Safe nuclear refers to many different new gen4 reactor units that rely on passive safety instead of engineered safety. The real difference comes with a slight bit of understanding of how nuclear tech works now, and why that isn't optimal.

Let us first consider this, even with current nuclear technology, the amount of people that have died as a direct and indirect result of nuclear is very low per unit energy produced. The only rival is big hydro, even wind and solar have a great deal of risk compared to nuclear as we do it and have done it for years. The main difference is when a nuclear plant fails, everyone hears about it...but when a oil pipeline explodes and kills dozens, or solar panel installers fall off a roof or get electrocuted and dies...it just isn't as interesting.

Pound per pound nuclear is already statistically very safe, but that isn't really what we are talking about, we are talking about what makes them more unsafe compared to new nuclear techs. Well, that has to do with how normal nukes work. So, firstly, normal reactor tech uses solid fuel rods. It isn't a "metal" either, it is uranium dioxide, has the same physical characteristics as ceramic pots you buy in a store. When the fuel fissions, the uranium is transmuted into other, lighter, elements some of which are gases. Over time, these non-fissile elements damage the fuel rod to the point where it can no longer sustain fission and need to be replaced. At this point, they have only burned about 4% of the uranium content, but they are all "used up". So while there are some highly radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods, the vast majority is just normal uranium, and that isn't very radioactive (you could eat it and not really suffer any radiation effects, now chemical toxicity is a different matter). The vast majority of nuclear waste, as a result of this way of burning uranium, generates huge volumes of waste products that aren't really waste products, just normal uranium.

But this isn't what makes light water reactors unsafe compared to other designs. It is all about the water. Normal reactors use water to both cool the core, extract the heat, and moderate the neutrons to sustain the fission reaction. Water boils at 100c which is far to low a temperature to run a thermal reactor on, you need much higher temps to get power. As a result, nuclear reactors use highly pressurized water to keep it liquid. The pressure is an amazingly high 2200psi or so! This is where the real problem comes in. If pressure is lost catastrophically, the chance to release radioactivity into the environment increases. This is further complicated by the lack of water then cooling the core. Without water, the fission chain reaction that generates the main source of heat in the reactor shuts down, however, the radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods are very unstable and generate lots of heat. So much heat over time, they end up causing the rods to melt if they aren't supplied with water. This is the "melt down" you always hear about. If you start then spraying water on them after they melt down, it caries away some of those highly radioactive fission products with the steam. This is what happened in Chernobyl, there was also a human element that overdid all their safety equipment, but that just goes to show you the worst case.

The same thing didn't happen in Fukushima. What happened in Fukushima is that coolant was lost to the core and they started to melt down. The tubes which contain the uranium are made from zirconium. At high temps, water and zirconium react to form hydrogen gas. Now modern reactor buildings are designed to trap gases, usually steam, in the event of a reactor breach. In the case of hydrogen, that gas builds up till a spark of some kind happens and causes an explosion. These are the explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Both of the major failures and dangers of current reactors deal with the high pressure water; but water isn't needed to make a reactor run, just this type of reactor.

The fact that reactors have radioactive materials in them isn't really unsafe itself. What is unsafe is reactor designs that create a pressure to push that radioactivity into other areas. A electroplating plant, for example, uses concentrated acids along with high voltage electricity in their fabrication processes. It "sounds" dangerous, and it is in a certain sense, but it is a manageable danger that will most likely only have very localized effects in the event of a catastrophic event. This is due mainly to the fact that there are no forces driving those toxic chemical elements into the surrounding areas...they are just acid baths. The same goes for nuclear materials, they aren't more or less dangerus than gasoline (gas go boom!), if handled properly.

