukushima. That is a load of non-sense and after the fact propaganda. > **[Fukushima plant site originally was a hill safe from tsunami](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/07/13/national/fukushima-plant-site-originally-was-a-hill-safe-from-tsunami/)** > > First of two parts The March 11 monster tsunami that hit the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant destroyed the critical backup power system and triggered the mel [http://thebulletin.org/fukushima-risk-and-probability-expect-unexpected-0](http://thebulletin.org/fukushima-risk-and-probability-expect-unexpected-0) > **[Japanese Rules for Nuclear Plants Relied on Old Science (Published 2011)](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/asia/27nuke.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)** > > For decades, Japanese officialdom and even parts of its engineering establishment clung to older scientific precepts for protecting nuclear plants. The Fukushima disaster was in fact foreseen and was entirely preventable, but it wasn’t prevented because it would have cost too much. WHY FUKUSHIMA WAS PREVENTABLE - Carnegie Endowment for … > **[fukushima.pdf](https://carnegieendowment.org/files/fukushima.pdf)** But keep on with your ad hominems. I’d say it is what you do best, but that would imply you have other abilities, which you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/31 "2014-09-01T00:17:18Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > They are not related, it is the exact same reaction. I see you are still unwilling to try to explain to people why nuclear fission in a bomb is different than nuclear fission in a reactor other than the time it takes and the amount of fuel. Suit yourself, I do know that everyone else that reads this discussion knows that you are very odd for pushing for a point that was granted, (it is still a “duh!” that does not mean what you think, but you go ahead showing all how wrong you are for assuming that I think that they are different, as I said before, they are the same stuff, but the setting or **how** are they used is what is an important difference, and Carter showed that he does know the score) because it is irrelevant to the fact that you are wrong regarding what Jimmy Carter thinks and that you have no sense of perspective. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/32 "2014-09-01T00:40:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Suit yourself, I do know that everyone else that reads this discussion knows that you are very odd for pushing for a point that was granted, (it is still a “duh!” that does not mean what you think, but you go ahead showing all how wrong you are for assuming that I think that they are different, as I said before, they are the same stuff, but the setting or **how** are they used is what is an important difference, and Carter showed that he does know the score) because it is irrelevant to the fact that you are wrong regarding what Jimmy Carter thinks and that you have no sense of perspective. When I ask you to compare and contrast I want you to do more than say they “are different” and “they are the same stuff”. Calling me odd does not help that cause, but does show you use your go to ad hominem. You obsession with Jimmy Carter is touching, he does object to the gutting of nuclear waste handling laws. [Statement from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Effort to Reclassify Nuclear Waste](http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1792.html) If you can make nuclear power safe, I am all for it. However in a profit driven environment, it cannot be made safe. I am for the future of fusion power. As in the sun is a giant fusion reactor at a safe distance and we can harvest its energy a number of ways, including photo-voltaic and wind power. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/33 "2014-09-01T00:51:12Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > When I ask you to compare and contrast I want you to do more than say they “are different” and “they are the same stuff”. Calling me odd does not help that cause, but does show you use your go to ad hominem. It is not an ad hominen to point out that you are wrong for pressing on a point that others were **not** pushing. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You obsession with Jimmy Carter is touching, he does object to the gutting of nuclear waste handling laws. [Statement from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Effort to Reclassify Nuclear Waste](http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1792.html) And in the end nothing to deny that he is against nuclear energy, indeed I also pointed before that Carter is against irresponsible handling. It is BTW the second time you push for a point that is not against what we said before. > **[Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter Addresses Energy Security Before U.S....](https://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/BostonGlobe-energy-security-hearings.html)** > > The following is former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's testimony on the impact of energy issues on national security before a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on May 12, 2009. Remarks by Sen. John Kerry, committee chair, follow. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > If you can make nuclear power safe, I am all for it. However in a profit driven environment, it cannot be made safe. > > I am for the future of fusion power. As in the sun is a giant fusion reactor at a safe distance and we can harvest its energy a number of ways, including photo-voltaic and wind power. That is usually always 50 years into the future. In the meantime I prefer \*\*to follow the one that you claimed to trust. \*\* > [@](#): > > Everywhere, we see the intense competition by China for present and future oil supplies (and other commodities), and their financial aid going to other key governments. Recently I found the Chinese to be very proud of their more efficient, less polluting coal power plants. They are building about one each month, while we delay our first full-scale model. > **We also lag far behind many other nations in the production and use of windmills, solar power, _nuclear energy_, and the efficiency of energy consumption.** Last week, we found especially confident – almost exuberant – business and political leaders in Brazil. Their banking and financial system is relatively stable, worldwide popularity and influence is very high, enormous new oil deposits have been discovered, and Brazil is now the world leader in producing cellulose, wood products, cotton, orange juice, soybeans, corn, sugar cane, and are poised to export products and technology from their remarkable bio-fuels industry using non-food resources. > In closing, let me emphasize that our inseparable energy and environmental decisions will determine how well we can maintain a vibrant society, protect our strategic interests, regain worldwide political and economic leadership, meet relatively new competitive challenges, and deal with less fortunate nations. Collectively, nothing could be more important. [Bold and italics mine.] ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/34 "2014-09-01T01:05:18Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > If you can make nuclear power safe, I am all for it. However in a profit driven environment, it cannot be made safe. Define safe? How safe? Measured how? > [@](#): > > I am for the future of fusion power. As in the sun is a giant fusion reactor at a safe distance and we can harvest its energy a number of ways, including photo-voltaic and wind power. And if I showed you figures that, unit for unit, nuclear electricity is in fact far safer than photo-voltaic and wind power? If I showed you figures that demonstrated that if we had generated as much power with photo-voltaic and wind power as we do with nuclear, they would have resulted in more deaths and injuries? Would you then be willing to alter your position and embrace nuclear while condemning the use of renewables until they can be made safe? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/35 "2014-09-01T01:17:31Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > . . . And if I showed you figures that, unit for unit, nuclear electricity is in fact far safer than photo-voltaic and wind power? . . . I’d be interested. I’d never heard this. What are the principal causes of harm from solar cells and windmills? (I notice you use a conditional grammar. Are there actually such figures?) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/36 "2014-09-01T01:32:23Z")
