Hello, I’m William Crouch from Palo Alto High School in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some harrowing reports have just been released from the company that the radiation reports were less than one fifth of the actual amount recorded for 2013. It seems scary that this is a threat to Japan and possibly the Pacific Ocean, and even more creepy that Tepco, the company in charge of this nuclear plant seems to be producing incorrect information in possible attempt to maintain a level of complacency for the people of the world. It may be a while longer before the effects are fully known, but it is not so easy to simply evacuate people from their country when it is on an island. The costs of the occasional nuclear disaster seem to outweigh the benefits, and one wonders why the plants are all more than thirty years old. If this world is to allow companies to continue using nuclear power, plants must be built to a much higher standard so that they put the lives of civilians at a much lower risk.
- My Posts
- Learned Posts
- My Discussions
- Joined Discussions
- Favorite Members
- Curated Posts
nuclear energy is a threat to everyone. other than fukushima, a nuclear plant in new jersey had a crack in its reactor. the radioactive water then cracked through the “inpenetrable” concrete safety walls and leaked into the river that flows throught the plant.
th comany reported noone was in danger becaue the radioactive water was contained on theri property and would not possibly leave the land. two days later, radioactivity levels were sky high 5 miles down the river and fish were found dead.
there are very few to no way s to 100%contain radioactive material and it is simply too dangerous to stil be in use. companies are using 70 year old designs and continuing to use outdated technology when we know it is not failsafe.
I think it is right for all countries to move away from nuclear energy, testing, and weapons but sadly, that will probably never happen since nuclear weapons are proliferating in the middle-east and eastern Asia. The Non-Test Treaty (in the link below) was only signed by 3 countries but the UN should try to get all countries in the past and now investing money, time and effort in nuclear weapons. Nuclear Proliferation is a huge problem and i feel should be dealt with as soon as possible.
Nuclear energy should be pursued for a few reasons according to How Stuff Works. For one, the process used to create energy out of uranium and other suitable radioactive materials produces a minimal amount of carbon dioxide compared to fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Nuclear energy also isn’t influenced by the fossil fuel industry, so the price doesn’t vary as much as oil does. Nonetheless, it is still very expensive to generate nuclear energy. Also radioactive waste is created when the materials are processed. This waste must be handled with care because it is hazardous to living things and handling this waste only adds to the cost of nuclear energy. Finding a way to take away the radioactive particles that make this waste harmful would make nuclear energy a much more viable option for solving the clean energy crisis.
Nuclear power plants are possibly one of the safest sources of power, if they are done properly. The Chernobyl and Fukushima power plants were poorly designed and did not have the requisite fail safes to prevent disaster. The American Three Mile Island nuclear power plant also underwent a meltdown, however, the plant was able to contain the waste without any significant difficulty.
Therefore, I believe that there should be a regulatory commission to examine every nuclear power plant and if one is not safe, tell the country to disassemble the plant and build a safer one. Also, plants should not be built in areas with high natural disaster chances. Areas with frequent earthquakes or floods should not be host to nuclear power plants. It doesn’t matter how much containment is in place if an earthquake destroys it.
Hi! I’m Alessandro and I’m from Italy. I think we must have some nuclear power plants in Italy because there are many benefits for our nation:
-A nuclear power plant doesn’t emit CO2;
-the production of energy from nuclear power plants can reduces the import of oil and gas;
But there are many disadvantages that:
- the effects in case of accident;
-localization of nuclear power plants.
Finally, I’m agree with the installation of nuclear power plants in Italy. What do you think about it?
Nuclear power is good if you can control it. Scientist are tying to find a way to dispose of radioactive waste. When a meltdown occurs, it becomes very hot and the fuel rods start to melt. This may lead for countries to not use nuclear energy. However, there are some reasons that are good. For example, nuclear power plants don’t release any pollutants in the atmosphere. It’s just steam. Nuclear power plants also don’t cause global warming.
I think the USA should move towards the use of nuclear energy. Although nuclear energy can be dangerous when handled incorrectly, proper safety measures and back-up plans can help alleviate disaster if they are taken ahead of time. Nuclear energy is a lot cleaner than fossil fuels, and it can produce much larger amounts of energy than other renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. Nuclear energy is also cost-effective — although plants may be expensive to build, generating the energy itself isn’t expensive. Other countries are moving towards using nuclear energy, too, which should serve as a reason for the US to begin using nuclear energy. The usage of nuclear energy could affect the atmosphere by reducing CO2 emissions, possibly halting global warning if measures were to be taken to build plants now. To reduce it’s amount of CO2 emissions, the USA should expand its usage of nuclear energy.
Hi! I’m Eryka from the United States of America! I believe that the countries, like Germany (mentioned in the introduction), who moved away from using nuclear power made the right decision. They recognized the obvious threats that nuclear power has toward people and the environment.
To put this in terms where it is on a more personal level, people are in more danger from nuclear power. The USA, for example, is experiencing problems just being able to receive the materials and/or buy the actual materials necessary to make the power plant. The back and forth, unnecessary travel, only adds to people’s carbon footprint. We need to stop this. As of 2008 (noted in an online article by the Center for American Progress), only one company could make the bottleneck for the inside of the nuclear reactors containment vessel, and it was located in Japan. The reason this company is so important is due to the fact the inside it manufactured was made to help reduce radioactive leakage.
Another point I would like to talk about is the danger of radioactive materials in the environment.Radioactive materials have such long half-lives that they don’t get recycled out of the environment fast enough. This can have negative effects on humans who are exposed to it. Exposure to radioactive materials can cause hair loss, brain damage, and the damage of you reproductive organs. There are more body parts that can be affected, but these are just a few examples.
All in all I believe that nuclear power should not be a power source for anyone, we should look for another power source that does not have such dangerous threats to people and the environment.
Upload file is not permitted because you have exceeded maximum number of files.
Please contact the administrator.