# Nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417 "2005-08-03T13:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/61 "2005-08-03T21:01:27Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, that’s actually wrong. We _are_ considering the issue and as long as nuclear waste is an unfortunate and inevitable byproduct of otherwise clean nuclear energy, it should be handled as carefully as possible and tucked away as safely as possible, rather than be used as a deal-breaker. Ok. Can you either propose the methods or cite the methods. You won’t convince me that sending cross country is good, so how about some alternatives. I most of the way to supporting Fission, get me the last step. I propose operation be a dept of the Navy not Civilians. That would go a long way to reassure me the plants are operating correctly. I hope to be back on boards in 3-4 hours. I am also serious. I think the cross country treks will be a deal breaker in the USA. So what else can we do? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/62 "2005-08-03T21:06:16Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Of course not. But then I’m not arguing that. I’m just arguing that the environmental impact of storing nuclear waste in Yucca mountain is less then the impact of installing lots of large-scale solar and wind farms. Nevada lies in the Great Basin. This term is used because any water in the basin drains out, most of it through the Colorado River. Any problems at Yucca Mountain would contaminate the aquifier, which would eventually make it’s way to the Colorado, tainting not only the water of Las Vegas, but also Phoenix, Los Angeles, a host of farmland, and many cities in Mexico. Try and get out of the box you’re thinking in. Solar panels and wind turbines could be installed in lots of places that are essentially dead space now. Also, we can take steps to decrease our power needs, thus reducing the urgency of adding large-scale generator projects to our nation. We build huge casino resorts here in Vegas; why couldn’t the exteriors be comprised of solar panels? As to deaths from cleaning them, think of the new cottage industry it could spawn. We don’t expect every tenant of a skyscraper to climb out and clean their windows; we have people who specialize in that line of work. Just as we have window washers and chimney sweeps, a new cottage industry of solar panel cleaners will emerge. Now I have two arguments in favor of solar: it’s clean, and it creates jobs. > [@](#): > > I forgot that Yucca wasn’t an existing mine; but looking around it seems like there’s a lot of NIMBY’ism surrounding the place. Yucca mountain seems like as good a place to store our waste as any. It’s obvious that this last is a disingenuous statement. It’s only seems that way because it’s not _your_ backyard. If it’s as good a place as any, why not leave it where it is now? Better yet, why not ask them to use _your_ backyard? > [@](#): > > So what? Being able to sell unused power back doesn’t make it financially feasible; the money made and saved has to be able to offset the costs of installing solar panels. Right now, it doesn’t, or you’d see a lot more people with solar panels on their roof. Unused power. Think about the phrase. A house has enough power for it’s own use, and still generates _more_. That’s a surplus. Extra. Bonus. Over time, how can continuous generation of extra power possibly not pay for itself? I provided a cite for Nevada Power’s program, which is at least a start in the right direction. Have you got a cite showing that it isn’t feasible, and that is the reason more people aren’t doing it? Or is that just your opinion? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but I’m not going to be able to find any studies on technologies that haven’t been created yet. Google doesn’t have a “search the future” function yet. Fine. Ignore the “in the future” part of the question. Got a cite showing that it isn’t financially feasible today? Or were just going to ignore that part of the question and ask me take your statement as fact all by itself? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/63 "2005-08-03T21:15:21Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Ok. > Can you either propose the methods or cite the methods. > You won’t convince me that sending cross country is good, so how about some alternatives. I most of the way to supporting Fission, get me the last step. > > I propose operation be a dept of the Navy not Civilians. That would go a long way to reassure me the plants are operating correctly. > > I hope to be back on boards in 3-4 hours. I am also serious. I think the cross country treks will be a deal breaker in the USA. So what else can we do? This is true for me as well. I think that we can do/engineer just about anything we set our minds to, but shipping this stuff across the country to be stored in one (fairly unsuitable) location is just not going to cut it for me. If it were something we could re-use, or refine to “Mostly Harmless” status, I would be a lot more apt to think it was not just a viable solution but perhaps the best solution to our energy needs. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/64 "2005-08-03T21:23:19Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Can you either propose the methods or cite the methods. > You won’t convince me that sending cross country is good, so … so … I’m not inclined to even bother trying. Without cross-country shipping, there’s no point setting up specialized storage or reprocessing facilities and without _those…_ ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/65 "2005-08-03T21:41:24Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > so … I’m not inclined to even bother trying. Without cross-country shipping, there’s no point setting up specialized storage or reprocessing facilities and without _those…_ Lame. You have two people asking to be convinced, and you won’t even try? Come on, I’ll even help you out. [Here is a map of US nuclear plants.](http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_fall03/us_plants.shtml) With 104 nuclear power plants in the US, at locations all around the country, why can’t your specialized storage and treatment facilities be set up nearby each of them, or central to those that are located in close proximity? ---
**Author:** ![Q.N.Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3da27b/32.png) [@Q.N.Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.N.Jones)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/66 "2005-08-03T22:07:41Z")
This topic is more GD than IMHO. I’m very much in favor of building more nuclear power plants. However, I would like their use to be a transition step between the use of fossil fuels as our primary energy source and some other energy source that is reliable but has a less severe environmental impact than fossil fuels or nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/67 "2005-08-03T22:53:59Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Lame. You have two people asking to be convinced, and you won’t even try? Come on, I’ll even help you out. Don’t do me any favours, please. It was **jrfranchi** that pre-emptively ruled out a necessary element to a national nuclear initiative. It’s like a GD discussion in which someone says “Convince me of the value of your religion, but keep God out of it.” > [@](#): > > With 104 nuclear power plants in the US, at locations all around the country, why can’t your specialized storage and treatment facilities be set up nearby each of them, or central to those that are located in close proximity? There are already enough obstructionist challenges to setting up _one_ facility in a low-population state, using the remote spectre of a truck crash or terrorist hijacker as flimsy justification. It’s hard to picture the scale of objections to 104 smaller facilities, many of which are near major cities. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/68 "2005-08-03T23:41:43Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Don’t do me any favours, please. It was **jrfranchi** that pre-emptively ruled out a necessary element to a national nuclear initiative. It’s like a GD discussion in which someone says “Convince me of the value of your religion, but keep God out of it.” > > There are already enough obstructionist challenges to setting up _one_ facility in a low-population state, using the remote spectre of a truck crash or terrorist hijacker as flimsy justification. It’s hard to picture the scale of objections to 104 smaller facilities, many of which are near major cities. Wow a remote threat. I think you have one thought in your mind and are not open to any other thoughts. You’ve raised some very good and valid points. **Stranger On A Train** had a great explanation on the plutonium issue. Why is it a must to ship the waste across state lines? Shorter distances would be safer. If the actual waste is not as dangerous as I thought than it should be possible to store it locally. Maybe when they build the plants they will have to build the permanent waste vaults right on sight. If you can’t convince someone whose not against nuke power, how are you going sway a population that has grown up fearing nuclear power? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/69 "2005-08-03T23:59:39Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > Wow a remote threat. I think you have one thought in your mind and are not open to any other thoughts. I don’t understand your assessment. > [@](#): > > Why is it a must to ship the waste across state lines? Shorter distances would be safer. If the actual waste is not as dangerous as I thought than it should be possible to store it locally. Maybe when they build the plants they will have to build the permanent waste vaults right on sight. Well, the waste _is_ somewhat dangerous. What’s being proposed in the Yucca Mountain project is that a well-designed facility be constructed under a mountain in a place where few (if any) people live or are likely to settle. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, and a better alternative than keeping the waste on site, near where numerous people _do_ live. Objecting automatically to long-range shipping (i.e. “You won’t convince me that sending cross country is good”) is what sounds close-minded. The notion of a truck crash or hijacking _is_ remote when: [ul][li]The material is shipped in containers that have been tested by running locomotives into them;[/li][li]The convoys will be well-guarded; and[/li][li]Terrorists can more easily get material as dangerous elsewhere.[/ul][/li] Do you have an actual reason to object to cross-country shipments? > [@](#): > > If you can’t convince someone whose not against nuke power, how are you going sway a population that has grown up fearing nuclear power? If you and/or the population is determined to shoot down ideas without reason, I guess I won’t be able to, thus there is no point in trying. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/70 "2005-08-04T00:21:10Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I don’t understand your assessment. > … > The notion of a truck crash or hijacking _is_ remote when: > [ul][li]The material is shipped in containers that have been tested by running locomotives into them;[/li][li]The convoys will be well-guarded; and[/li][li]Terrorists can more easily get material as dangerous elsewhere.