FOOD

Food in America has pesticides. Without them, we would have terrible products filled with bacteria and such. We love the way they kill all those pests that get on our corn. However, these things, designed to kill, do so without aim. The classic example is DDT, which caused many defects in predators at the top of a food chain. Chemicals like it are persistent pollutants, that either do not degrade easily or are really hazardous. How hazardous? Well lets just say that organophosphate compounds which America now uses frequently because they are not persistent, were originally used as nerve agents. (Used in WWI.) These traits make them rather nasty things to be placing all over our food.

There has been a solution to this however, actually since the 1930's, which is to irradiate food. This process, which uses radiation to kill bacteria and pests, does not have the problems of creating pollutants or toxic substances like pesticides. The big problem with it, is that any company that has to perform such decontamination must label their food irradiated. Most people are freaked out by anything to do with radiation, but it's this fear that is completely unfounded. When a food is processed by irradiation, it is simply passed by a source of high energy particles. This is most commonly X-rays, as they pass through most materials readily. These high energy particles hit off electrons from atoms in a molecule, causing it to become charged, which for living things is a bad occurrence. Commonly the organisms DNA is disrupted, their body no longer functions properly, and they die. (Basically major skin cancer.) The good thing here is that radiation does not damage things that are already dead, like food. It does not produce harmful chemicals, as it is not actually adding anything to the food. (Passing something by a radiative source does not make it radioactive.) Another plus, is that a radioactive source is a relatively easy thing to deal with, you don't even have to produce a large amount of chemicals for it to do it's job, which would save us money.

ENERGY

Most people hate nuclear power plants. Why, I'm not sure, maybe lots of people have an image of a nuclear explosion going off. (Which really have nothing to do with power plants.) Boom = Nuclear = Bad.
Sound Logical? HELL NO, THIS IS AMERICA!

We prefer dumping 5,389,59 tons (as of 2006.) of sulfur dioxide into the air than producing 2580 tons (Estimated waste to produce the same amount of energy as the coal plants in 2006.) of Radioactive materials. Granted that radioactive materials may seem bad but much of it can be reprocessed to produce more fuel, removing contaminants. Even the contaminants could have some use, if we weren't so desperate to never use them, ever. In short were producing over 200 times more waste (in just sulfur dioxide, there's other things coming out too.) than if we were using Nuclear power. Worse, this waste is very light compared to the heavy metals produced in a nuclear power plant, which corresponds to 191664203 m^3 Sulfur Dioxide to 122 m^3 of Radioactive waste. (Using above values and densities at room temp.) Or >1.5 million times more volume.

The sad thing is that we would go out of our way to produce other forms of energy, solar/hydro/wind/etc, which have been proven, from an engineering standpoint, to be far inferior to our current methods. Nuclear is the only solution that really has enough power to push over natural resources, but everyone just hates it for no reason.

There are other applications, but I'm feeling less angsty now.
In summary: I went on a rant because most people are idiots, or we need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

@Nuclear power, I agree totally. The sad thing is how many people think it's unclean power, when it's one of the cleanest sources avaliable.

@irradiating veges, I don't know enough about it, but it sounds fine in theory. You're right when you say most people will be scared off by the fact that it's irradiated, however.

I am continually amused that what is called nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) in chemistry is called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in medicine so that people don't get scared of the "nuclear". It is a little ridiculous the way people get all freaked out about things related to nuclear stuff.

Nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents

Tritium contamination
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html

Nuclear power is not a solution it is a shortcut. Actinides are rare on earth. How long can we sustain nuclear power because it is certainly not renewable?
You would probably be generating more greenhouse gasses when you pump seawater out to make uranium. Then after you have to refine the uranium so you would produce more greenhouse gasses.

Nuclear power plants' waste products can be largely recycled, and is certainly more recycleable and effecient than coal power, and cheaper and better than wind power.

@your list of accidents, I'll ignore the pre-1990 ones, as before them, safety and technology wasn't as advanced. (i should probably ignore any caused by disregard of safety protocol, but I won't)

OK, 2 deaths total. Little property damage. Now, let's take a look at a couple of other power sources, and injuries/deaths/damages related to them.

First, coal power. Let's just show coal MINING accidents. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Coal_mine_disasters
2713 deaths. That's 1990 and up. Hmm.

Let's go to a supposedly cleaner, safer source: hydro-electric dams. From the same list, on the floods section, there are thousands of deaths. Many of those are from hydroelectric dams.

As you can see from the facts, nuclear power is far safer. It's also far more efficient at producing power than any other currently feasable power source. Until fusion power arrives, it's the best we've got.

As for running out of fuel, coal is more likely to run out first, what with the advent of 'fast reactors' that use depleted uranium for fuel. The only way that the fuel could run out is if the US gained a monopoly over the sources of uranium, switched entirely to nuclear power, and DIDN'T change the law about nuclear reprocessing(retarded law BTW)

I never said I was for coal power. I am against coal power because of emissions.
Only TWO of those floods are caused by failing hydro-electric dams. A total of 193 deaths. (how is it thousands of deaths?)
193 is very small. Chernobyl disaster exposed radiation to like 200,000 people.

