The ultimate answer to this is that the US has had nuclear powered subs since the 1950s and there have been no casualties.
Good old Prico, who needs to have everything explained in pictures and crayons. I will reword it for him and those of the same intelligence.
The US has had nuclear powered subs since the 1950s and there have been no casualties due to nuclear activities. In both cases the submarines imploded and sunk, which has happened to non-nuclear submarines also.
Prico, go tell the Navy about your demeaning nuclear powered submarines. Hyman Rickover is considered the father of nuclear subs, at his retirement, the safety of the nuclear power planted submarines was highly esteemed. His record was clean as far as nuclear accidents and he was proud of it.
For crying out loud, are you so starved to find fault with a true scientist that you will deliberately misinterpret a man's intent? Yet you go on defending Al Gore, who has gotten rich from his lies and Prof Richard Parncutt, who outright states that he is for killing a certain group of people because of their beliefs, “I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.” TSK, TSK. That has all the signs of a person without integrity.
It is fairly efficient if done on a big enough scale (e.g. it won't work at the individual building level, the way a solar panel or fireplace would).
It is fairly safe in normal operation. But, there is a huge still unsolved problem about what to do with the radioactive waste, and how to keep it from leaking out and contaminating things, especially during difficult conditions (such as the tsunami in Japan). Some of this nasty radioactive takes centuries before it decays to safe levels. There are also risks associated with unreliable producers actually using nuclear energy development as a smokescreen for developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, Iran).
From the point of view of climate change, nuclear is good because it has a low carbon footprint.
All these points are easily googleable.
Nuclear energy is this really necessary for this world ? Yes, it is helping our to inventing new energy inventions and to making the electricity and a lot But when we think about Is nuclear energy safe and sound then i would say No,it is very dangerous IF we are not able to control the radiation of the nuclear products. it can harm to humans and nature also.
Yes it does affect to global climate changes on the basis of unbalanced climate and instant reaction to live ares by radiation.e
Radio active materials are so much sophisticated and sensitive to saving it necessarily.
Nuclear energy is efficient and does not affect the global climate, though it not very safe in terms of the local environment and the extreme risk of radioactive wastes and radiation leaking from the plant, plus maintenance is extremely hazardous. Look at what happened at the Fukushima Plant, no one may be dead but due to high radiation levels detected, it's now a ghost town, plus the water they use to cool the reactor is extremely hot and they send it back to water sources to cool it thus heating the water and killing all living organisms within it.
yes nuclear energy safe and efficient but it little bit affect global climate change.
Yes it is. No one has proven that anyone has died of radiation from a comercial nuclear reactor in a Western country; not even at Three Mile Island or Fukushima. We receive 300 times more radiation from nature than from nuclear power. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/...
Yes it is safe and you should be in nuclear energy's favour.
Global warming is such a problem that it is necessary to deal with all its aspects, which includes the politics. When politicians formulate their policy they need inputs from many disciplines and from science as well. But unfortunately global warming has become an absolutely political issue and politicians do their best to influence even science.
In 1992 at the Earth Summit the decision to prevent such dangerous climate change was taken. The first step was the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which is supposed to come into force in 2005.
Ads by Google
One of the reports of the U.N. Panel on Climate Changes warns that the U.S. and other wealthy countries should immediately cut their oil and gas consumption and agree to get at least a quarter of their electrical energy from renewable resources - solar and wind power; and that they should double their research spending on low-carbon energy by 2010.In 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to make Clinton Administration not to send the Kyoto treaty to Capitol Hill for ratification. In his first term president Bush rejected Kyoto. Russia ratified it, but most believe that Putting was made to do that as British Prime Minister and other European Union officials threatened not to let him become a member of World Trade Organization, which could cost Russia billions of dollars each year. But the chief economic adviser of Putting - Andrei Illation shows his doubts as for the upholding commit to Kyoto, he says: "There is no evidence confirming a positive linking between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature change. The U.N. Panel's so called scientific data are considerably distorted and in many cases falsified" (Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb? by James Hansen, 2003, pp.2-15). One of the main ideas of Clarion and others is to break the advanced economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan, by persuading the multi-national companies to move plants and jobs to developing countries in order not to comply with emissions restrictions. But the president of the American Policy Center in Washington - Tom Decease doesn't agree that it makes sense, he states as the main concern and the prime target is the wealth of the United States it would not be wise to place factories in Third World countries, as the same amount of emissions would come out from jungles of South America instead of Chicago and in this case we are not talking about the protection of the environment any more. He is right in a way.
The main goal of the meeting in Kyoto was signing the amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) in order to require the signatory nations to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as these gases cause an alarm situation with global temperatures. The costs of signing it for the U.S. could be really high, as the county could be made to reduce between 10 and 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 that would cause reduction of gross domestic products by $260 billion annually; it is equal to $2.700 per household. Certainly it was hard to prove that such costs are justified. Besides as millions of American people could be put at risk, several important questions appeared. The first one was about the possible merits or drawbacks of global warming. The World Bank researches prove that about one-third of the whole population suffers from water shortages. By 2025 they say - around 40 % of the whole population could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies. The crops will also suffer from lack of water. Global warming leads to more condensation and more evaporation, thus producing more rains. So it could be in a way an answer to the problem about lack of water. The second positive point about global warming is possibility of agriculture in North America and Europe, the southern regions of Greenland were not covered with ice when between 10th and 12th centuries the temperature was 0.5 degrees warmer than today, and could be also cultivated. The evidence of this was found when: "scientists from the National Science Foundation sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 extracted in an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100.000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates".( Michael Crichton's State of Fear: Climate Change in the Cineplex, by Amy Ridenour pp.1-5). Thus global warming could mean more agricultural productivity and more water resources.
I'm having a debate about it next week in my environmental science class and never really thought about it until now. I'm not sure whether to be for or against nuclear energy.
