The Scientific grand challenge of the 21st century is to develop reliable technological solutions for secure and cheap energy, at the same time safe guarding the environment. Fossil fuel has failed to save guard the environment and at the same time provide the amount of energy that we need. However, nuclear technology can provide enough energy which will meet our growing energy demand and at the same time protect our environment because of it CO2 free power generation and electricity transmission and distribution. Nuclear should be seen as ‘greener’ as it is found to contribute a lesser amount of CO2 during it construction, transportation and enrichment (fuel preparation). If the world refuses to embrace nuclear power, we may soon have to ready ourselves for an epidemic of Skin cancer; which has already revealed it self because present renewable energies alone cannot satisfy our energy demand. The more we use therefore, the more the risks of disease outbreaks.
But the question that baffles our minds is “Is it biologically dangerous to use Nuclear? If the answer is ‘Yes’ then the Nuclear Industry has been lying to the world for such a long time. If the answer is ‘No’, then anti-nuclear activists are clearly ignorant and should give us a break.
The nuclear industry claim that it is biologically safe to use nuclear has however in past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc proved to be false. Yet they still claim that with new reactors like generation IV and V, such accidents are not likely to reoccur because it now has better safety features than before. How can we believe this since only few of their next generation reactors are in operation/under construction? Will they should wait until a major accident happens before they can confidently come to a conclusion. Will that be a worthwhile experiment?
Anti-nuclear physicians claim that large amounts of radioactivity are released into the atmosphere daily. They should stop throwing dust into our eyes; if nuclear pollutes the environment then what is the job of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in terms of regulating the radiation released from our nuclear plant? Are they taken bribes and not doing their job? Are they living in a community/planet outside where the nuclear plants are and if there is any out break of cancer due to the radioactive released from the plant, won’t they be affected? Do you think they will jeopardise their lives in the name of money?
Do you believe the anti-nuclear physicians? They say building more nuclear power plants is terribly dangerous from a biological and medical perspective. How can we believe them when there is no evidence? France has the world’s leading nuclear power plants in the world and it produces 80% of it electricity from nuclear. Has there been any out break of genetic diseases/cancer. So who is telling the truth here? Whether nuclear plants or no nuclear plants, cancer will still persist because of background radiation especially as the Ozone is getting thinner.
However the nuclear industry has not been able to prove with substantial enough evidence as at now on how we are going to deal with long term radioactive waste problem. What are we going to do with the radioactive waste problems? Are we going to pass it on to our next generation to come and deal with this problem? This seems to be unfair because they will not have benefited from this waste. The long term disposal problem of this high level radioactive waste still remains a mystery. Perhaps the anti-nuclear physicians are right when it come to long term disposal of this waste.
However, plans are underway to burry the waste underground in an isolated restricted area. Well who knows what can happen next as they remain underground for such a long time span. Will it leak into streams/soil where plants grow? Will natural nuclear reaction take place as it happened in Gabon, West Africa some millions of years ago.
What about counties who are turning this safe and clean energy into an economic trade? North Korean is now profiting from sales of nuclear after accepting to shutdown its nuclear reactors in an exchange for economic benefit. Countries are diverting this technology into something else and trading it for economic benefits.
However some countries like Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden have already remove nuclear power off from the table by passing legislations not to build new nuclear power plants. Even with these countries which already have commercial nuclear power plants, they are fears of processing nuclear weapon. Although having commercial nuclear plant makes it easy to divert it into weapons, it is not as easy at the anti-nuclear activists claim because it needs more enrichment (90% to 97%) as compared to (2% to 4%) enrichment in commercial nuclear power plant. Because of this most countries have refrained from supporting nuclear power build and this has also been the source of high tension between the West and the Iranians.
So what do you think?
NUKE or no NUKE?
But the question that baffles our minds is “Is it biologically dangerous to use Nuclear? If the answer is ‘Yes’ then the Nuclear Industry has been lying to the world for such a long time. If the answer is ‘No’, then anti-nuclear activists are clearly ignorant and should give us a break.
The nuclear industry claim that it is biologically safe to use nuclear has however in past nuclear accidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc proved to be false. Yet they still claim that with new reactors like generation IV and V, such accidents are not likely to reoccur because it now has better safety features than before. How can we believe this since only few of their next generation reactors are in operation/under construction? Will they should wait until a major accident happens before they can confidently come to a conclusion. Will that be a worthwhile experiment?
Anti-nuclear physicians claim that large amounts of radioactivity are released into the atmosphere daily. They should stop throwing dust into our eyes; if nuclear pollutes the environment then what is the job of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in terms of regulating the radiation released from our nuclear plant? Are they taken bribes and not doing their job? Are they living in a community/planet outside where the nuclear plants are and if there is any out break of cancer due to the radioactive released from the plant, won’t they be affected? Do you think they will jeopardise their lives in the name of money?
Do you believe the anti-nuclear physicians? They say building more nuclear power plants is terribly dangerous from a biological and medical perspective. How can we believe them when there is no evidence? France has the world’s leading nuclear power plants in the world and it produces 80% of it electricity from nuclear. Has there been any out break of genetic diseases/cancer. So who is telling the truth here? Whether nuclear plants or no nuclear plants, cancer will still persist because of background radiation especially as the Ozone is getting thinner.
However the nuclear industry has not been able to prove with substantial enough evidence as at now on how we are going to deal with long term radioactive waste problem. What are we going to do with the radioactive waste problems? Are we going to pass it on to our next generation to come and deal with this problem? This seems to be unfair because they will not have benefited from this waste. The long term disposal problem of this high level radioactive waste still remains a mystery. Perhaps the anti-nuclear physicians are right when it come to long term disposal of this waste.
However, plans are underway to burry the waste underground in an isolated restricted area. Well who knows what can happen next as they remain underground for such a long time span. Will it leak into streams/soil where plants grow? Will natural nuclear reaction take place as it happened in Gabon, West Africa some millions of years ago.
What about counties who are turning this safe and clean energy into an economic trade? North Korean is now profiting from sales of nuclear after accepting to shutdown its nuclear reactors in an exchange for economic benefit. Countries are diverting this technology into something else and trading it for economic benefits.
However some countries like Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden have already remove nuclear power off from the table by passing legislations not to build new nuclear power plants. Even with these countries which already have commercial nuclear power plants, they are fears of processing nuclear weapon. Although having commercial nuclear plant makes it easy to divert it into weapons, it is not as easy at the anti-nuclear activists claim because it needs more enrichment (90% to 97%) as compared to (2% to 4%) enrichment in commercial nuclear power plant. Because of this most countries have refrained from supporting nuclear power build and this has also been the source of high tension between the West and the Iranians.
So what do you think?
NUKE or no NUKE?
1 comment:
Apparently you are not aware that coal ash contains significant (and totally unregulated) amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium.
After WWII the DoD even considered using the big coal ash piles near all big coal power plants as an alternative source of radioctive ore.
The amounts allowed up a coal stack would not be equalled by a nuke plant in 1000 years of operation.
So who is dusting whom?
Post a Comment