So lets talk about the US. Most of our Navy is run off of nuclear power and we have had 0 fatalities. Further even our meltdown at 3-mile island had 0 fatalities.
For a comparison, the relatively "safe" wind power has had far more fatalities. http://eastcountymagazine.org/dark-side-...
Here is some information for true comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_acci...
So about the safety aspect, Dook is ill-informed.
As far as the economic, he is SLIGHTLY informed. In the US, nuclear power has been extremely costly. France has been able to make it work, as has most of Europe. The difference is that they do not let environmentalists protest to the point of shutting down all plants and they help out the nuclear plants with zoning issues. In the US, many plants are halted in development, picketted, not to mention the needless restriction places on the power plants.
If the environmentalists actually cared about the environment, they would help nuclear power, not hinder it. Nuclear power in the 70s cost less than coal power. So we know it can be inexpensive and we know that the environmentalists and their petitions to Congress to add unnecessary regulations is the cause of the expense. An example of bad regualtions is that in the US you are not allowed to reuse spent fuel rods, whereas Europe has done this for quite some time.
As far as a school district doing this, I don't think they have the required expertise.
Dook,
Thanks for once again spreading misinformation and showing how warmers are more about politics and taxation then concern for the planet.
Horsense,
You might want to take a peek at when Chernobyl occurred, how it occurred and where it occurred. Further, just do a google search and find how many people have died from various types of energy production. Don't take my word for it, but certainly do not take the wrod of Awake magazine either.
Wrong category of Yahoo Answers.
From the point of view of global warming (this category), which the vast majority of the world's well-educated people agree (with a century of massive science) is caused by human societies' emissions of CO2, and bad for us long term overall, nuclear power is good because it has much lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels. So, in that context, the question is almost a no-brainer, amounting to not much more than: should we source power in a way helps reduce something bad for us?
In a more realistic context (outside of this category) there would be many other issues to take into account, starting with what in blazes is a school district doing deciding energy policy??!!, but they are best addressed in another category, education perhaps or politics.
Overall, I'd very probably say no, in answer to the question, because there are a bunch of serious economic and safety issues involved with nuke power plants, and I wouldn't want a bunch of school administrators making those calls.
Using climate change policy (the only aspect relevant HERE) as sole criterion, I'd be sympathetic, but would ask for comparative details of carbon footprints of other possible non-carbon sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal), etc.
A school district would never be in a market for one. Personal household can't have one. Seems like an odd question.
In general the reactor are safe and we can get rid of the waste in the mountains. They are always heavily guarded...so having a school district build one is completely out of the question. Are they better on the environment....yes. Unless the world were to be able to completely switch to wind or solar for mass production then it wouldn't be necessary so that isn't likely. Our cleanest source of mass produced power is nuclear.
First thought "Schools can do this" Second thought "Oh yeah, maybe private ones, but public? Eh"
Anyway, I would support this, depending on how close the nuclear reactor is to the school(At least a mile away, then sure, right beside the school, oh god no) and how well mantained the reactor is going to be. One problem with this idea is you'll have that one stupid student who will say to his equally stupid friends, "Yo dudes, lets go to the nuclear reacter and press random buttons". Though this is a good idea to make money for the school, you have that one case that could ruin the entire project, and it could get the school sued, which will put you back to square one(maybe even a futher back)
Raisin Caine is right in that if people really cared about the environment, they would embrace nuclear power. And if a nuclear power plant were built close to a school, the nuclear power plant could also provide district heating.
Personal household
Sure I would support it if that idea could ever had a chance to fly.
I wonder how well rounded the education of people are, who argue that nuclear power endeavors are so low in fatalities. Many people die of diseases they would never have had, and at much younger ages, from nuclear fallout . . . and they seem to prefer to ignore it. . . . The experts themselves have *never* been able to come up with a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. They are stockpiling in central areas, where it is & will continue to seep into the ground, and air. Just because the serious harm has been fairly well contained up to now, it will not remain so forever. Y --without so much as a clue how to neutralize the horrors awaiting earth's ecosystem from nuclear contamination-- they continue producing more & more waste.
