Very good thread! i spent like 3 hours watching vids about the chernobyl disaster.

Nuclear reactors give off as much as 10 million times more radiation than what a human being can absorb. If a meltdown occured, and you were in the near vicinity, you would not last more than 5 hours, Radiation kills anything and everything.
Obviously, there are certain types of radiation that are harmless, this is not one of them.

Well yeah, if you don't take proper precautions. But many nuclear power plants lie within miles of towns and populations and those people are fine. And you're right. X-ray radiation is harmful as well. It's been linked to children developing cancer more frequently and earlier in life, but they're still a viable solution. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't dismiss nuclear energy because of radiation. If anything, we should be against it because of the massive maintenance costs and the fact that there is no truly safe way to dispose of the waste.

it does not matter if a plant is miles away, radiation can and will reach that far in the case of a meltdown.
X-rays are the same type of radiation found in nuclear reactors, however, in a much lower quantity.
And guess what? Nuclear waste is radioactive and harmful to anything, Nuclear Energy isn't worth the trouble tbh.

I was for it, but now I'm on the edge. It's clean, but if it meltdown then that's a harmful disaster. I think we should use more efficient green energy.

We can use solar energy from the deserts in the South West and use that to help the country. I actually read that there is enough sun in the Sahara to supply half the world with clean energy.

TREE HOUSES??? THAT WOULD DESTROY MILLIONS OF BIRD HABITATS YOU MONSTER

no no no

so widely dangerous

um...... what? are you serious? have you ever heard of radioactive waste? cos it's the by-product of nuclear energy and is extremely hazardous to all forms of life. it's by no means clean, and the process of safely disposing of nuclear waste takes many years as you have to wait for the radioactivity of the waste to weaken over time.

anyway to answer the question i'm not exactly supportive of it as it's highly dangerous, however as a means of producing energy its perhaps one of the most efficient methods at our disposal and since we don't really have any other new ways to produce energy efficiently and safely it's kinda what we're stuck with

This. It's one of the best options for a lot of places. It's a little silly to say that we shouldn't use nuclear energy solely because of meltdowns. That's like saying you're never going to use a car (which is statistically much more dangerous) because you might get in a wreck. You take the risk and run with it because it's the best option available.

that's in the case of a meltdown. the chances are so low, however, it's silly to discount what is an efficient energy source for that.

Edit: This is probably tl;dr for most of you, but this page demonstrates my point perfectly. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html

I support this. About for the downsides of using this kind of energy, almost all kinds of ways of getting energy have downsides, but sometimes it's worth taking the risk. I do believe, though, that the fact that responsible people be in charge of controlling any possible nuclear power plant meltdowns is indispensable, especially if it is located in a highly populated area.

I also remember scientists were talking about getting energy from antimatter, a more powerful power source.

Do you know what Radioactive waste is?
Nuclear Reactors use a type of fuel to get them working at their core, at one point in their functional life, this fuel will need to be replaced by new fuel and they will need to dispose of the old one.
This old fuel has been exposed to years and years of radiation and nuclear reactions and it does not just stop having reactions after it is removed from the reactor. It is extremely expensive to deal with it and extremely dangerous and hazardous to the environment.
Meltdowns are just one part of the problem.


You will die before the radioactivity weakens as it takes 100,000 years for it to stop radiating.

Don't patronize me. Of course I know what radioactive waste is. I mentioned it earlier. All I'm saying is that you're blowing up the negatives of nuclear energy WAY out of proportion. It's not as evil as you're trying to make it out to be. For some places it truly IS the best option.

I'm not blowing it out of proportion though It is as dangerous as it s, and just because it's the best option does not mean it's safest.

Since we're obviously not going to convince each other about this particular issue (I'm not going to bother making anyone angry over a silly debate), what would you propose as an alternate solution? I'm genuinely curious.

Sistren i'm not angry though, just straightening out the facts, Nuclear Energy is dangerous and hazardous, meltdown or not.


I would propose something like a giant electric stove powered by solar energy thanks to panels located in open fields. Since rotating turbines is needed to create energy with the help of water, the stove could easily replace a reactor as a water heating device, a million times safer, ZERO harmful residues.

NO.

that's a good idea...how would the government deal with the astronomical space that would displace plants and animals though? there would be non-sunny days too, but that could easily be worked around if there was a water energy system nearby.