[/ul][/li] The Test was done when? Cite? As far as trains their safety record is worse then airlines. Train accidents happen. I cited the Chemical spill from the early 90’s at top of thread. There are others. They just had the highest profile Train in the US down for months. (Acela Express) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/13/amtrak.acela/](http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/13/amtrak.acela/) Train Safety records were miserable but are now improving. This is in your favor. To use rail, we will have build the infrastructure to support the “Train Proof” Shipping containers. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/71 "2005-08-04T00:44:27Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > The Test was done when? Cite? > > As far as trains their safety record is worse then airlines. Train accidents happen. I cited the Chemical spill from the early 90’s at top of thread. > There are others. > They just had the highest profile Train in the US down for months. (Acela Express) [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/13/amtrak.acela/](http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/13/amtrak.acela/) > Train Safety records were miserable but are now improving. This is in your favor. To use rail, we will have build the infrastructure to support the “Train Proof” Shipping containers. What ‘infrastructure’ are you suggesting we need to build before we can ship stuff in containers engineered not to fail in a crash? And instead of talking about theoretical accidents shipping waste, why don’t we talk about actual ones? After all, nuclear waste has been shipped around the U.S. for close to 40 years. So how many spillage accidents have their been? How many people killed? How many areas have had to be cleaned up of radioactivity from nuclear fuel spills while it was transported? I’ll save you the trouble of googling it. NONE. That’s right - in 40 years of waste shipping, there hasn’t been a single accident that resulted in a spill of high level radioactive material. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/72 "2005-08-04T01:01:21Z")
Very pro nuke here as well. I can’t add much to the excellent posts by **Sam Stone** and **Stranger on a train**. I’d like to see a multi pronged energy policy that pushed conservation and a variety of fossil-fuel alternatives. But as to solar and wind, not only are they horribly inefficient, but they have there own environmental problems as well, as others have pointed out. Even if the whole “peak oil” thing is exaggerated–and it probably is–we’re going to run out eventually, and we might as well start looking at alternatives now. Also, as an American, I’m sick of being beholden to nations that hate us. Nuclear power will be a neccessity if we are to be truly energy independant. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/73 "2005-08-04T01:01:32Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > What ‘infrastructure’ are you suggesting we need to build before we can ship stuff in containers engineered not to fail in a crash? > > And instead of talking about theoretical accidents shipping waste, why don’t we talk about actual ones? After all, nuclear waste has been shipped around the U.S. for close to 40 years. So how many spillage accidents have their been? How many people killed? How many areas have had to be cleaned up of radioactivity from nuclear fuel spills while it was transported? > > I’ll save you the trouble of googling it. NONE. That’s right - in 40 years of waste shipping, there hasn’t been a single accident that resulted in a spill of high level radioactive material. How many shipments. How many miles. What type of waste. Wonderful we haven’t had any accidents. How heavy is the container to ship Nuke waste. Calculation on the Waste at Oyster point was that it was too heavy to move on existing infrastructure. I am sure this was due to bad management as waste could have and should have been kept managable. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/74 "2005-08-04T01:47:32Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > What ‘infrastructure’ are you suggesting we need to build before we can ship stuff in containers engineered not to fail in a crash? > > And instead of talking about theoretical accidents shipping waste, why don’t we talk about actual ones? After all, nuclear waste has been shipped around the U.S. for close to 40 years. So how many spillage accidents have their been? How many people killed? How many areas have had to be cleaned up of radioactivity from nuclear fuel spills while it was transported? > > I’ll save you the trouble of googling it. NONE. That’s right - in 40 years of waste shipping, there hasn’t been a single accident that resulted in a spill of high level radioactive material. But accidents can happen and shipping containers are not 100% safe. After the Baltimore railroad tunnel fire in July 2001, a study was commissioned by the state of Nevada. The study found that a fire such as this one, with temperatures in excess of would be hot enough to cause a shipping container to break, causing billions of dollars in damages in clean up costs and, in an urban setting, exposing tens of thousands to radiation exposure. [cite](http://www.whitecloud.com/hot_load.htm) from the study: > [@](#): > > Under Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, a cask must survive a 30-minute engulfing fire at 1475°F. However, technical analyses have identified a number of circumstances in which longer duration regulatory fires may cause failure of cask seals and fuel, as well as other preconditions for release of radioactive materials. If the regulatory fire (1475°F) burns for 2 to 8 hours, truck casks may fail massively, and at 20-22 hours even a large rail cask may fail. Higher temperatures or cask damage caused