My position has been consistent over the past 10 years. Although I am open to changing it if persuaded with facts and logic. > [@Blake](#): > > Define safe? How safe? Measured how? > > And if I showed you figures that, unit for unit, nuclear electricity is in fact far safer than photo-voltaic and wind power? If I showed you figures that demonstrated that if we had generated as much power with photo-voltaic and wind power as we do with nuclear, they would have resulted in more deaths and injuries? Would you then be willing to alter your position and embrace nuclear while condemning the use of renewables until they can be made safe? Safe is that the potential for destruction is limited to those in the immediate vicinity or work in ancillary industries that can look to their own safety. So, safe for the public. Which nuclear power is not safe for life or property of the public. Ask the people Fukushima and Chernobyl. Oh, wait, there are no people of Fukushima or Chernobyl anymore. All lost all their homes. That is an unacceptable loss. And by unacceptable, I mean I won’t accept a risk near me of that kind. I would have accepted the risk of living on a nuclear vessel in the US Navy during the Rickover era. But I will never accept the risk of living near a fission plant that is run for profit or built by people not motivated by a zero fault doctrine of safety. The nearest nuclear plant to me is Diablo Canyon. Which I was once a shareholder in during all of its construction and for some operation. It is a financial disaster. 10 years ago I invested in a number of German wind power manufacturers and made an 800 percent profit and sold out. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/37 "2014-09-01T02:05:09Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The nearest nuclear plant to me is Diablo Canyon. Which I was once a shareholder in during all of its construction and for some operation. It is a financial disaster. 10 years ago I invested in a number of German wind power manufacturers and made an 800 percent profit and sold out. Not sure where you are getting the information about the financial disaster. [http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/dcpp/PGE\_Economic\_Impact\_Report\_Final.pdf](http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/dcpp/PGE_Economic_Impact_Report_Final.pdf) > [@](#): > > As an integral part of San Luis Obispo and Northern Santa Barbara counties, the economic impacts of Diablo Canyon Power Plant are real. Expenditures, jobs, tax revenues, economic impact, labor income, and contributions to the local economy make DCPP one of the most valued economic assets on the Central Coast of California. > > Capturing all the economic activity generated by DCPP is difficult. This study does manage to capture the majority of it, although because of our anaylsis methodology, it does tend to produce conservative results. To more closely estimate the impacts, future studies could be performed for a detailed look at the economics of plant upgrades/modifications and unit refuelings. During these events, many out-of-town contractors descend on the local area, spending money in local hotels/motels, rentals, retail goods, food services and gasoline. Although there is generally a reduction in electricity generated during these activities, local economic activity increases dramatically. > > Depending on outcome of future re-licensing activites, the opportunity costs for the local area are great. Non-license renewal will not only affect 2024 and beyond, it will also affect the near future, as plant modifications/upgrades to extend the life of the plant will no longer be necessary. > > Quantifying and understanding the economic impacts of DCPP is an important piece of the puzzle for the future of DCPP and the local area. OTOH, I’m not much of a believer of just what the company says, but the study was also made with the help of other independent groups. The biggest curve ball on any economic projection though does come from the climate change issue. It would seem to me that the costs of eventually losing complete coastal cities due to ocean rise thanks to fossil fuel energy plants does make nuclear investments to be more attractive. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/38 "2014-09-01T05:24:02Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Well, one is nuclear fission in a standing nuclear pile and the other is nuclear fission in a pile assembled in the slightest fraction of a second. I’d suggest that your not knowing the exact differences and exact similarities means your claim to be nuclear qualified means you didn’t operate a reactor, but did something else on the submarine. Maybe you were the sonar operator. No idea what you’re saying here about the differences and similarities – the safety concerns of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are really quite different, but I was definitely a nuclear-trained and engineer-qualified submarine officer. I stood many watches as the officer in charge of the reactor and engine room, and was the division officer for multiple nuclear and engineering divisions. At one point I was the acting Chief Engineer of the submarine, while the Chief Engineer was on vacation. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/39 "2014-09-01T05:29:21Z")
Nuclear reactors utilize controlled fission to generate power. Nuclear weapons used uncontrolled (once started) fission to generate explosions and destruction. These are quite different physical phenomena, even though they use the same physical properties of matter. Just like burning an oil lamp is a different phenomenon, with different practical and safety concerns, then burning a pile of oil-soaked rags, though they use the same physical properties of matter. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2014, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/40 "2014-09-01T06:33:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Nuclear reactors utilize controlled fission to generate power. Nuclear weapons used uncontrolled (once started) fission to generate explosions and destruction. These are quite different physical phenomena, even though they use the same physical properties of matter. > > Just like burning an oil lamp is a different phenomenon, with different practical and safety concerns, then burning a pile of oil-soaked rags, though they use the same physical properties of matter. Also…they don’t use the same kind of fuel. Bombs use weapons grade fissionables, and reactors use a different grade. It’s a little like the difference between gasoline and kerosene. One explodes; the other merely burns. So, **The Second Stone** is wrong, there, too: there actually is a difference of a specific kind between a nuclear weapon and a nuclear reactors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978.md?page=3)