“Man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9b)
"It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." (Jeremiah 10:23b)
"The one who observes the commandment will not experience harm,
and the wise heart will know the right time and procedure [to escape]." (Ecclesiastes 8:5)
"...The nations [will become] wrathful [all focused against God's will], [God's] own wrath [will soon come], and [along with it], the appointed time...to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Revelation 11:18)
"Radioactive Fallout—A Matter of Concern"
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/10200...
Regarding the Chernobyl Fallout:
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster “will cause 50,000 new cases of thyroid cancer among young people living in the worst-affected region,” says The Guardian of London. According to a World Health Organization report, over seven million people have been affected so far and the exact number may never be known. Three million children require treatment, and many will die prematurely. In Ukraine 73,000 people are said to be permanently disabled. About 23 percent of those involved in the cleanup operations were incapacitated, and one fifth of the forest in Belarus remains contaminated. In a foreword to the report, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “Chernobyl is a word we would all like to erase from our memory,” but “more than 7 m[illion] of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering, every day, as a result of what happened.”
Chernobyl Mutation Dangers also continue n into the future:
“Plants growing near to the stricken nuclear plant at Chernobyl in the Ukraine have been found with six times the amount of genetic damage compared to normal flora,” reports The Independent of London. Researchers from Switzerland, Britain, and Ukraine planted two identical crops of wheat—one in contaminated soil and the other 20 miles [30 km] away in similar but uncontaminated soil. They then used the seeds from these crops to sow more crops in the same two locations. Although exposed to relatively low radiation, the wheat near the reactor site showed an alarmingly high rate of genetic damage, or mutation. Concerned scientists warn that chronic exposure to such radiation can have effects that are as yet unknown. These findings raise special concerns for future generations of plants, animals, and humans exposed to the Chernobyl radiation.
I much prefer going back to basics, when it is God's time to do so. He will eliminate all sources of earth's many problems. There will be no more need for lights burning all night in an attempt to keep criminal activity from occurring, as there will be no more criminals. Big industry will become a forgotten thing of the past. The need to work overtime & at night will be gone. Everyone will build & maintain their own homes & gardens, and make our own clothes. There will be no need for mass transit, or speedy transit, for we will have forever to get where we want to go . . . Only righteous, obedient people will be there, so no need for locks on the doors, or policemen, as everyone will effectively police themselves! We will sleep when the sun goes down, and rise at dawn, so no need for lights. This old world so full of polluting activities will soon 'bite the dust', and I do look forward to that! (Psalm 37:10-11, 20, 29, 38 + Revelation 21:3-4)
clean air
These are:
nuclear energy – the energy released by splitting atoms;
fossil fuels – the burning of coal, oil and natural gas; and
hydroelectric power – the use of falling or running water.
facts17-2?Renewable? sources such as wind and solar power only operate when the wind blows or the sun shines, and therefore they need backup generation. When all factors are considered, nuclear power is the best choice from an environmental point of view.
Nuclear = clean air
Nuclear power reactors have a major environmental benefit – they do not emit the gases that contribute to global warming, acid rain, or urban smog. Canada’s existing nuclear plants avoid the emission of about 90 million tonnes of CO2 each year that would result if their electricity were produced by coalfired plants, the most economical available alternative source of electricity generation. Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions would be up to 12% higher without the nuclear stations. In addition, nuclear plants also do not emit any nitrous oxides or sulphur dioxide, major contributors to smog and acid rain.
Nuclear stations also require only a relatively small amount of land, in contrast to the large areas required by solar or wind generating systems. The Darlington nuclear station, which can supply all of the electricity needs of Toronto, sits on 2 sq. km of land. Unlike hydroelectric generation, nuclear plants can be built quite close to where the electricity is needed, eliminating the need for long transmission
Very small amounts of waste by comparison
Because uranium contains many thousands of times more energy per unit of weight than fossil fuels, the waste from a nuclear power station is very small in volume and is fully managed and extremely secure at the nuclear sites. The federal Nuclear Waste Management Organization (www.nwmo.ca) is heading the process for long-term management of used nuclear fuel in Canada.
If your school district had economic constraints and the district was looking to build a nuclear reactor near the school field and sell the power to the city, would you be against or support this? Why?
To be honest, nuclear power plants have gotten to be safer than they were before. I think the accident in Japan has scared people, but in reality, if they are built far from the ocean and maintained safely they will be efficient. Apparently they can even withstand an plane crash from an F4 jet.
Good
