nuclear power stations

[killybob]

for a long time i've been arguing with most of the people i know about whether the creation and use of nuclear reactions to generate power is better for the world and a step forward, or a disaster and something that should be protested against and ultimately globally banned. i for one am all for them, i just wanted to see what the vast majority feel.

[Genuinous]

Nuclear Power stations have a huge advantage over any other power station. It is more efficient and less pollutive compared to others.
The problems are the following
1, Catastrophes, but luckily these are fairly rare, though devastating
2, Containing the nuclear waste.

The second option is what concerns me the most. If we can't control the waste properly, finding and building secure places for them to be kept, it's a really risky business.

As for myself I'm all for nuclear power, as long as it is done safely. However, I believe green energy is the future, that's what we should concentrate on. If we could manage to have more efficient green power stations, it would be the most wonderful thing ever.   

[killybob]

yes disasters are very rare. the safety precautions taken are immense. think of it this way - you remember the power station in japan during the earth quake? now look at that. how safe must they be if it takes a force 8.9 quake to even produce a "risk" of meltdown? as for nuclear waste that problem will be solved either when we find a use for it (unlikely) or when we perfect fusion. this source of energy is not only greener but also less likely to explode than other power stations. no contest.

[Genuinous]

As of today there is no use, not even an idea how to use nuclear waste. For the radioactivity to decrease to less harmful levels, takes 100s of years. Also places where the waste is kept have to be renewed again and again, as we keep producing more and more waste this will likely to cause huge expenses.
Don't misunderstand me. I think nuclear energy is great, but with serious side effects.

[OldTrees]

Also something to note: The Japanese reactor was far from being the cutting edge in safety. The problem that required the 8.9 earthquake has been solved for a while. The only problem is that the resistance to nuclear energy makes red tape which slows down the implementation of these improvements.

[QuantumT]

That's not really true. There are a variety of things that can be done to help reduce the patient's absorbed radiation beyond removing them.

    * Potassium iodide. This is a nonradioactive form of iodine. Because iodine is essential for proper thyroid function, the thyroid becomes a "destination" for iodine in the body. If you have internal contamination with radioactive iodine (radioiodine), your thyroid will absorb radioiodine just as it would other forms of iodine. Treatment with potassium iodide may fill "vacancies" in the thyroid and prevent absorption of radioiodine. The radioiodine is eventually cleared from the body in urine.
    * Prussian blue. This type of dye binds to particles of radioactive elements known as cesium and thallium. The radioactive particles are then excreted in feces. This treatment speeds up the elimination of the radioactive particles and reduces the amount of radiation cells may absorb.
    * Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA). This substance binds to metals. DTPA binds to particles of the radioactive elements plutonium, americium and curium. The radioactive particles pass out of the body in urine, thereby reducing the amount of radiation absorbed.

They're specific to the types of radiation you're exposed to, but they do help.

[Neopergoss]

What the recent disaster has shown us is that without question we need to reevaluate whether to continue to maintain some of the older reactors out there, especially the ones at greater risk to natural disasters. Nuclear power is clean and it is also cheap...until you consider the huge potential cost of disasters like this.

They say that newer reactors are far safer, and I'm hopeful that they are because we need a good alternative to traditional sources of power like coal that are destroying the planet with greenhouse gases. Still, in the long run I think that less risky renewable power sources like wind and solar should be pursued. They're not cost-efficient yet, but with some R&D they may be one day. In the meantime, nuclear is the best solution I'm aware of, despite its risks.

[Astrocyte]

100% agreement. Fear has stalled or aborted a LOT of excellent research in the US (fusion reactors, thorium fission reactors, methods of treating radioactive waste to make it safer or even reusable... ).

[Neopergoss]

100% agreement. Fear has stalled or aborted a LOT of excellent research in the US (fusion reactors, thorium fission reactors, methods of treating radioactive waste to make it safer or even reusable... ).

Dude, don't even get me started. We are unspeakably primitive here. Because of a superstitious fear of all things radioactive, we don't irradiate our frozen dinners like they do in other countries, which results in a lot of unnecessary illness and death from contaminated food.