Half Of Canadians Support Nuclear Power, Survey Suggests

So it would be more accurate to simply say "Canadians split approximately 50/50 over using nuclear energy".

Spin spin spin
That story round

Spin it 'till it's dizzy
And it's buried it the ground

Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you just hate to make him wait
But you just gotta spin another story 'round.

*to the tune of "Smoke! smoke! smoke! (that cigarette)" by Tex Williams




---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.

"So it would be more accurate to simply say 'Canadians split approximately 50/50 over using nuclear energy'."

Yes, I think so.

Before the global warming scare, nuclear power was considered too dangerous to be practical because its wide spread use would result in disasters that would poison the land for millions of years. Yet now we're supposed to think that nuclear power will help save the world from boiling over? The global warming scare is getting nuttier by the day.

"Before the global warming scare, nuclear power was considered too dangerous to be practical because its wide spread use would result in disasters that would poison the land for millions of years."

I wonder why people considered it that. France has been using nuclear power for many decades, without incident. Same with Japan. Candu reactors have never had an inident ethier. Even Chernoybl won't have an effect for 'millions of years'.

Could it be FUD from Greenpeace? /smiles wryly/ No one ideology is immune from spreading FUD. (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.)

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

A casual search brings up several known cases of nuclear power plan accidents, and no doubt many more have gone unreported.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml">http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml</a><br />
<a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmoilane/nuclear/Accidents.html">http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmoilane/nuclear/Accidents.html</a><br />
<br />
The problem with nuclear power, is that when some catastrophic goes wrong, it can go wrong in a big way, resulting in thousands of casualties and leaving a large area contaminated over geological time scales. <br />
<br />
The second problem, which is perhaps the worse one, is that there is no known method of safely disposing of nuclear waste over periods of time that span between 0.5 and a million years.<br />
<br />
Statistically, the more power plants there are, the more likely there will be a major disaster. Currently, there are 435 nuclear power plants in the world generating about 17% of the total power plant energy. <br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that coal burning plants expel low levels of radioactive substances into the atmosphere that were present in the coal. The amounts are very low, but since there are many coal burning plants in constant operation, the contamination becomes significant over extended periods of time; the nuclear waste does not go away for thousands of years and therefore it keeps on piling up.<br />
<br />

"A casual search brings up several known cases of nuclear power plan accidents, and no doubt many more have gone unreported."

Doubtful. Even 'minor' incidents are treated like 'major' events. In your links, how many people died? None reported since the 60's, except Chernoybl. Accidents happen in coal, gas and hydro plants too . . .

"The problem with nuclear power, is that when some catastrophic goes wrong, it can go wrong in a big way, resulting in thousands of casualties and leaving a large area contaminated over geological time scales."

Twice . . .and how much pollution does coal, gas and hydro produce, all the time?

"The second problem, which is perhaps the worse one, is that there is no known method of safely disposing of nuclear waste over periods of time that span between 0.5 and a million years."

There is. Ever hear me mention 'breeder reactors'?

"Statistically, the more power plants there are, the more likely there will be a major disaster. Currently, there are 435 nuclear power plants in the world generating about 17% of the total power plant energy."

Statistically, the more cars there are on the road, the more traffic accidents happen and the likelihood of serious and fatal traffic accidents rise.

"It is interesting to note that coal burning plants expel low levels of radioactive substances into the atmosphere that were present in the coal."

It's also interesting to note that the half-lives of those radioactive substances are higher than that of some nuclear fuel. 5700 years for Carbon 14 (Coal plant), 24 days for Thorium 234 (breeder reactor), 23 minutes for Uranium 239 - up to 4 billion years for Depleted Uranium.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"how many people died? None reported since the 60's, except Chernoybl."<br />
<br />
No one knows how many died later from cancer after these "minor" accidents.<br />
<br />
"Accidents happen in coal, gas and hydro plants too . . ."<br />
<br />
Yes, but there's no radiation leaks that can kill or sicken people and contaminate the environment over a vast area.<br />
<br />
The critical question is how many deaths would there be if nuclear power plants were in common use?<br />
<br />
". . .and how much pollution does coal, gas and hydro produce, all the time?"<br />
<br />
As I said, coal fired plants produce radioactive fall out and they should be shut down, and coal mining is environmentally destructive. Gas fired plants produce environmental concerns, and so does hydro, although hydro is a very clean source of energy.<br />
<br />
"Ever hear me mention 'breeder reactors'?"<br />
<br />
Yes, very interesting concept. Unfortunately there are no breeder reactors currently in commercial operation (but perhaps one or two are still running somewhere). All were shut down due to safety and environmental concerns. Supposedly some newer designs are in the works.<br />
<br />
Even if you can solve the waste problem, you'll still be left with the safety concern.<br />
<br />
"Statistically, the more cars there are on the road, the more traffic accidents happen and the likelihood of serious and fatal traffic accidents rise."<br />
<br />
The stupidity of politicians and people has no bounds, and yes there are many things going on that are possibly are far worse than running nuclear power plants, but why add onto the list of stupid things to do? In the car example, at least I don't have to drive, but if a nuclear power plant when up in my area, I'll be forced to either move or live under the possibility of ingesting nuclear toxins. If a coal fired plant went up, I'd have to move as well (etc).<br />
<br />
My point is that it's a bad idea to replace one bad idea with another equally bad idea.<br />
<br />
"It's also interesting to note that the half-lives of those radioactive substances are higher than that of some nuclear fuel. 5700 years for Carbon 14 (Coal plant), 24 days for Thorium 234 (breeder reactor), 23 minutes for Uranium 239 - up to 4 billion years for Depleted Uranium."<br />
<br />
I always knew that coal fired plants were an idiotic concept for obvious reasons, but the nuclear waste fallout problem takes the concept beyond the bounds of stupidity. It's of no wonder that so many people are dropping dead from cancer.<br />
<br />
Another interesting topic that's sort of related<br />
Radioactive tobacco<br />
<a href="http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/">http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/</a><br />

I guess we're pretty much the statistical norm. 50% for /50 % against.

Just one point:

" Gas fired plants produce environmental concerns, and so does hydro, although hydro is a very clean source of energy."

No, they aren't. Recent studies show that the biomatter that is destroyed in makng a hydro dam produces more methane and co2 that a gas fired plant does in it's lifetime.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

But those gases are not pollutants!