Nuclear energy - Into eternity?

by Antoine
(Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

Whenever pro-nuclear energy drones talk about the value of nuclear energy they always reference a possible melt-down as the problem, but the problem is not a melt-down.

The problem is nuclear waste, regular waste from "normal" operations.

In Canada, most nuclear power plants place spent nuclear rods in cooling tanks, near rivers, in lakes, which raises the temperature of rivers and lakes.

This is not an isolated catastrophic, once in a while problem, this is EVERY DAY. Radioactive nuclear waste is created by all nuclear power plants.

The movie "Into eternity" brings up the very real problem: if nuclear waste is predicted to be radioactive for 100 thousand years, shouldn't that be enough of a deterent???

What if we had ONLY nuclear power plants? How long would it take for us to be overrun with radioactive waste?

It is funny how everyone speaks about global WARMING and recognizes it as a bad thing. We talk about pollution (and most of us picture smoke or toxic slime) but heat IS pollution. Radiation IS pollution.

Nuclear supporters (like the people who wrote this site) like to describe nuclear radiation by stating that there are different kinds of radiations, and that the sun emits radiation and that is a good thing...but that is a DISHONEST distortion of the facts.

And something that GENERATES heat is a BIG BIG BIG problem, especially if it will continue to generate heat for THOUSANDS of years. And I am not even considering the other effects of nuclear radiation (with regards to how it affects cells)

Reminder: humans still live about 70 years.

Those people who defend nuclear energy should remember that.

And I think that the publishers of a website that claims to promote alternative energy sources, should realize that nuclear energy is certainly not an ALTERNATIVE source of energy. If we acknowledge that fossil fuels and even hydro electricity is damaging to the natural world, we need to acknowledge that nuclear energy is MUCH MUCH worse.

Anyone who claims that nuclear energy is an ecologically viable source of energy is either completely misinformed or a stooge of the nuclear industry.

Thanks Antoine. certainly does not promote nuclear energy. But it does think more informed debate is necessary.

We share your concerns. Not everything "alternative" is by definition good. Nuclear energy has been seen by many as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. If anything good can come out of the Fukushima disaster we hope it is a wholsale rethink about nuclear energy as a viable 'clean' fuel. It patently is not.

Regards, Team
Energy Audit Training – A Green Career, Whether The Economy Is Up Or Down

This where you can download a free preview guide for How to build a wind generator DIY wind generator plans Download now.

Build your own solar panels?

Renewable energy lowers your bills.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this advice is derived from third parties. cannot accept responsibility for its accuracy.

Click here to post comments.

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How?
Simply click here to return to Nuclear Energy And Global Warming