Originally Posted by Yin717

The issue I have with renewable energy at the minute is that it really isn't efficient. Although I agree that we will get far more efficient forms of renewable energy in the future I do think that constantly investing in it now could be a big mistake. We need a backup power supply before all fossil fuels run out and that's why I propose we build more nuclear power stations. To eb totally frank, other than the nuclear waste, it is a rather green form of energy and can last a long time. Admittebly there is the risk of a nuclear explosion but how many nuclear power plant explosions have we had? Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3. Compared to the amount of nuclear power stations we have in the world that is incredibly small. I'm surprised more haven't exploded actually. But yeah, I believe until technology has improved drastically we need to install some more nuclear power stations as backup power sources.

No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.

Probably meant meltdown

Originally Posted by Chukpike

No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.

Now that is not strictly true, there have been a fatalities at American nuclear power plants and it is hard to determine whether accidents have led to the deaths of members of the general public as for the most part accidents have been downplayed and indirect nuclear deaths are hard to prove.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

However I agree US nuclear power plants are by far the safest of those available, but I would also dispute the argument that it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode and since you didn't quantify the nationality of the power plant I draw your attention to 1:24am of the Chernobyl incident...

Under intense heat, the core began to break down. Fuel assemblies fragmented, control rod channels warped, steam built up furiously and, finally, steam tubes burst. Tons of steam and water shot into the reactor, causing a tremendous steam explosion. Steam pressure blew the 1000-ton steel- and cement-filled biologic shield off the top of the reactor, destroying the roof of the reactor building along the way and exposing the hot core to the atmosphere.

http://www.whatisnuclear.com/chernobyl/timeline.html

Being pedantic can be fun sometimes.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

No, there is no risk of a nuclear explosion with power plants nor in the US has there ever been a death caused by a nuclear power plant.

The way nuclear power plants are constructed and operate it is impossible to achieve the conditions needed for a nuclear explosion.

Hmmm. I might of meant meltdown, but that in a sense leads to an explosion. I highly doubt the ash cloud ever got to America but have you ever heard of Cheynobol? (Or however it is spelt.) Nobody actually died in the immediate blast but many people now are dieing from cancer due to their exposure of radioactive materials because they can't move. Children are muted, the ground is very good to grow crops in. Effectively the 'meltdown' there ruined the area for thousands of years to come. And this was only an accident, which they couldn't stop but I can't remember why. It was also made worse because the USSR didn't inform the world of what happened.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

"but I would also dispute the argument that it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode"quote MontyB

Never said it. I said, "it is impossible to get a nuclear explosion".


You can play lawyer all you want and try to steer the statement away from NUCLEAR EXPLOSION, but it does not change or disprove the facts.
Nuclear power plant reactors have never been fueled with weapons grade nuclear fuel capable of resulting in a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION.

As to your first link, it is obvious you did not actually read very far into it. This source lists a lot of "accidents" but lack sources to verify them. Also under the power plant section it lists accidents with deaths, but the locations were not power plants and are not verified.

I never said that a boiler in a Nuclear Power plant could not fail, I only stated you could not get a nuclear explosion. General accidents that could happen at any steam driven power plant was not what was being discussed.

You really don't make a very good Perry Mason(Old TV Lawyer).

Originally Posted by Yin717

Hmmm. I might of meant meltdown, but that in a sense leads to an explosion. I highly doubt the ash cloud ever got to America but have you ever heard of Cheynobol? (Or however it is spelt.) Nobody actually died in the immediate blast but many people now are dieing from cancer due to their exposure of radioactive materials because they can't move. Children are muted, the ground is very good to grow crops in. Effectively the 'meltdown' there ruined the area for thousands of years to come. And this was only an accident, which they couldn't stop but I can't remember why. It was also made worse because the USSR didn't inform the world of what happened.