I think one of the best reactor designs in terms of both safety and efficiency are the molten salt reactors. They don't use water as a coolant, and as a result operate at normal preasures. The fuel and coolant is a liquid lithium, fluoride, and beryllium salt instead of water, and the initial fuel is thorium instead of uranium. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid, you can do all sorts of neat things with it, most notably, in case of an emergency, you can just dump all the fuel into a storage tank that is passively cooled then pump it back to the reactor once the issue is resolved. It is a safety feature that doesn't require much engineering, you are just using the ever constant force of gravity. This is what is known as passive safety, it isn't something you have to do, it is something that happens automatically. So in many cases, what they designed is a freeze plug that is being cooled. If that fails for any reason, and you desire a shutdown, the freeze plug melts and the entire contents of the reactor are drained into the tanks and fission stops (fission needs a certain geometry to happen).

So while the reactor will still be as dangerous as any other industrial machine would be...like a blast furnace, it wouldn't pose any threat to the surrounding area. This is boosted by the fact that even if you lost containment AND you had a ruptured emergency storage tank, these liquid salts solidify at temps below 400c, so while they are liquid in the reactor, they quickly solidify outside of it. And another great benefit is they are remarkably stable. Air and water don't really leach anything from them, fluoride and lithium are just so happy binding with things, they don't let go!

The fuel burn up is also really great. You burn up 90% of what you put in, and if you try hard, you can burn up to 99%. So, comparing them to "clean coal" doesn't really give new reactor tech its fair shake. The tech we use was actually sort of denounced by the person who made them, Alvin Weinberg, and he advocated the molten salt reactor instead. I could babble on about this for ages, but I think Kirk Sorensen explains that better than I could...hell most likely the bulk of what I said is said better by him



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

But the real question is why. Why use nuclear and not solar, for instance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

This is the answer. The power of the atom is a MILLION times more dense that fossil fuels...a million! It is a number that is beyond what we can normal grasp as people. Right now, current reactors harness less that 1% of that power because of their reactor design and fuel choice.

And unfortunately, renewables just cost to darn much for how much energy they contribute. In that, they also use WAY more resources to make per unit energy produced. So wind, for example, uses 10x more steal per unit energy contributed than other technologies. It is because renewables is more like energy farming.

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


This is a really great video on that maths behind what makes renewables less than attractive for many countries. But to rap it up, finally, the real benefit is that cheap, clean power is what helps makes nations great. There is an inexorable link with access to energy and financial well being. Poor nations burn coal to try and bridge that gap, but that has a huge health toll. Renewables are way to costly for them per unit energy, they really need other answers. New nuclear could be just that, because it can be made nearly completely safe, very cheap to operate, and easier to manufacture (this means very cheap compared to today's reactors as they are basically huge pressure vessels). If you watch a couple of videos from Kirk and have more questions or problems, let me know, as you can see, I love talking about this stuff Sorry if I gabbed your ear off, but this is the stuff I am going back to school for because I do believe it will change the world. It is the closest thing to free energy we are going to get in the next 20 years.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Just stumbled onto your profile page and noticed an exchange you had with dag a few months back.
What constitutes "safe nuclear"? Is that a specific type or category of nuclear power?
Without context (which I'm sure I could obtain elsewise with a simple Google search, but I'd rather just ask), it sounds like "clean coal".

You will never find a more wretched hive of hawk and fennec fox.
No seriously, some of those roofs look unstable; you must be cautious.

To continue this lesson, it is important to note that most bomb technology doesn't use enriched uranium alone. The other key material compound is plutonium. For all intents and purposes, all plutonium is man made (with only traces of 244 found in nature, of which is completely unsuitable for weapons..Pu244). Plutonium is usually needed in a bomb because of its much lower critical mass. This lower mass makes bomb fabrication easier, but that creation of plutonium is by no means trivial.

