Even the disaster of Fukushima amounted to a group of people eating one or two more bananas than they normally would.
To put things in perspective in nuclear energy, the worst disaster imaginable happened at Chernobyl. Aside from a few people who were exposed to the core and handled radioactive material that was very hot (both in terms of radiation and temperature), no one was hurt. There was no increase in cancer. There was no decrease in lifespan.
We knew that low levels of radiation were harmless. Indeed, some studies suggested low levels of radiation were actually beneficial to you. We knew that very high levels of radiation would kill you, and we had a stack of dead bodies to demonstrate that. What we didn't know was what medium levels of radiation would do, and there was no way to ethically test it. Chernobyl was that test, and nuclear energy is, by far, the safest energy source in the universe, BAR NONE, even when it is completely mismanaged and an unimaginable disaster happens.
I mean, Chernobyl had ZERO SHIELDING of the core. When it blew, chunks of the core landed far away. You could see the Cerenkov Radiation -- the blue glow of particles travelling faster than the speed of light in a material. It was absolutely the worst possible disaster you could create short of a nuclear bomb.
Fukushima is a nothing burger, and the only reason people are scared of it is because they were told to be scared of it. It is harmless and will end up doing exactly ZERO harm to anyone.
What "environmental impacts"? A properly designed reactor is clean, and the byproducts can be used in other reactors. The waste can be collected in a small area until we decide a final disposal plan. The easiest one is to load it on a rocket to the sun. The best overall plan is, when we have nanotechnology perfected, we can take all waste apart atom by atom and make new power plants, cars, or whatever.
Chernobyl was the worst possible case for a badly engineered nuclear plant, and it didn't hurt that many people. Plants and animals still grow in the area that was cordoned off.
If you want power, there are trade offs. Even "free" energy costs a lot of money and environmental damage to create the extraction devices, such as solar panels or windmills. Just look at everything it cost to build Hoover Dam to collect "free" hydroelectric power. Men died in constructing that thing. A river was redirected. Fish died.
For the amount of power generated compared to all of the costs, I think nuclear is the way to go for now. Fusion energy will be better, but that's in the future.
There isn't many people on this forum who ACTUALLY get super butthurt over a meme. This is a place of discussion and you'll find there are people on here that have researched so many different topics, you're bound to learn something from them. If not, it may drive you to research something you otherwise wouldn't have -- OR someone randomly reading the comments, like myself, to learn and research new topics.
Actually it is squeaky clean, compared to all other sources.
Unless you let Fukushima politicians overrule the engineers.
Even the disaster of Fukushima amounted to a group of people eating one or two more bananas than they normally would.
To put things in perspective in nuclear energy, the worst disaster imaginable happened at Chernobyl. Aside from a few people who were exposed to the core and handled radioactive material that was very hot (both in terms of radiation and temperature), no one was hurt. There was no increase in cancer. There was no decrease in lifespan.
We knew that low levels of radiation were harmless. Indeed, some studies suggested low levels of radiation were actually beneficial to you. We knew that very high levels of radiation would kill you, and we had a stack of dead bodies to demonstrate that. What we didn't know was what medium levels of radiation would do, and there was no way to ethically test it. Chernobyl was that test, and nuclear energy is, by far, the safest energy source in the universe, BAR NONE, even when it is completely mismanaged and an unimaginable disaster happens.
I mean, Chernobyl had ZERO SHIELDING of the core. When it blew, chunks of the core landed far away. You could see the Cerenkov Radiation -- the blue glow of particles travelling faster than the speed of light in a material. It was absolutely the worst possible disaster you could create short of a nuclear bomb.
Fukushima is a nothing burger, and the only reason people are scared of it is because they were told to be scared of it. It is harmless and will end up doing exactly ZERO harm to anyone.
What "environmental impacts"? A properly designed reactor is clean, and the byproducts can be used in other reactors. The waste can be collected in a small area until we decide a final disposal plan. The easiest one is to load it on a rocket to the sun. The best overall plan is, when we have nanotechnology perfected, we can take all waste apart atom by atom and make new power plants, cars, or whatever.
Chernobyl was the worst possible case for a badly engineered nuclear plant, and it didn't hurt that many people. Plants and animals still grow in the area that was cordoned off.
If you want power, there are trade offs. Even "free" energy costs a lot of money and environmental damage to create the extraction devices, such as solar panels or windmills. Just look at everything it cost to build Hoover Dam to collect "free" hydroelectric power. Men died in constructing that thing. A river was redirected. Fish died.
For the amount of power generated compared to all of the costs, I think nuclear is the way to go for now. Fusion energy will be better, but that's in the future.
Keep the post!
There isn't many people on this forum who ACTUALLY get super butthurt over a meme. This is a place of discussion and you'll find there are people on here that have researched so many different topics, you're bound to learn something from them. If not, it may drive you to research something you otherwise wouldn't have -- OR someone randomly reading the comments, like myself, to learn and research new topics.