If 'they' said that they're going to build a nuclear power plant, within a mile radius of your home, or where ever you live... How would you feel about that?
unfortunately retarded handling is kinda 1000% guaranteed, you alawys get dicks running it an apathetic backstabbing middle management, disafected workers. Thatis the real reason nuclear is dangerous, because of how it can blow up. Coal fured plant, burns down, meh build it again. Nuclear, gone for 100 years + due to radiation
Might as well live scared of your own shadow in a cave somewhere. Oh no the incompetent middle management in charge of making sure the roads work and the gas lines don't leak are going to fuck it up.
While that is hyperbole, nuclear reactors have still killed less people than coal.
Pripyat is a wonderful natural wonderland. The radiation doesn't bother wildlife that much. However, the forests are free of glass bottles, plastic bags and all that other crap that comes with people.
>buying the thorium bullshit
Ask literally ANY engineer not employed by bill gate's "thinktank", and the answer to whether MOLTEN HIGH TEMPERATURE NUCLEAR FUEL AND EXTREMELY CORROSIVE SALTS will be nowhere near "safe".
>The radiation doesn't bother wildlife that much.
You mean except the cancer part?
Did you watch that "documentary" about life "flourishing" at red forest?
But it can burn you alive. Gasoline IS dangerous.
But being scared of it is stupid.
You can detect radiation, fairly easily. While it's invisible without aid, so is UV radiation from the sun. So are carcinogens kicking around in what you eat and drink.
Respecting the danger is not the same as being scared. I'd rather have nuclear plants explode all over the place all the time than burn coal in colossal quantities. Coal releases more radiation than nuclear plants do, even taking into account nuclear accidents.
Coal is full of radioactive elements and when it gets burned all that shit goes into the atmosphere. Coal is awful, awful stuff.
Wildlife doesn't suffer from cancer since they die from other things more often anyway. And they quickly adapt to high levels of radiation. Hey you never know, the adaptations their genetic structure goes under to cope with the high levels of ionising radiation might be the exact kinds of adaptations we need to cope with the high levels of radiation in space- so the wildlife in pripyat may be part of how we become a space faring race.
Much less cancer.
>Gasoline is dangerous
>you should be afraid of things that can potentially kill you
> I'd rather have nuclear plants explode all over the place all the time than burn coal in colossal quantities.
ok you've reached the highest tipping point of your life.
Not to mention extremely low unemployment.
The entire population would be sane, well educated, and not susceptible to emotional appeals.
No. there are actually a few studies that show that low levels of background radiation actually increases longevity. By a small factor.
There's radiation all around you no matter where you live, it's part of life on this planet.
>you should be afraid of things that can potentially kill you
That's what I'm talking about. Gasoline can potentially kill you. Car accidents can potentially kill you- you can get potentially killed walking down the stairs.
Ergo it's not sensible to be scared of them. Being scared warps your perspective of both how dangerous it is, and what the proper reaction should be.
Three mile island was caused by the operators getting scared and not believing the instruments. The actual safety mechanisms in three mile island were working, but the operators messed with them because they were scared something was wrong (something was definitely wrong) but their reaction was wrong because of the emotions.
I'm not scared every time I walk down the stairs man.
You see, I'm not scared of radiation. Coal however is a much worse source of energy, ecologically speaking.
Radiation is only a real threat to a localised area. It doesn't affect the entire planet.
A runaway climate change scenario will kill all the humans on earth, but nuclear plants exploding all the time will not.
When it gets real funding.
When Three Mile Island went critical, the nuclear advocates lost the right to say nuclear power is safe.
When Chernobyl went critical, the nuclear advocates lost the right to say accidents are rare.
When Fukushima went critical, the nuclear advocates lost the right to fucking speak.
There are now huge areas of the West Coast with radiation literally raining down daily. Radioactive snow has fallen across the ocean and still these sick fucks keep lying to us.
I live within 1 mile of a coal power station at the moment, that's orders of magnitude worse for my health than a modern nuclear plant is.
Plus maybe i can get a job doing security around it
>There are now huge areas of the West Coast with radiation literally raining down daily. Radioactive snow has fallen across the ocean and still these sick fucks keep lying to us.
only thing worse than fucking nuke fags is fucking plane fags, what the fuck? how the fuck can you fucker say that flying is fucking safe? do you even watch the fucking news??
THE FUCKING PLANES ARE CRASHING ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND YOU CUNTS THINK ITS FUCKING SAFE????
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE???
fucking nukefags planefags and carfags should all be fucking shot I tell you
>tfw coal fired plants release more radiation than nuclear reactors
enjoy your cancer
>be in New Zealand
>no chance of this happening any time soon
But what are the costs of usual operation?
The costs of usual operation of coal plants is worse than the costs of nuclear accidents. difficult to make the argument that a nuclear accident will make the entire planet uninhabitable by humans.
I don't think you understand how rare of an occurrence these are in perspective. There are 30,000 flights DAILY that go through Europe alone.
Flying is incredibly safe
When LockMart delivers. Probably.
It would be hilarious if it beat muh LFTR thoriumfags to market.
Have fun when you get invaded and the US go LOL NO NUKES and don't help.
I've been in a 747 at FL40+ for about 40hrs broseph, i ain't worried about that pussy coal shit.
The person is probably talking about the already debunked pictures that showed a giant wave of radiation coming toward the west coast.
Also, I'm laughing that retards here actually think nuclear reactors blow up on their own. Ya'll should stick to computers.
there was one about 5miles form me, and there usually is at least one or two within 5miles at any given time, and probably around 20+ nuclear warheads too, often several hundred.
used to be a lot more.
US boats used to dump primary coolant here and now we can't eat shellfish.