You need huge facilities, dedicated to the sole purpose of uranium exposure. Like the video mentions, normal uranium is mostly U238, this junk gains value in the creation of plutonium. Weapons grade plutonium is a special isotope of plutonium, Pu239. This need is very specific, the different isotopes of Pu can have so very serious implications for bombs. Lets go over them as we as we go over how uranium is exposed to make this very special isotope

First, we start off with U238...the fuel stock. This isotope is bombarded with neutrons. These neutrons are occasionally absorbed by the uranium, turning it into U239. U239 is highly unstable, and quickly decays (in 23.45 minutes) to neptunium 239. This will in turn, decay into Pu239 (in about 2.3 days). Sounds easy, right? Not exactly, neutron absorption isn't something you can control with ease. What I mean is, there is little to stop our Neptunium or Plutonium from absorbing neutrons any more or less than the Uranium (in fact, their absorption cross sections are typically much larger...they are more hungry of neutrons than uranium in other words). When this undesired absorption happens, the neptunium and plutonium eventually becomes Pu240...and that is a big problem.

Plutonium Pu240 is HIGHLY undesirable in a bomb. Pu240 is a medium lived isotope of Plutonium, meaning it decays pretty quick, but it is HOW it decays that is the problem. Pu240 often decays by spontaneous fission. Having spontaneous fission in your fission bomb is just as undesirable as it sounds. Firstly, all even number isotopes are poor fission candidates, so for every even number isotope in your bomb, that lowers the bombs over all yield (because they prefer to fission themselves, and for very little return energy). This is further complicated by high densities of Pu240 causing your bomb to prematurely detonate, ya...bad news. The levels of Pu240 represent yet another challenge in the level of heat they generate from their rather quick decay, though, considering the previous 2 issues, this one is less problematic, though still troublesome. And lastly, there is nothing stopping our Pu240 from absorbing yet another neutron causing yet another isotope of plutonium to arises, namely Pu241.

Pu241, being an odd numbered isotope heavier than lead makes it a rather good subject to undergo fission. It doesn't have the same set of problems as Pu241, but it rapidly decays (14 years) into Americium 241, which is not fissile, and has a halflife of 432 years. These factors add large amounts of heat to the bomb, and reduce overall yield, as well as detract from critical mass.

The solution for this is a very low tech, time consuming, laborious process with produces tons of waste and very little plutonium. One has to expose small blocks of uranium to neutrons under a very brief window. The brief window decreases the chances of undesired neutron absorption and negates much (but not all!) of the heavier forms of plutonium being created. After exposure, they are left to decay, then after a few months, are chemically processed to remove any plutonium and other undesirables (this is also very very hard, and I won't even go into how this is done), then re-exposed. This yields gram(s) at a time. To make a weapons, you need 10 killos, at least...for one bomb...if everything went great. This means you need HUGE facilities, HUGE staff, and HUGE uranium resources. Your facility would be obvious and serve no other purpose, use tons of energy, and pile up radioactive waste of the kind no one wants, heavier than uranium wastes...the worse of the worst. No such facility could exist alongside some traditional uranium facility and not be noticed, period, end of story, done.

We haven't even covered bomb making problems, of which killed some of our top minds in our own bomb program. A set of incidents revolving around a specific bomb type, after taking 2 lives, was dubbed the Demon core. These are the reasons over half the budget of the DOD gets soaked up in nuclear weapons, and we haven't even covered some of the more important aspects (like delivery systems, one simply doesn't walk into Mordor). Nuclear weapons are hugely expensive, hugely conspicuous, require massive facilities and require a level of sophistication that is completely absent from the training of reactor nuclear scientists.

Reactor research and materials are orders of magnitude different from weapons grade materials and research. No bomb in history has EVER been made from reactor grade plutonium because the levels of Pu240 and Pu241 (and we haven't even covered Pu238!) are blisteringly high, way to high for weapons. Isotopic separation for Pu would be even more costly than uranium because of their mass similarities (compared to U235 and U238) and need a different set of enrichment facilities specially tailored to plutonium enrichment, of which all the people who knew something about that are Russian and American, and most likely dead or work classified to the highest degree.

