We have a perfectly good disposal site in Nevada (Yucca Mountain), which we cannot use (because certain anti-nuclear forces have decided to block its use).
What is logical about that?
I am going to need a cite that it is anti-nuclear opposition that killed Yucca Mountain. The official position of the State of Nevadais that it should be shut down:
Yucca Mountain is kaput because Nevada doesn’t want it, not because of opposition by leftist anti-nuclear groups.
I guess if it’s cool that we wait a couple of decades for the magic pony tech to be researched, developed, tested, prototyped, put into production and then scaled up…as long as that’s cool then I suppose a rational argument can be made for waiting. Do you think we can way a couple of decades or a half century or so before the magic ponies start to fly?
-XT
And the good folks of Nevada just came to this decision rationally and all on their own? :dubious: Seriously?
-XT
If you have evidence that the anti-nuclear lobby brainwashed two-thirds of the state, bring it. Seriously.
That list is downright embarrasing. The Nevada PTA! thinks its bad idea. O noes!
I am sure the pro nuclear or neutral folks are on that list are fairly uncommon, therefore it IS the anti-nuclear opposition.
So you say. If you have any evidence beyond your own opinion, I’d like to see it. Otherwise, you got nothing.
What would constitute proof in your mind? Since I assume you can Google ‘anti-nuclear movement in Nevada’ and ‘anti-nuclear movement attacks Yucca Mountain’ as easily as I can, and since it’s widely known that much of the focus of the anti-nuclear movement has been against Yucca Mt. in the last several years (since they have managed to kill all new construction, what’s a red blooded frothing at the mouth anti-nuclear fanatic supposed to do these days if not go after the Yucca Mountain project?), your request for a cite is too vague for me to honor it. What constitutes ‘brainwashed’ in your mind? If I can demonstrate that the anti-nuclear movement has been active in Nevada, will that be sufficient proof for you? My guess is the answer is ‘no’ so it seems pointless for me to bother linking evidence showing that. So…what is going to convince you?
-XT
It is not my responsibility to make your arguments for you. But you are not allowed to just throw out an opinion and expect everyone to buy into it with no statistical support at all.
Let me show you how it is done:
In 2004, a poll was commissioned by the State of Nevada to gauge the sentiment among Nevadans towards Yucca Mountain. Among the reasons for opposing Yucca Mountain were:
Losses to property values for homes and businesses located near shipping routes. 76.4%
Damage to Nevada’s reputation as a place to vacation or live. 64.2%
Loss of public revenues due to reduced numbers of visitors/tourists 62.2%
Economic damage to Nevada’s major industries 61.7%
These are not the traditional positions of the anti-nuke crowd. It is clear that opposition is primarily political NIMBYism, not traditional anti-nuke propaganda.
Gonna need a cite for this.
Chernobyl Heart is a propaganda piece not a cite.
The UN investigated this and found a bunch of extra thyroid cancers but other cancers had not increased significantly.
Even if that is true, it just means the opposition has some stupid reason OTHER than not understanding the science of nuclear power.
At best, you seem to be argueing a point nobody really cares about.
Unless you think NIMBYism is an inherently good thing.
So you are GUESSING that the energy of the future is some UNSPECIFIED and currently NON-EXISTENT form of power…
…and then calling us names for not dropping everything we currently have in order to embrace this wild assed theory of yours?
:dubious:
I am arguing the point ralph124c made, and xtisme seems to be defendiing. It is important to them, apparently. I agree, opposition is stupid, but it is a fallacy to lay it at the feet of the anti-nuke crowd. Stupid comes from all sorts of places.
Well, I think he is referring to the OP, you know, the one that says that it is the “left” being afraid.
I do think that there is a good chuck of the left that is against nuclear power, but once you realize that many polls show that self described liberals barely make 1/3 of the population, then polls showing that the opposition to nuclear stuff is actually running up to about 2/3s means that it is not just the left that is resorting to NIMBY. And yes, I’m a liberal that thinks this NIMBY attitude is stupid; however, I do support more government oversight and intervention on this.
I don’t “fear” nuclear power. I simply think it is supremely irresponsible and risky to pursue it when we lack the ability to 1. ensure absolute safety (true, NOTHING is absolutely safe, but if a gas plant explodes dozens or hundreds can die. If a nuclear plant does, the repurcussions are far more serious and widespread) and 2. contain/store the waste for the centuries required to render it safe. Do we actually imagine we can store this stuff for 2 thousand yrs w/o it getting out? Yeah, right. Our civilization will be long gone by then. :rolleyes:
And we don’t need it, given the other energy sources available. (solar, wind, bio mass, thermal, magnetism, hydrogen, etc…) One key is decentralization. It wastes incredible quantities of energy to produce it in a central location and transport it. Much more effecient to generate it on site (roof-top solar panels, windmills) and/or REDUCE consumption overall.
The pursuit of nuclear power distracts from the need to develop other, safer and more economical sources. (the costs of building, operating, and decomissioning nuclear plants is astronomical, relative to most other alternatives.)
IF we can render the generation of nuclear power safe (fail-safe plants) AND come up with a way to securely handle the waste (aside from using it irradiate our food or burying it in the ground…some interesting possibilties including micro-organisms who eat the shit), I would have no issue with it. To date, I still do.
I am, in fact, of huge fan of nuclear power. I just think the ideal location for a reactor is where nature put it…the SUN. 
Again; that is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
We can store the waste safely and fairly easily.
None of those is good enough. “Hydrogen” isn’t even an energy source in the first place!
No, it’s not. The cost of ( and damage caused by ) covering hundreds of miles of land with solar panels, the damage done in the process, and all the facilities needs to build and maintain the things is far more than the cost necessary for a nuclear power plant. The sheer size of the operation alone guarantees it. Solar is neither safer nor more economical.
In other words, you want to despoil the land, plunge the nation into economic disaster, all so you can pat yourself on the back about your energy righteousness. Because that is exactly the result that trying to suppl y the country with solar will result in; huge tracts of land ruined, for a power source that isn’t up to the job.
How is sticking this shit in a big hole in the ground (in an earthquake zone to boot) going to solve anything? It is simply NOT responsible to generate tons and tons of highly toxic SHIT that KILLS PEOPLE and dump it in a big hole, hoping it stays put for 2,000 yrs or so (and that there isn’t a flood or a quake in the meantime or that some innocent individual doesn’t stumble upon it in the year 3012.)
Or do you honestly think the US government/anyone will still be around and guarding the site until all the waste is inert? :dubious:
Face it, it is simply a case of fuck future generation…we got ipods and blue-rays to operate…it’s their fucking problem. I simply can’t get behind that, even if I WEREN’T a mother. :mad:
The problem with that argument is that the stuff isn’t nearly as dangerous as the anti-nuke people like to pretend. If a little bit leaks out in a thousand years, it’s not likely to do serious harm.
And again; that entire argument simply doesn’t address the harm done by alternatives. Which is standard for the anti-nukers; rant and rave and exaggerate about the problems of nuclear, and simply ignore the problems of the alternatives.
Damn, you caught me! That IS, in fact, my motive. Curses! Foiled again! 
Oh, of course not. Not nearly as dangerous as all that. Sure. Look it up. It is NOT something you want even a “little bit” of in your water or air or soil (or that of your great-great-great grandchildren).