Even assuming that nuclear is cheaper than coal (you'll find many reputable studies showing it most certainly isn't),
even a single accident every 50 years would make it unprofitable because of the cleanup costs and damage in humans and environment.
Nobody's saying it'll make "the entire planet unihabitable". It'll sure make your fish and crops rich in heavy metals and radioactive waste though.
The reason companies take the risk, is because if an accident that can't be concealed happens, they can simply declare bankruptcy or stay up with government funds, like in Japan.
You seem to underestimate the enormous cost of such operations, and imagine that in the end the only thing the do is dilute the waste and throw it in the ocean.
I was talking more about the environmental costs of usual operation. Usual operation of nuclear is pretty clean. It would be very clean but there's nuclear waste kicking about. Dump it in natural parks.
Solves two problems at once.
No but seriously, there are places to put it. But they're sitting around empty because there's a fuckton of red tape to get it from A to B.
I think it's worth the risk.
And perhaps to instead of building light water reactors that are only really suitable for small reactors, redesign the damn thing from the ground up for large scale production.
Then actually build the thing. Imagine trying to build a reactor that's a new design over one that's 'tried and tested'.
>You want to build experimental nuclear reactors next to me?
Political nightmare. Funding nightmare.
Generally I don't care that much though.
What annoys me more is the opposition to wind and solar.
I mean you can understand people not being happy next to nuclear power, but then people turn around and say "NOPE" to wind farms because of how they look annoys the hell out of me. Coal plants look much worse but they don't give a shit because it's not near them.
>cant melt down
>Fukoshima couldn't melt down
>Chernobyl couldn't meltdown
Also the main concern isn't a goddamn meltdown.
It's small leaks, bad handling of waste and radioactive particles in air and groundwater.
You'll never even know it happened, because nobody profits from reporting accidents, neither the company nor the government.
I would be fine yes, if they were going to build a plant today the standards are WAY higher and so is the tech.
Most plants in commission in the US are decades old.
I would move because my property value would plummet to shit so I would sell it as soon as possible and move.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that fussed. As has been said, the safety on these plants has only improved over the past few decades. Events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima happened through a mixture of bad design and poor management. I know, at least in the UK, that the safety is literally the first thing talked about.
At least, until fusion comes up to the fore with providing power, this is the better option. Renewables won't completely meet the demand for power, there is always going to be a short fall.
You know, every fuckwit can just buy a Geiger counter.
You can stand outside the fence of your local Nuclear powerplant all day, and you'll find that its actually significantly lower then being inside a city. Or upto 10x lower then being at an airport.
You can go on day long tourist visit in the city center of Fukoshima, and you'll still take in less radiation then an hour long airplane flight.
Do you realize the same arguments can be used arbitrarily?
Chernobyl contractors probably bragged about how modern the reactors were.
Any critical reactor can go supercritical.
That's a fact and deal with it.
Also you diverge from the main concern, which is leaks.
I'm not even mentioning waste removal, transport and storage, not only the fuel rods, but also the thousands of tons of contaminated metals and cement..
>When Chernobyl went critical, the nuclear advocates lost the right to say accidents are rare.
Something happening once is the fucking definition of rare.
Fukushima was the fault of some utterly idiotic nip fucks who thought it was a good idea to build a plant on a sandy beach next to the ocean on a fault line. The people who decided that was safe deserve death.
The fucks at tepco better swim down there themselves and pull that core out of the ocean or commit fucking seppuku by helicopter.
Our professor told us how his own professor told him he would have nuclear fusion when he grew up and now he's almost retiring.
I won't believe we'll get fusion until the first actual plant starts working.
Hey /g/, in a couple of months I'm going to fly from Vancouver to London, England, how fucked am I? Never been on a plane before and I am worried I'm going to significantly expose my body to radiation, I'm going to get fucking cancer aren't I? If people are so worried about nuclear reactors, planes must terrify them, I glanced at the numbers and I'm pretty much guaranteed to get cancer from this flight but my gf really wants to go so yeah.
Hey, Anon, As someone who's done that route before, the chances of you getting cancer are so small that it's not worth worrying about. People here tend to like to get worked up over everything. Literally, all you need to do is post something defamatory about anything and off they go. Relax, enjoy the trip and don't worry about it.
15 billions from 34 countries over a couple of decades...
So yes, practically zero.
Geiger counters can't measure everything, and as I said, your main concern is small concentrations of radioactive particles, like thyroid and bone marrow seekers, which bioaccumulate over long periods at very low concentrations.
Also Geiger counters can't measure shit in water or inside your lungs unless you just received pretty much a fatal dose.
Depends on your Geiger counter, without some modification, you're not going to pick up neutrons and without a decent window you're not going to detect alpha or weak beta but it's possible for them to be useful in health physics, particularly when neutrons are only really a problem with fission reactions.
If you want to do an assay on the air or water, you can use a small pore filter paper over a vacuum or evaporate the water and measure the residue.
>Fukoshima couldn't melt down
Are you aware that the only reason why Fukoshima failed was it because the power plant was outdated and when they had planned to updated it all the green loving queers started crying about nuclear power and thanks to them it never never was modernized.
You can literally blame fukoshima to the green loving liberals.
You can blame anyone you want if it makes you feel better.
Anyway I'm done with this thread.
Most of you sound like teenagers and don't have any technical background, you just watched a 20 minute video of that loud balding guy working for a thorium industry think tank.
And even those who know what's going on aren't going to change their mind, so it's a dead end conversation.
>your main concern is small concentrations of radioactive particles, like thyroid and bone marrow seekers
Iodine 131 has a half-time of 8 days and low concentrations of it in the air would be very easily detected with a geiger counter.
The only real problem is food.