The problem of nuclear weapons via reactor development is all a game to ratchet up the fear machine to get a particular end. It isn't a technical problem, it is a political problem. In the end, though, emerging technology could make enrichment easier anyway, so many of the issues I mentioned might eventually fall to the wayside (not within the next 10 years I imagine; for interested parties, google laser enrichment...coming to a world near you, but not exactly tomorrow, it's awesome stuff though). Eventually, the US is going to have to get used to the idea of more and more nations owning the bomb...but that issue is completely unrelated to reactor design and research. Reactors and nuclear weapons share about as much in common as cars and space shuttles...trying to link them as a dual proliferation argument is a political game and doesn't map on to them technologically.



I should note that I am not yet a nuclear engineer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express.

On that same note, why are these workers staying with these employers.
After the first check is missed, they should be "Out the door"

I've been there where my employer's check bounced. when I got a replacement check. the bank phoned it in before cashing it it, only to find out there were insufficient funds to cover that check as well. The company had to have their accountant come and pay me out of their petty cash.

When I handed them my notice right after that (because I couldn't continue to work for an unstable company) I was taken into the office and brow beaten. I was told that dedication was part of the job and by not being part of the solution for the company, I was part of the problem. Then they invited me back and told me they would excuse my indiscretion of deciding to quit if I put in extra hours to help turn the company around. In fact, I was unwilling to quite my other job which was a guaranteed full time position and was told, my lack of dedication was an issue. This from a company who couldn't afford to pay their employees. (I wasn't the only one). On top of that. The guy running the company on investors money was living in the richest hotel penthouse in town and was always away on guiding hunting trips with his wife, the secretary of the company. Spending the investor's money on himself, instead of the business overhead. (It was an internet design company and we weren't even allowed to have internet access at our desks and wereexpected to bring in or own computer equipment from home.)

Ya right, needless to say, I was out the door.

@lantern53

Hi, old grumpy dude.

1.)
Do you enjoy social security benefits yet? Medicare mayhaps?

You're a socialist.

[I guarantee you would never turn down a social security check if they suddenly arrived in your mail.]

2.)
Congress and congressional lobbyists have the majority of power over policy.

Big business controls the Congress and the Lobbyist. Therefore, Big Business has the majority of power over government policies that affect our lives. i.e. stagant wages; unstable food, housing, and energy; endless war

The President is just a placeholder.

Obama and Romney are just masks for Oligarchs to hide behind.

If you look closely, you can see the ladder is not actually leaning against the rim of the hole, because it's very uneven, and the ladder would be completely unstable and almost sideways. There is a guy pushing against the stair to keep it away from the ledge, and the 2 ropes are there to help the guy just in case he gets tired or his hands slip, so the ladder wouldn't fall with the taxi driver and the girl trying to climb it.

Could the guys holding the rope have placed themselves a little to the side? yes of course, but there is a point to the ropes.

The point of this video, and Dr Krauss's book, is to explain how "something came from nothing". The question of how something came from nothing is a philosophical question, the very deepest question actually, which is intended to address a specific problem, namely why is there a Universe in the first place? Why is there something rather than nothing? What it boils down to is, that unless there is an eternal first cause, all existence at some point had an absolute beginning from absolutely nothing. This of course is impossible; an eternal first cause is the only plausible answer, but scientists and many philosophers have a big problem with an eternal first cause; namely that it opens the door to a Creator. Therefore, no matter that all of the evidence points to time, space matter and energy having an absolute beginning, or the absurdity in trying to prove something came from nothing, they stubbornly refuse to accept this conclusion, because it is incompatible with their philosophical predispositions.

The purpose of Dr Krauss's book is, in his words, to "make it plausible to consider God as unnecessary". He attempts to do this by demonstrating that something can come from nothing after all. Yet, that isn't what he accomplishes in the book. What has done is claim that the concept of nothing is a scientific problem, and then redefine the meaning of the word to a nonstandard definition. Under his new definition, nothing is empty space, or a quantum vacuum. In his words, "nothing is unstable". What he has done is make "nothing" into "something", that something being the laws of quantum mechanics. When pressed as to where those laws come from, he postulates a multiverse. He provides no explanation as to the origin of the multiverse. In short, he has not solved the original problem, and therefore has not "made it plausible to consider God as unnecessary". He has simply shown that, when the laws of quantum mechanics are operating, strange things can happen. Laws are "something", and a multiverse to explain those laws is "something", so therefore, he has not answered the question of how something came from nothing.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where to multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence.

