Return to the Splitting the Atom top page.
Return to the nuclear waste forum top page.
Topics covered in this forum:
|
Viewer Comments
Gil Brown of Lowell, MA, comments:
The only way to permanently destroy nuclear weapons is to transmute the plutonum and highly enriched uranium. This is very doable in existing nuclear reactors. Some calculate that the energy equivalent of the U and Pu in dismantled nuclear weapons in both the U.S. and the former Soviet Union could provide about a trillion dollars worth of electricity. this can be done with existing technology in exisiting nuclear power plants. When will we start doing this in the US?
Jim Sharp of Alvin, TX, comments:
The word radiation is so misused by the do gooders that they
can't even give you the definition of the word. Lets just go
back to using candles, forget about progress. I don't know of
any occupation that doesn't carry some risk. Ask the question
what expense has caused the cost of operation of plants to
be excessive. (LAWSUITS??) I cannot conceive that the career
nuclear scientist do not care about the safe operation of
a nuclear facility and the safety of the employees.
William Merriman of Hudsonville, MI, comments:
Nuclear waste should be disposed of, after maximum recycled use, in facilitiites in remote desert areas, underground, diluted in sand and concrete, with disposal sites guarded and regulated by the military. Any additional costs to nuclear generating facilities would just have to be considered a necessary cost of doing business.
Chris Marshall of Columbia, MD, comments:
My biggest concern with the development of nuclear power in this country is that we have no current technology available that allows us to store nuclear waste. I've that waste is currently being stored at reactor sites around the country.
We shouldn't continue to produce waste if we don't have the means for disposing of it safely, in a way that doesn't threaten future generation
Alex Gabbard of Lenoir City, TN, comments:
After reading a good bit of your WWW site, I can't help wondering why fear of all things nuclear are pitched so far into the fear index. We don't fear smoking that kills 400,000 Americans every year. We don't fear cars that kill about 45,000 Americans every year and injure about 200,000 more. We don't fear breast cancer, colon cancer and prostate cancer that kills about 100,000 Americans every year. Why do we fear nuclear?
Alfred J. Verstreken of Santa Barbara, CA, comments:
It is unwise to focus on Chernobyl as the typical example of
the dangers of nuclear power plants. All technology implies
danger, and we must try to reduce the danger without going
back to a pre-industrial society.
The main dangers follow from the reckless decision to produce
waste that will be dangerous for many millenia, in the hope
that some day we will figure out how to get rid of it.
|
