Should we rely on nuclear energy? [ENDS 24/04/2011]

[Cheryl]

If you think about it though, they're not really that major.

I hate to phrase it like this but only 50-odd died in Chernobyl directly and no one has died as a result of the Japan mess. Admittedly it does raise cancer rates in regions but it's still nothing that great, it's said to be about 2000 in Chernobyl but about 4000 people die in car accidents in the UK each year. For instance, every few weeks there is a plane crash somewhere in the world and quite often hundreds lose their lives, but I don't see people forbidding air travel.

Even when nuclear power is shown to go very badly wrong, it's really not that bad when you put it in perspective and it's very very rare. It's just you hear a lot about it in the uneducated media because of the N-Word, Nuclear.

Completely agree with putting everything into perspective. In my citizenship class we were talking about the London Bombings, my father was, at the time, working in London and was so pissed off about the complete overreaction in that roughly 1.5 million were inconvenienced by the death of roughly 50 people. This is very much the same, even if people are to die, heaven forbid, in Japan in another explosion, this should not hinder the progress of the living in the development of more viable methods.

[Agnostic Bear]

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?

Like what? Wind farms? A wind turbine less than 6 miles away threw solid chunks of ice through people's roofs a few years back. And solar panels are completely useless.

Nuclear power is the way forward and until the uninformed masses grow up they'll just have to be angry and confused.

[Recursion]

With the depletion of resources, the high inefficieny of solar panels, and the problem that wind farms stop when the wind stops... yes, we should rely on Nuclear and Tidal power alone IMO.

[GommeInc]

The only problem with Nuclear power is the insecurities people have where they assume they will blow up at any given moment. It's very sufficient, clear and safe. The only problem is when it goes wrong it goes very wrong, which is very rare anyway. Renewable energy like wind, solar and tidal energy are useless and do not provided as much wind needed to power the country.

[Recursion]

The only problem with Nuclear power is the insecurities people have where they assume they will blow up at any given moment. It's very sufficient, clear and safe. The only problem is when it goes wrong it goes very wrong, which is very rare anyway. Renewable energy like wind, solar and tidal energy are useless and do not provided as much wind needed to power the country.

Yeah but the technology has improved massively, yes it would still be a big problem, but nowhere near as huge as Chernobyl for example.

I just can't see why people have such a skewed perception of nuclear energy and refuse to budge, even with the facts

[GommeInc]

I just can't see why people have such a skewed perception of nuclear energy and refuse to budge, even with the facts

It may not necessarily be the people's fault - afterall, when something goes wrong you will hear about it, but of course you won't hear when something is working well

"Today Bradwell Nuclear Power Station was working as expected" = boring.
"Today, Bradwell Nuclear Power Station exploded, creating a hole into southern Essex that will be named "Bradwell Bay" to commemorate the newest addition to the East Anglian coast line" = Amazing.

Unfortunately, people hear of one incident in a few thousand and assume they're all bad :/

[Jessicrawrr]

All I hear about nuclear energy is bad things, that's why my view of it is negative.
I obviously don't know the full facts about the issue, myself and others, have only one sided views on this.

[Agnostic Bear]

worst worst worst case scenario.

Nope. Literally couldn't happen.

[Grig]

All I hear about nuclear energy is bad things, that's why my view of it is negative.
I obviously don't know the full facts about the issue, myself and others, have only one sided views on this.

That's because there's nothing new or interesting to report about nuclear power plants if everything is working properly, seeing as that's the norm. What really gets the media and people ticking is some saga resulting in a nuclear reactor that may blow up etc. I think your view here is caused by media sensationalism.

As you say you don't know the facts (as don't most people). That is why they are easily swayed by the media.

[Syphon]

Good point, but we don't really need to rely on nuclear energy, we have other sources of energy, which does the same job, but safer?
Nobody has died from Japan's radiation mess, but aren't they still on edge about another explosion?

Because there arn't any forms of energy which give out such high levels with no CO2 released. This is a major benefit to this form of generating energy as CO2 is the major contributor to greenhouse gases.

In their entire history of operation in the United States, nuclear power plants have been responsible for no deaths.