the dollar

[FrieChamp]

Also, depleted uranium is not THAT dangerous unless it you inhale dust when it is incenerated/exploded/etc. Not trying to underplay its' toxicity but it is nowhere as dangerous as u235.

Good that nobody would ever blow up depleted uranium....oh wait - Iraq? Entirely different story I guess, but also sad...

[Sindwiller]

Also, depleted uranium is not THAT dangerous unless it you inhale dust when it is incenerated/exploded/etc. Not trying to underplay its' toxicity but it is nowhere as dangerous as u235.

Good that nobody would ever blow up depleted uranium....oh wait - Iraq? Entirely different story I guess, but also sad...

Yeah, if nuclear reactors or nuclear waste disposals become targets of military strikes, and that's very likely to happen in a war, where especially one party likes to break the boundaries, we're all screwed.

You can't have a meltdown without the fuel rods hitting critical mass, something that modern day reactors are not very likely to ever see. Not to mention that's not an issue when you are storing depleted fuel rods. The only danger in storing the waste material is if someone was to break in and steal some and then make a dirty bomb out of it, which in the end would cause more hysteria than environmental damage. Which is why storing it in one big place is safer.

Something can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.

[FrieChamp]

Also, depleted uranium is not THAT dangerous unless it you inhale dust when it is incenerated/exploded/etc. Not trying to underplay its' toxicity but it is nowhere as dangerous as u235.

Good that nobody would ever blow up depleted uranium....oh wait - Iraq? Entirely different story I guess, but also sad...

Yeah, if nuclear reactors or nuclear waste disposals become targets of military strikes, and that's very likely to happen in a war, where especially one party likes to break the boundaries, we're all screwed.

You can't have a meltdown without the fuel rods hitting critical mass, something that modern day reactors are not very likely to ever see. Not to mention that's not an issue when you are storing depleted fuel rods. The only danger in storing the waste material is if someone was to break in and steal some and then make a dirty bomb out of it, which in the end would cause more hysteria than environmental damage. Which is why storing it in one big place is safer.

Something can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.

Actually I meant depleted uranium used on bullet shells to penetrate heavy amor. The shit is inhaled by soldiers and civilians alike and causes birth defections. Agent Orange anyone? But you might also have a point, I'm just not sure what kind of bomb it takes to damage a modern age nuclear power plant, those things are pretty tough.

[Ginger Lord]

Something can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.

Nuclear reactors are pretty damn safe, the only time things have gone wrong (Chernobyl,3 Mile) has been due to human error. I've been inside a Nuclear reactor complex and its a pretty amazing place and the safety precautions they have are amazing.

[Cybbe]

$

[Sentura]

Something can always happen. Always. It doesn't matter if it's a meltdown like in Chernobyl or something else. People are going to pay for it. Nuclear reactors are a huge risk.

Nuclear reactors are pretty damn safe, the only time things have gone wrong (Chernobyl,3 Mile) has been due to human error. I've been inside a Nuclear reactor complex and its a pretty amazing place and the safety precautions they have are amazing.

what good are safety precautions if you don't follow them?

[Ginger Lord]

Its all automated these days, humans have very little input to cock things up. Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design with human incompetance controlling it, Three Mile island was mechanical flaws overlooked and ignored by humans. Lessons have been learned and things like this are a rareity. The weakpoint in systems like these are the humans in charge and especially these days the humans have been taken out of the process and the stations are run by computers which do not have hesitations and know what is the right course of action instantly.

I'm not saying Nuclear is 100% safe, it isnt but its by far the best interim option before we get to renewable energy.

I think some people still see Nuclear power stations as a huge idle nuclear bomb, which they're not. Same basic reaction, wildly different timescale of operation. Nuclear reactors have been around for approximatly 13,000 "reactor" years and we've had 2 significant reactions. Only Chernobyl really released anything dangerous, theres been plenty of other minor meltdowns but none have ever effected anyone outside the plants. More people die a year from coming into contact with other radioactive sources (scrapped X-ray machines in third world countries etc) than by nuclear power plant irradiation.

A good read:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Edit: The chart at the bottom illustrates the relative safety of Nuclear power over its last 40 years of operation

Nuclear has 32 immediate fatalities, mostly Chernobyl. Coal has 6400, Gas 1200 and Hydroelectricity 4000.

[Sindwiller]

Its all automated these days, humans have very little input to cock things up. Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design with human incompetance controlling it, Three Mile island was mechanical flaws overlooked and ignored by humans. Lessons have been learned and things like this are a rareity. The weakpoint in systems like these are the humans in charge and especially these days the humans have been taken out of the process and the stations are run by computers which do not have hesitations and know what is the right course of action instantly.

And if the computer algorithms get to be wrong. What if they handle a new, so far unknown situation the wrong way (this applies for both human and computers). I mean, sure, nuclear power plants are much safer these days, no doubt. Computer technology is a huge step forward, no doubt. Though fully relying on them would increase the risk of something bad to happen, as there would be more power plants having the potential to go "boom"

[Chunks]

Everything is run on redundant systems, a lot like an airplane but even moreso. If something fails there are 4+ backups.

Nuclear power is one of the safest alternatives out there. There has been so much hysteria and misinformation in the past and therefore it has gotten a bad rap. It deserves alot more credit than it has been given in terms of safety and effectiveness.

And back on the topic of depleted uranium. The toxicity is in no way related to its radioactivity, rather the fact that it is just a heavy metal ala lead.

[Thrik]

The most potentially dangerous things often are historically the most safe, because everyone knows they can be dangerous as hell and a massive amount of resources are put into keeping them safe.

[Sindwiller]

And back on the topic of depleted uranium. The toxicity is in no way related to its radioactivity, rather the fact that it is just a heavy metal ala lead.

And that's why we have to bury it dozens of miles under the ground?

[Steppenwolf]

I have a mixed opinion on nuclear power. On the one hand i think modern plants are pretty safe and environment friendly even compared to renewable energy sources. On the other hand i still think its a bad idea to have them in densly crowded countrys. In US or Russia if something happens its a big catastrophe but not the end of the nation. In a land like germany with 82 million people in a territory smaller as california an accident would be devastating. Not only for the country itself also to its densly crowded neighbours and the world economy.

The german government spent a lot of money on wind energy but that was completely bullshit imo. There is virtualy no place in the whole country where you can't see at least one of these ugly wind reactors. It not only harms a nice view but also the nature to a degree that is not acceptable. Scientists should find better solutions for renewable energy.