Thread: Nuclear Power - debate / poll

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Not Power - its a research reactor used mainly for producing medical isotopes and for a variety of research and industrial projects.
John

Hey Bushie!

remember
"Friends of the Earth"

Originally Posted by vnx205

Your first comment is obviously spot on, but I disagree with your second point.
There is also controversy about whether the extra cost of nuclear is acceptable, how much CO2 is produced in all the processes involved, how safe some of the new designs and some of the old designs are, the cost of decommissioning a reactor, whether weapons proliferation is a problem and possible a couple of other issues.

Fair point, i should have worded it differenlty, the most controversial part (as i see it) is the waste.

Originally Posted by Ace

Its a controversial topic, however the only controversial part of it is the disposal of the waste, being a chemistry teacher i understand the problems and the life of such waste.

As a chemistry teacher you'd probably be the person to ask, what is the life expectency of depleted Uranium rods?

Originally Posted by RobHay

The time to take action was probably 30 years ago and we still have done nothing.

your right Rob if we had listened to "the great unwashed, the ratbag scientists, the radicals etc. 30 years ago we might not be in the predicament we are in now!

These were the days when wearing these badges on anti nuclear protests would get you photographed by ASIO and if that was done often enough investigated by special branch!

Originally Posted by Dave110

your right Rob if we had listened to "the great unwashed, the ratbag scientists, the radicals etc. 30 years ago we might not be in the predicament we are in now!

These were the days when wearing these badges on anti nuclear protests would get you photographed by ASIO and if that was done often enough investigated by special branch!

Perhaps if the great unwashed, smelt a bit better then the general public would have listened to them instead of running a mile.

It is beginning to look as if this debate has run its course. I don't think it is up to me to make that decision, but I wonder whether as the person who initiated this poll, grumpybastard also thinks it is time to follow this poll with a related one.

I would be curious to see the results of a poll that asked:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes
No
Maybe


...or something like that.
What do you think?

vnx205: No, I'm still sitting on the fence.

I heard Dr Karl explain how to store nuclear waste and it sounded fair and resonable.

If electricity from nuclear will cost 5 to 10 times more than current, why bother.

I'm a firm believer in using our permanent nuclear source, the sun, it's just a matter of how to capture its output. I've seen a 'solar' plant in the Californian desert (full of mirrors) which apparently produced vast amounts of watts... and was not ugly, nor a blemish on the earth, or whatever, unlike the nuke plant on the coast south of Los Angeles.....

we should all have (where there is endless sun, like where i live) solar capturing devices.... no real need, then, for other 'electricity generating devices'

GQ

Originally Posted by vnx205

It is beginning to look as if this debate has run its course. I don't think it is up to me to make that decision, but I wonder whether as the person who initiated this poll, grumpybastard also thinks it is time to follow this poll with a related one.

I would be curious to see the results of a poll that asked:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes
No
Maybe


...or something like that.
What do you think?

Or it mighty be more informative (when the time comes) to ask:

Did the AULRO debate change your mind about nuclear power?
Yes - I now support
Yes - I now oppose
No change

Having made these suggestions, I notice people are still voting so I may be jumping the gun a bit.

Maybe a bit later.