The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?"

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.

I'll direct you to his own words. Here is Kraus talking about redefining what the word nothing means:

"And I guess most importantly that the question why is there something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.

In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting. And what I wanted to do was use the hook of this question, which I think as I say has provoked religious people, as well as scientists, to encourage people to try and understand the amazing universe that we actually live in."

Here is Krauss describing how empty space could create the Universe:

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can't measure them, then it doesn't sound like it's science, but in fact you can't measure them directly.

But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.

You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it's a little trickier.

Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.

I like to think of it as the difference between, say, a savvy stockbroker and an embezzler. The savvy stockbroker will buy stocks on margin with more money than they have, and as long as they get that money back in there before anyone notices, and in fact if the stocks go up, they end with money where they didn't have any before, whereas the embezzler, of course, is discovered.

Well, the universe is a savvy stockbroker. It can borrow energy, and if there's no gravity, it gets rid of it back before anyone notices. But if gravity is there, it can actually create stuff where there was none before. And you can actually create enough stuff to account for everything we see in the universe.

But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics.

And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true.

-----------------------------------------

What he said in this video is completely misleading; I'll show you his slight of hand. When he says you can take away everything, even the laws and still get a Universe, he has redefined "absolutely nothing" as a complete absence of this Universe, but not as we will see, a complete absence of anything. To explain the laws of quantum mechanics popping into existence, he postulates an external entity: the multiverse:

Well, you know, that's something I deal with at the end of the book because, you know, it's not a concept that I'm pretty fond of, but it - we seemed to be driven there by our theories, and it does suggest the last bit, because some people, indeed when I debate this question of nothing, they say, well, look, you can get rid of space. You can get rid of stuff in space, the first kind of nothing. You can even get rid of space, but you still have the laws. Who created the laws?

Well, it turns out that we've been driven both from ideas from cosmology - from a theory called inflation or even string theory - that suggests there may be extra dimensions - to the possibility that our universe isn't unique, and more over, that the laws of physics in our universe may just be accidental. They may have arisen spontaneously, and they don't have to be the way they are. But if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. It's called the entropic idea, and it's not - it's - it may be right.

It's not an idea I find very attractive, but it may be right. And if it is, then it suggests that even the very laws themselves are not fundamental. They arose spontaneously in our universe, and they're very different in other universes. And in some sense, if you wish, the multiverse plays the role of what you might call a prime mover or a god. It exists outside of our universe.

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where the multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence. He has not explained how something came from nothing. All he has done is redefine nothing into something. Of course something can come from something. All he doing is playing a masquarade with definitions





>> ^xxovercastxx:
16:08-16:38

"...you could start with absolutely nothing; that means, unlike the Cardinal said and unlike some people argue, no particles, but not even empty space -- no space whatsoever, and maybe even no laws governing that space and we can plausibly understand how you could arrive, without any miracles, without any need for a creator, without any supernatural creation, you could produce everything we see."

>> ^rottenseed:

That wikipedia entry was way too simple in that it doesn't explain boo but the equations. I think it boils down to conservation of (angular) momentum when an object has angular momentum along (3) axes. So far I can't give but a rudimentary explanation. A more simple system that would convey the fundamentals would if you were to hold a spinning bike wheel while sitting in an office chair (that can spin). As you rotate your arms (holding the axis of bicycle tire spin) the angular momentum lost will be gained in the seat you're sitting on (making you spin). Here, watch this doofus and see for yourself...

I don't know if it's more complicated in theory, or just in added dimensions
>>


^dannym3141:
It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.
I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.
So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could



You don't lose angular momentum by rotating the wheel. When you hold the bicycle wheel vertically, the angular momentum vector of the system in the axis of you and your seat is 0, as the angular momentum of the wheel is not in that same axis.