by an impact accident may cause failure and release in considerably shorter times. Moreover, none of the current or proposed truck casks have actually been subjected to a > full-scale fire test. [cite, from page 2 of the .pdf](http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2001/nn11459.htm) Also, in a test conducted by International Fuel Containers, makers of nuclear waste shipping casks, a TOW anti-tank missile punched a softball-sized hole into a German Castor cask, which is used around the world to ship nuclear waste. [cite for text](http://www.whitecloud.com/hot_load.htm), [here to see the video](http://www.reviewjournal.com/special/caskvideo/)] There are currently no shipping routes, road or rail, that would allow the waste to be shipped without passing thru or in close proximity to large cities or urban areas. That’s why some of us feel that it isn’t a good idea to ship this much waste (more than 75,000 tons already in existence, more being produced daily) over more than 30 years, to one facility. More than half of the existing waste would pass within .5 miles of more than 52 million people over the course of shipping. In fact, Yucca Mountain currently has no rail access. That’s right, a railroad would have to be built just to ship the waste there. So there’s the lack of infrastructure, Sam. In 2003 the DOE identified the Caliente corridor in Nevada as a preferred shipping route. In 2004, flooding wiped out the rail for several hundred yards **right in the middle of Caliente**. [Click here to see pictures](http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/flood0105/05gallery1.html). > [@](#): > > The DOE estimates that 0.7-3.0 accidents will occur per million shipment miles by truck and 11.9 accidents per million shipment miles by train. The estimate of shipment miles in millions over the next 30 years is 62.3 by truck and 14.0 by rail, resulting in an estimate of the number of accidents likely to occur of between 210-354. Accidents are inevitable. [cite](http://nuclearhistory.tripod.com/disposal1.html) Also, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, waste must be stored in a **geological** repository. The NWPA amendments, known as the “screw Nevada” bill, designated Yucca as the only site to be studied. Today, the license application submitted includes the use of extensive man-made facilities, which are in clear conflict with the original policy. **The truth** is that the Yucca facility is a boondoggle and a shameless attempt by the nuclear power industry to sweep a large problem under a metaphoric rug. Nevada was chosen because it was believed that the state did not have sufficient population or sufficient will to fight this. When the site was found to be geographically unsound, data were falsified or fabricated, and the NRC sought to change the requirements. Thank goodness a judge was not swayed when the EPA chose to ignore recommendations from the NSA and change the containment time from 300,000 years to 10,000 years. [cite](http://www.nukewatch.com/pathfinder/20041spring/p2yucca.html) The other thing about Yucca (or any other site) is that it does not have an infinite capacity. Eventually it would fill up. My backyard would not be able to take any more. Would you volunteer yours, or will you fight them when they choose it? ---
**Author:** ![Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Can_Handle_the_Truth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/75 "2005-08-04T03:07:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Oh _please_. Your argument is simplistic beyond belief. We dictate thousands and thousands of requirements for building construction in each and every state, and still don’t live in “a dictatorship”. > > Thinking and acting wisely so that successive generations of Americans are able to live as well or better than we do, without a loss of native eco-systems, will not in and of itself put us into some sort of totalitarian nightmare. Save the hyperbole, please. Building codes were written because of disasters like fires, floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes that _actually happened_. Building codes aim at being minimum standards to protect the health and safety of building occupants from _known disasters_. They do not generally take into account the speculations of Snowboarding Bozos who think they know the future. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/76 "2005-08-04T03:25:26Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Also, in a test conducted by International Fuel Containers, makers of nuclear waste shipping casks, a TOW anti-tank missile punched a softball-sized hole into a German Castor cask, which is used around the world to ship nuclear waste. [cite for text](http://www.whitecloud.com/hot_load.htm), [here to see the video](http://www.reviewjournal.com/special/caskvideo/)] Well, no shit, Sherlock. TOW missiles are **anti-tank** missiles. They’re specifically designed to punch holes through thick armor made of specialized alloys. I have to imagine that a nuclear waste canister is relatively easy to penetrate. The point behind the casks and all is that they’re trying to _mitigate_ the potential consequences behind any accidents, not _eliminate_ them. Do sewage treatment plants kill **EVERY** harmful bacterium in the water? Do water treatment plants remove **EVERY** harmful thing in drinking water? Do catalytic converters remove **EVERY** polluting compound from car exhaust? Do seat belts and air bags prevent **ALL** injuries and deaths in car accidents? Of course not. But all of the above do reduce the incidence of harmful problems by quite a bit. One more thing to look at is the other countries that already use nuclear power in a serious fashion. France and Japan come to mind- how many horrific nuclear accidents have they had? And as for the guy who was wanting the Navy to run nuclear power plants… well, I suspect that a lot of retired nucs would probably end up working in nuclear power plants- an increase in civilian reactors would create a demand for engineers, and consequently the nuc track in the Navy would become more in demand. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/77 "2005-08-04T04:32:44Z")
> [@Can Handle the Truth](#): > > They do not generally take into account the speculations of Snowboarding Bozos who think they know the future. Nice, nice…be nice. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > And to put it into further perspective, a typical coal plant produces TEN TONS of uranium and thorium in fly ash every year. And this is not considered a dangerous level. We even use the stuff to make cement. Again, we hold nuclear power to a standard that other industries could not hope to meet, even in terms of radiation released. That’s the nugget. There is good reason, of course, to be concerned about possible accidents, but the hazards are generally overstated, and the consequences often painted in the most absurdly dire manner; there is no “China Syndrome”; a molten core won’t burn down to the water table and explode; even a complete meltdown like Windscale or Chernobyl has claimed fewer lives, even when accounting for long term environmental effects, than industrial accidents kill in a week. The biggest hazard with regard to radiotoxicity is…get ready for it…tobacco smoking. And using modern negative feedback designs and breeder reactors like the [ITR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) go a long way to mitigating any risk of catastrophic accident and dealing with high level waste. “Nuclear” has become a public boogyman (to the point that Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is referred to by the acronym MRI, declining the use of the N) and people are afraid of it for its own sake, regardless of the actual hazard. I don’t mean to knock solar or other alternatives, and it makes sense to invest research dollars and efforts into them, but at their current and foreseeable state they just don’t offer the promise of replacing existing sources. Their implementation is far more complex than enthusiastic and well-meaning advocates like **Snowboarder Bo** suggest. Personally, I’m hoping that someone figures out a way to make muon-catalyzed fusion viable…but I’m not betting the life insurance policy on it. Until other sources become a credible replacement for existing methods, nuclear fission is going to be our only realistic way of making our economy independent of fossil fuels. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/78 "2005-08-04T05:27:34Z")
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/79 "2005-08-04T06:05:27Z")
**bump** , apparently you missed the post where **Sam** asked > [@](#): > > What ‘infrastructure’ are you suggesting we need to build before we can ship stuff in containers engineered not to fail in a crash? that I was replying to. What I was pointing out was that there are no such containers in existence today. **Can Handle The Truth** , I’m done talking to you. You have no cites, just opinions, hyperbole and insults. Buh-bye. As has been noted before, the most immediate action with the farthest reaching consequences for the country to take is to simply lower our consumption of energy. I’ve put up a lot of information in my posts, and I have yet to see anyone refute my facts. Nuclear waste is a huge problem that will not go away. Accidents will happen, by the DOEs own reckoning, if waste is transported for storage in Yucca Mountain. And since we continue to produce waste, at some point Yucca Mountain will be full. Who among you will accept the waste into your community, as you are forcing Nevada to accept it? ---
**Author:** ![MAGunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@MAGunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MAGunter)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/80 "2005-08-04T06:57:33Z")
Whenever someone supports Nuclear Power, the question is this: ‘Would you support a Nuclear Reactor being built 15mi from your home?’ At which point most supporters are lying. Everyone wants Nuclear Power, but they want it built far away from them and the waste disposed of in someone else’s backyard. In some way, it reminds me of Cadillac Heights, a neighborhood of South Dallas. People wanted lead and they wanted industry in the area, but no one wanted it near them. So they built a bunch of lead smelters and other dirty industry down in Cadillac Heights where the blacks (and/or poor) were, and as a result there was a hugely improportional mortality rate. Today the smelters are all gone, but the people that were there and their relatives are still stuck with the property that they couldn’t sell, although if I recall the government did finally buy most of the land out for clean-ups. Nonetheless, no one wants to move anywhere near there and it’s just a ton of dead land. There are though, temporary good things to a nuke plant. The Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (near Glenrose, TX. if i recall) was proposed and the residents said ‘like hell!’ until the owners capitulated. Eventually they were allowed to build it there, but ended up having to pay absurd taxes on absolutely everything and funnel tons of cash into the school district, emergency services, etc. for a finite period of time. The jobs it brought were also quite a few and quite high paying The period of time is ending and people are getting out now, but it did have a nice temporary effect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=5)