You did not rebuke the Tritium contamination? (so how is it safer?)
It does not matter which one runs out first. Both coal and uranium will be at very limited supply at some point. Which is why we should push for renewable energy such as wind or solar.

Move all the africans out of africa and use it as a nuclear goldmine?
Build them in iraq so we all have a reason to stay there?
Build massive walls around the facility??

Either way, I'm all for Nuclear power. Besides, 200 000 in comparison to the human population is a very, very, very insignificant number. I wouldn't want to be one of them, but hey, such is life.

Chernobyl was an incredibly stupid accident, and hardly relevant anymore. First off, the reactor was an old Russian design, which the West would never have used, even then. However, even as old and unsafe as it was, it would have been fine, had not an idiot scientist decided to run experiments on it, such that he pulled the control rods all the way out, even though the chief engineer said not to. The resulting contamination wouldn't have even happened in modern reactors, because they're encased in concrete to prevent such a disaster.

Your number of deaths(which doesn't account for all hydroelectric dam deaths) is still larger than any modern nuclear accidents, plus caused far greater property damage. Nuclear power is still safer.

This tritium contamination doesn't appear to have caused any harm, and is the result of accidents; people designing reactors will take this into account when they make their next ones.

By the time uranium runs out(a LONG way into the future), other power sources, such as fusion reactors, which are very clean, more efficient, and have an essentially inexhaustable fuel source, will have been developed.

And as for wind and solar power? They're all very well, and I have nothing against them, but the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine.

In most countries, yes, however, in the US, Breeder Plants, which are the best plants at reprocessing nuclear material, are illegal, due to the fact that they produce material close to weapon's grade.

I completely agree with both arguments, people are silly and think nuclear weapons as soon as you say radiation or nuclear, the word has obtained a very negative connotation, when it should have a very positive one.

Heh, is that what they're saying now? Originally it was pushed by environmentalists as somehow increasing emissions because there would be more fuel, something ridiculous like that.

For those of you that think Nuclear waste is horrible, blame the amounts of it on the silly US laws, because without them we could use Breeder reactors, and almost no waste would be created. Also, Uranium isn't the only element that can be used in Breeder reactors, so there's a lot more resources to use on it.

Since most of you probably won't read those links, here's some key quotes:


Basically, if Breeder Reactors were put into mass-use, renewable energy would no longer be an issue, nuclear waste would be negligible, and pollution would be lowered significantly.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Feb 5 2010, 6:04 am by Falkoner.

"You will pay for the stupid people in life."
-Mr. Chetty, high school science teacher

Radiation has its uses, such as nuclear power. I think a lot of the people are ignorant about most of the facts that have been posted in this thread and that is why they oppose nuclear power. I think if the public was better educated about the subject there would be more people in favor of opening more nuclear power plants.

I'm sure there will be even safer nuclear reactors in the future if engineers actually start designing them. And nuclear waste is concentrated in a small area, unlike fossil fuel emissions, which hurt the whole planet's environment.

Electromagnetic radiation != nuclear radiation too.


Hell, every time you go outside, you're irradiated by the sun.

That reminds me.
People are radioactive, you can't avoid the potassium and carbon in your body.

For that matter, Earth itself is generally radioactive. You can't escape that, and space is even more radioactive.

I am not sure that you can call the earth "generally" radioactive because only period 7 and the actinoids are radioactive. A lot of them are not found in nature on earth. Space is understandable because you have radiation from stars.

I also was talking with my Physics teacher recently, and radioactivity like alpha particle radiation, to an extent, is really harmless. This is because your dead skin, and skin in general, acts as a decent protection against alpha particle radiation. This is because it doesn't really matter to your body if some of your dead skin loses a few electrons to the alpha particles. What is really dangerous, in this situation, is when the particles are somehow inside of your body stealing electrons from the inside.

Yes, radioactivity can be dangerous, but so can gasoline. We all use gasoline to our benefit despite it's potential danger. It really comes down to how it is used on whether or not it is "good or bad".

Not true. How do you suspect carbon dating works? Every element has radioactive isotopes, and your guaranteed to find tiny amounts of some of them somewhere naturally.

Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope

It has to do with the number of neutrons vs protons in the nucleus that determines radioactivity. Some atoms (pd 7+, like was stated) have few or no non-radioactive isotopes.

And when I say non-radioactive, I mean low on the radioactivity scale. All elements have a chance to release a neutron (at least nearly all, correct me if I'm wrong here), just some have more or less than others. Think of it as a spectrum. Highly radioactive substances are on the higher chance end than things like carbon which isn't as radioactive. It still has isotopes that are though (carbon14, among others).

[deleted]

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 3 2018, 5:37 am by DavidJCobb.