When you turn the wheel horizontal, the angular momentum vector is pointing either up or down depending on which way you turn it. So the chair spins in such a way that it sets up an opposing angular momentum vector (ie. by spinning opposite way to the wheel) to make the net ang' mom' 0 in that axis.

I think it is likely to have something to do with the moment of inertia of the object about the 3 different axes, and probably the axis around which it is unstable has the smallest value of angular momentum (don't wish to prove that for the object in the video lol). I would call on the example of my tv remote. I've just tried spinning it around two axes - end over end, and helicoptor wise. The third axis is width ways, and you don't even need maths to intuit that i require less force to spin it width ways; more of the mass is centred towards the axis, and angular momentum is dependant upon mass and the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation.

So if it's got less angular momentum, it will not only require less force to make it rotate (remember i have to use my trick to reduce force imparted on either side of the controller as i toss it), but it also has less resistance (any?) to being spun in that axis whilst already spinning in another.

My theory at least. I have a feeling it's close as that seems to tie in with the maths too. Could just be something that only makes sense mathematically. It's not like anyone's ever explained why fermions can't coexist in the same quantum state to me in anything but maths either.

>> ^MrFisk:

The next GOP candidate?


I'm pretty sure she's liberal.

That doesn't discredit liberalism, but it is a step toward great depth to recognize there are unstable racist crazies across the entire population.

The thing with looking at the danger of nuclear power is you have to make a more complicated comparison. It's not just nuclear power or "safe."

For fossil fuels you have to consider every:

* Oil spill, Oil Rig Fire, other fossil fuel related disasters (tanker truck fires, gas station fires, CO poisoning in houses, etc.) Recall for instance, in New Orleans during the flood the contents of refinery storage tanks were spread all over the city, and the Deep Water Horizons disaster that killed more people than Fukishima and caused fantastic amounts of ecological damage.

* The broad diffuse pollution of fossil fuel power stations and refineries (including particulates, global warming from C02, other heavy metals and nastiness released). This is released not only from power stations, but every tailpipe of the millions of cars in the world.

* The damage caused by getting fossil fuels out of the ground. Drilling, fracking, strip mining for coal, and the nastiness released from this.

* Wars. (ie. fossil fuels are running out, but we got enough fissile material to last a long, long time--not that there couldn't be wars over this too (lots of it is in unstable parts of Africa)).

In short, fossil fuels do a huge amount of damage, it's just not as acute and widely reported as when something goes wrong with nuclear, and doesn't carry the same, often irrational, fear that the media loves so much. For instance, some area of land infused with heavy metals is just as unlivable as an area of land infused with radioactive substances, but one we accept as normal pollution, and the other is worldwide, front page news.

The overall comparison is very complicated. My inclination is to think nuclear is better, but that's difficult because it involves mostly *potential* problems, not actual quantifiable problems as with fossil fuels. There will probably never be a good study comparing the two given how much irrational fear and corporate interest is involved.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are very nice and should always be part of the equation, but it's pretty well accepted that it can't actually come near to replacing fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of energy output at any cost.

when you change the perspective from " a war against terrorists" to "keeping the middle east and its outlying neighbors unstable" these atrocious and immoral tactics makes so much more sense.
bryzenski called it in '99'.
*promote

I think the reason why no one said any of the radioactives is because they're stable. You can deal with the radiation easily. Something that becomes sulfuric acid on contact with the water in the air, or poisonous and unstable materials, the unknown factor, I think is what makes them jump a little.

>> ^solecist:

how can i trust a man who keeps calling his middle finger his index finger? he's clearly mentally unstable. now if you excuse me, i am going to go cut celery MY way. that is, with reckless disregard for the safety of my appendages.


Yeah I see your point, but give the technique a try. I use to just hold celery in the palm of my hand and stab at it. I find that this way reduces hospital bills.