Comments on: Nuclear Power: ‘No Thanks’ or ‘Yes Please’? http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/ nice of you to drop by. tea? Sat, 17 May 2008 00:35:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6-bleeding By: Emma http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-194295 Emma Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:34:58 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-194295 Another good thing on nuclear power is that we use it for good and is a lot cheaper than using other energy sources!! Another big one for me is that Nuclear power and us produce a lot less emissions than natural things do....so why should we have to stop Nuclear Power when we are not creating huge amounts of pollution??!! Another good thing on nuclear power is that we use it for good and is a lot cheaper than using other energy sources!! Another big one for me is that Nuclear power and us produce a lot less emissions than natural things do….so why should we have to stop Nuclear Power when we are not creating huge amounts of pollution??!!

]]> By: lucy x http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-173823 lucy x Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:09:37 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-173823 do you have any more good things on nuclear power do you have any more good things on nuclear power

]]> By: Emma http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-167367 Emma Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:09:29 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-167367 The thought that my brother in law put in my mind, which I have to agree with is that the uranium causes most of the pollution and if they didn't use it in the Power Stations it would still pollute our air but not help us in anyway. Instead we produce a tiny bit more pollution using it but why waste perfectly good resources?? Everyone not wasting, wood or plastic...why waste perfectly uranium, that whether or not we use it will still pollute??!! The thought that my brother in law put in my mind, which I have to agree with is that the uranium causes most of the pollution and if they didn’t use it in the Power Stations it would still pollute our air but not help us in anyway. Instead we produce a tiny bit more pollution using it but why waste perfectly good resources?? Everyone not wasting, wood or plastic…why waste perfectly uranium, that whether or not we use it will still pollute??!!

]]> By: Rich http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-77567 Rich Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:24:51 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-77567 Wearing the badge is metaphorical: it signifies that I currently think the risks and costs of Nuclear Power appear to outweigh the benefits. As for solar; yes, a good idea, but in Britain we have a lotof cloud so solar panels are not that effective, <em>yet</em>. Instead we pay extra to our energy supplier for energy that's been generated from renewable resources. Wearing the badge is metaphorical: it signifies that I currently think the risks and costs of Nuclear Power appear to outweigh the benefits. As for solar; yes, a good idea, but in Britain we have a lotof cloud so solar panels are not that effective, yet. Instead we pay extra to our energy supplier for energy that’s been generated from renewable resources.

]]> By: BorEd http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-77542 BorEd Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:56:36 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-77542 I Cant Believe you have made a website on nuclear power.. thats quite sad. Im a Girl From Australia and i think wearing a bagde isnt going to stop the amount of pollution in the world. why dont you protest or design yours and other peoples houses to run on solar...?? I Cant Believe you have made a website on nuclear power.. thats quite sad. Im a Girl From Australia and i think wearing a bagde isnt going to stop the amount of pollution in the world. why dont you protest or design yours and other peoples houses to run on solar…??

]]> By: Nick http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-66229 Nick Thu, 10 May 2007 09:54:33 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-66229 The difference between your coal heating system and nuclear vessels is this. It's not the radiation the coal gives off directly, but rather the radioactive isotopes that it ejects that are the big con. As you point out, directly it won’t do a lot and it certainly won’t be concentrated in a single household. The radioactive isotopes it emits are 100% self sustained and they emit the radiation, like a mini-nuclear fallout. Nuclear vessels that emit radiation would do just that, simply emit radiation, not self-sustained radioactive isotopes. Radiation would ionise things in its path, and not leave anything behind that can carry on the radiation. The levels that the vessels emit are obviously safe and do not cumulate. The radioactive emissions from coal will eventually cumulate and since isotopes like Uranium235 have a half-life of 7.038E8 years (a LONG time) the sources of radiation in the environment will continually cumulate until a few million years is up. Direct radiation only ionises things in its path, it doesn’t allow radiation "to spread" so to speak. The difference between your coal heating system and nuclear vessels is this.
It’s not the radiation the coal gives off directly, but rather the radioactive isotopes that it ejects that are the big con. As you point out, directly it won’t do a lot and it certainly won’t be concentrated in a single household. The radioactive isotopes it emits are 100% self sustained and they emit the radiation, like a mini-nuclear fallout.
Nuclear vessels that emit radiation would do just that, simply emit radiation, not self-sustained radioactive isotopes. Radiation would ionise things in its path, and not leave anything behind that can carry on the radiation. The levels that the vessels emit are obviously safe and do not cumulate.
The radioactive emissions from coal will eventually cumulate and since isotopes like Uranium235 have a half-life of 7.038E8 years (a LONG time) the sources of radiation in the environment will continually cumulate until a few million years is up. Direct radiation only ionises things in its path, it doesn’t allow radiation “to spread” so to speak.

]]> By: Rich http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-66051 Rich Wed, 09 May 2007 13:46:22 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-66051 An interesting read! This is potentially a counterpoint to using coal, but is not particularly supportive of nuclear energy, it just adds fuel to the renewables fire. The next thing I need to know is whether 100 times trace-levels of radioactivity is actually dangerous (because my house was heated by coal for exactly 100 years before I moved in, so should I be taking a geiger counter into the back garden to check radiation levels? Perhaps it will it be impossible to get an accurate reading because of regular visits from nuclear powered military vessels at nearby Portsmouth Harbour!). An interesting read! This is potentially a counterpoint to using coal, but is not particularly supportive of nuclear energy, it just adds fuel to the renewables fire.

The next thing I need to know is whether 100 times trace-levels of radioactivity is actually dangerous (because my house was heated by coal for exactly 100 years before I moved in, so should I be taking a geiger counter into the back garden to check radiation levels? Perhaps it will it be impossible to get an accurate reading because of regular visits from nuclear powered military vessels at nearby Portsmouth Harbour!).

]]> By: Nick http://boakes.org/nuclear-power-no-thanks/#comment-66041 Nick Wed, 09 May 2007 11:48:14 +0000 http://boakes.org/?p=536#comment-66041 Of course, please forgive me fpr not referencing. The first time I saw the idea of coal plants emitting radioactive isotopes was from: Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. Professor at the University of Pittsburgh found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm More specifically the "100 times" statement about radioactivity comes from Alex Gabbard's site: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html I must admit, I was quite shocked when I first heard about it, however with research I learned that it was true and can be found on many sites that talk more about the actual "physics" information so to speak, rather than a debated social issue. But it does make sense, think about it, if the waste is completely removed from nuclear plants, it does not compare to the impurities that are emitted by burning coal. Of course, please forgive me fpr not referencing. The first time I saw the idea of coal plants emitting radioactive isotopes was from:
Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D.
Professor at the University of Pittsburgh
found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

More specifically the “100 times” statement about radioactivity comes from Alex Gabbard’s site:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

I must admit, I was quite shocked when I first heard about it, however with research I learned that it was true and can be found on many sites that talk more about the actual “physics” information so to speak, rather than a debated social issue. But it does make sense, think about it, if the waste is completely removed from nuclear plants, it does not compare to the impurities that are emitted by burning coal.

]]>