Nuclear Reactors, afraid?

[Kuzmich]

I wanna do a personal study to understand how much people around the world are afraid of nuclear power and its use.

Imagine if where was a nuclear plant within 3 kilometers of your house. Would you be afraid? Yes or no?

Please give the reason why you picked either choice.

[TrongaMonga]

Fourty years ago, yes. Nowadays, no. It's quite hard to have an accident.

[Tipsy]

Well, as long there aren't any health threats when it is running under ideal conditions and giving where I live it is secure then I wouldn't have any problem with it being near me.

[Snagg]

As long as the government isn't known to censor the media and I'm positive I'll be informed if there's an accident, yes.

My house will also need a switch to make it leak proof.

[Emperor Pan I]

if i were living in springfield, yes. here? screw it, i dont care.

[Dark Blade]

Afraid? Never.

[Wing Zero]

unless where able to harness then into giant robots
no
like tronga siad its hard for a melt down or what ever

[Firebat]

nuclear energy is the safest produced energy there is after wind and solar energy, but if something goes wrong its devastating

[Kuzmich]

Originally Posted by Firebat

nuclear energy is the safest produced energy there is after wind and solar energy, but if something goes wrong its devastating

Not true, all the modern powerplants have a containment system if something goes wrong and a bunch of other systems to prevent anything from going wrong.

Take the 3 mile island for example, they had no coolant administration for several hours yet nothing happened. The portion of the reactor where the fission is going on is completely sealed off to prevent escape of any radiation.

Chernobyl (last chernobyl type powerplant was put out of action in 1998) was a different story, it didn't have a fully sealed containment system and used graphite not heavy water as a primary coolant. Graphite is good at absorbing and repelling neutrons and preventing radiation leakage, it can also store a great deal of heat, however not as much as steam. What happened at chernobyl was that they ran the plant for a while with a low power level, the graphite eventually combusted and since where was no lead on the reactor the whole thing blew up. The problem with maintaining a reactor at low power levels is that you have to keep the borylium controll rods which absorb neutrons and stop fission at a certain level, close enough to the core to absorb the needed amount of neutrons, yet far away enough so the fission wouldn't stop, which is very hard to do.

As i said all modern day reactors are safe, with next step being the fussion reactors which will solve the problem of finding nuclear fuel (the fuel will be deuterium found in a lot of places on the buttom of the ocean) as well as dealing with nuclear waste (produces much less then the fission powerplants).

[CelestialBadger]

I used to live within sight of TMI.

No, I'm not entirely comfortable with nuclear anything. Sure, powerplants are completely safe, but I'll bet everyone thought that before the accidents as well.

[Static]

Originally Posted by Faunus

if i were living in springfield, yes. here? screw it, i dont care.

Took my about 3 times before i think i know what your talking about.

But being afraid of nuclear reactors is none of my buisness. Get scared of something that can't be stopped or helpped by an individual, unless they themselves work there, is a waste to panic about.

[mefisto_monster]

I wouldn't be scared. I'd just move somewhere else.
As far as I can remember most accidents happened on severe errors, no?

[Wing Zero]

somtimes it could be simple as not fliping one switch

[MacMan]

Human error has been responsible for all the tragedies associated with nuclear power. Mistakes happen, they're inevitable, but despite that, nuclear power is still surprisingly safe. (Incidentally enough, the most catastrophic power plant disaster ever was a chemical one in India.)

If you do live near a nuclear reactor, there really isn't much cause for concern. Ever since Three Mile Island, there have been so many additional fail-safes implemented that it would make your head spin. Is there still room for error? Yes, but it's not likely, so don't worry about it. It's not the nuclear power you should be concerned with, it's the nuclear waste. Politicians and radioactive materials are a bad combination. (Nuclearize space? Sorry, I don't ****ing think so, assholes.)

The future of high-output energy sources is looking extremely good right now. I had no idea my local campus had a plasma reactor until I saw it with my own eyes. This shit isn't science fiction anymore, it's real. There's already an international effort to build the first fusion reactor in France.

[RyanXWing]

I live in the same state as the largest nuclear waste disposal facility in the U.S. Hanford... luckily its downstream.

I wouldn't be afraid, I'm more afraid of dying everytime I enter a car

[x42bn6]

Yes, I would be. A risk is still a risk. And radiation levels would be higher than normal, and even though that risk is only a 0.1% increase or something for risk of cancer, I would still be worried. Not that I want children, anyway, that may be affected by the radiation, but it's still worrying.*

[B~E]

Originally Posted by MacMan

There's already an international effort to build the first fusion reactor in France.

I read about that. Are you aware of the complexe game of politic that was involved in the decision making process of the location of fusion reaction? Everything from offer of support to gain access to the UN's permanent security councile, to promise of support to the location of the 2012 Olympic games.

The nuclear indsutrie in a sizeable business, worth nearly 9 billions dollars a year, in 2005, at least in the West and in China, this energy sector is going through a revival. And the main reason for this is, it may be suprising, global warming and ecological concerns. For exemple, a growing number of green party in europe have come to believe that nuclear energy is the best solution to reduce carbone emission. The best solution for the environment would be a renewable source of energy, but since it is still not avaliable in an efficiant form, nuclear energy is the best choice we have to far. It is tge best combinason of efficiency and clan production we have.

[MacMan]

Yes, politics has always been closley tied with nuclear/fusion power. And yes, these sources of energy are going to become more commone, but not because of global warming or any of that, it's because we really don't have a choice. If populations grow linearly (which they don't, but just say they do) then their energy consumption grows exponentially. If we want to keep up, we don't really have a lot of options. (Besides, there is no such thing as global warming .)

On a side note, is English your second language or something?

[Kuzmich]

Originally Posted by MacMan

The future of high-output energy sources is looking extremely good right now. I had no idea my local campus had a plasma reactor until I saw it with my own eyes. This shit isn't science fiction anymore, it's real. There's already an international effort to build the first fusion reactor in France.

ITER is its name, i read a bunch about it, its gonna be experimental but atleast its a start.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by MacMan

Yes, politics has always been closley tied with nuclear/fusion power. And yes, these sources of energy are going to become more commone, but not because of global warming or any of that, it's because we really don't have a choice. If populations grow linearly (which they don't, but just say they do) then their energy consumption grows exponentially. If we want to keep up, we don't really have a lot of options. (Besides, there is no such thing as global warming .)

On a side not, is English your second language or something?

Why yes, english is my second language. And yes, my above post was... more massacred than usual. I've got to watch out for this.

I wouldn't necessarily tie the grownth of the use of nuclear energy with population grownth as the main factor. In the West, where most the energy in the world is consumed, population grownth is far from being extravagant. The demand of electricity can very well be meet with hydro power, coal and gaz plants, which demand lesser cost assosicated with investment, operation and maintenance when compard with nuclear energy.
Plus, acording to Standard&Poor, a rating agency, nuclear power plants, when compared to other type of plants, are not very good investment: cost growth, technological problems, cumbersome political and regulatory oversight and the newer risks brought about by competition and terrorisms...etc.
As I see it, the only real adventages that nuclear energy has over its 2 serious competitors, is that its needs for a fuel, uranium, are minimal, and that since it doesn't need much fuel to function, it is much more nature friendly than coal and gaz. Its efficiant and practical.

Now take this in a context that is saturated by fears of global warming, may it be true or not I have no idea, and it is understanable why most western countries, and most booming third and second world countries, are seeking to develope nuclear energy.