The Internet can be your friend. Try entering Chernobyl in your search engine.
Here is a neutral site that gives a very through and in depth analysis of the Chernobyl Disaster.
http://chernobyl.info/

Here is the short wikipedia version of the UN study of Chernobyl deaths due to radiation exposure:

"An international assessment of the health effects of the Chernobyl accident is contained in a series of reports by the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).[89] UNSCEAR was set up as a collaboration between various UN bodies, including the World Health Organisation, after the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to assess the long-term effects of radiation on human health.
UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident.[90] However, the latest UNSCEAR reports suggest that these estimates were overstated.[91] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments.[92]
Precisely, UNSCEAR states:

Among the residents of Belaruss 09, the Russian Federation and Ukraine there had been, up to 2002, about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases are to be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding problems associated with screening, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.[91]

Thyroid cancer is generally treatable.[93] With proper treatment, the five-year survival rate of thyroid cancer is 96%, and 92% after 30 years"

In looking up this data for you I was surprised at the health risks associated with fear:
"It also concluded that a greater risk than the long-term effects of radiation exposure is the risk to mental health of exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation."


Yin717
"Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3." quote Yin 717

"You and your friends", does not constitute a credible source.

I live in LA and have worked in the movie industry. We appreciate that you watch disaster films, just don't take them to seriously.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I live in LA and have worked in the movie industry.

SELF EDIT.
ZOMG it was hilarious though.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Yin717
"Me and my friends have figured out I think it was 2 or 3." quote Yin 717

"You and your friends", does not constitute a credible source.

I live in LA and have worked in the movie industry. We appreciate that you watch disaster films, just don't take them to seriously.

I'll admit that. And to be totally frank we worked out over lunch. But I am rather offended that you presume we have guessed this from 'disaster films'. Haven gained an A in my GCSE Geography and various other A's, B's and C's and I am taking Geography, History, Philosophy and Ethics and Government and Politics for A-Level, I am offended that you think I would not back up my thoughts and reasoning (which is how I got the answer) from no background evidence or knowledge. Now I will admit that you haven't known this about me and that you have had more experience in this world than me, but that is no reason why you can degrade me to a person who knows very little and has incredibly poor analytical skills.

As to your comments on the current effects seen from Chernobyl that is very interesting and I thankyou for sharing it with me. However, as the report states, this is over a time period of 20 years. The radioactive material, depending what type has landed in the area, can last for 1000's of years. It is possible that the effects aren't being felt now.

As to your comments on nuclear explosions, yes we were trying to steer it away from that because I made the wrong comment. It was not really a nuclear explosion, as I was corrected, but a nuclear meltdown. Just something I've have learnt on my way through life. People have corrected that for me, such as yourself, and we were trying to point out that while a nuclear explosion is, to your evidence, not possible the effects of a nuclear meltdown, which we know are possible, can be serious.

1. You're sources are, for the most part, outdated and wrong, the concensus of all respected scientists is, as of 2011, that global warming is not natural, and quite a bit deal.
2. The sun is currently going through a LOW spot in terms of solar flares and such, and while there are natural changes in climate, we've noticed that things are fluctuatiing VASTLY more than they would naturally, the only people who deny this are kooks on the fringe of the scientific community and republican politicians.
3. The way to stop this is simple. First is nuclear power, clean, much safer than coal, and efficient as the day is long. As a stop gap, at least, until advances in solar can be shifted primarily into solar, as a stopgap to fusion power, using plentiful deuterium fuel to privide quite a bit of power cleanly.

The geological record indicates that we have had an ice age on our planet every 200.000 years or so. Each ice age has been preceeded by global warming, it is a necessary precursor. The warming takes place gradually over centuries--just as it is now--until enough fresh water from polar melting alters the salinity of the great oceans and shuts down the salt driven currents that warm the continents. Then, Ice Age. This is going to happen, even if we all go back to living in caves and drawing on the walls. Man-made? Then how do we account for the ice ages that preceeded the evolution of man? Many people throughout history have labored under the delusion that man can affect the weather or climate. They have been generally labelled as crackpots. The current green movement? Follow the money. Oh yes, the last great ice age? Almost 200,000 years ago. Man's contribution to the process? It might only take 199,990 years this time.

Not quite 200,000 years ago, the last ice age was 110,000 to 10,000 years ago with the last expansion being 18,000-21,000 years ago.

The last four significant ice ages were, about 2 million years ago to the present, 350 to 250 million years ago, 800 to 600 million years ago and 2400 to 2100 million years ago.

It gets a bit sketchy after that.