Global Warming (The Greenhouse Effect)

[Runescapeking]

As we all know global warming or the greenhouse effect is the Earth gardually getting hotter each year because of an increase of carbon dioxide in the Earths atmosphere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well how do you find it affects your daily lives and how do you think the worlds governments should handel this?

[Guest GhostRanger]

I don't know how the government should handle it, but it doesn't affect my daily life at all. Its not like temperatures are shooting up real fast. Its gradual..

[Runescapeking]

I should also enton that this includes increases in local smog days per year.

[Lionheart_0]

not mine but people with asthma hear. Toronto is just acorss the lack and they always have worse smog then us... and we have the steel factories.

[ShadowSam19]

its really gradual, like 1 degree per year avrage increase. I dont think during any of our lifetimes anything serious will happen. Yes it will get warmer, yes the ice caps will get smaller, buts its a minimal effect for most people, unless you live right on the coast at sea lvl. What should the Gov't do? Not much they can do...most already have pollutin restrictions etc. And as far as i know theres no ways to reverse what is already done, just slow it down. Nothing we can except all ride bikes everywhere, or drive cars powered by vegetable oil

[24SE7EN]

its like 1 degree per hundred years, b('-^)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but im in florida so its bad for me/us already.

[rocketman089]

Hit the 110 F degree at my house today, but that's normal here. I honestly don't pay attention to global warming news nor do I care. The planet has cycled through Ice ages and warm ages every some odd thousand years. Last ice age what? 25 thousand years ago? Maybe we're just do for another climate shift. It's happened before 10's of thousands of years ago, we survived, it'll happen again, and we'll live on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not mine but people with asthma hear. Toronto is just acorss the lack and they always have worse smog then us... and we have the steel factories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smoke doesn't stay in the same place, the exhaust from the factories have to go somewhere what with wind and the weather, just so happens Toronto is nearby and that's where the smoke goes.

[Death_By_Pod]

not mine but people with asthma hear. Toronto is just acorss the lack and they always have worse smog then us... and we have the steel factories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes; that's due to a chemical absorbing the smog and then drifting in the wind. After a couple of hours the chemical releases the smog. So depending on the wind smog can appear over area's that wouldn't normally have smog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I put a bit of blame for global warming on the greens. They go around and preach about alternative power sources which are unfeasible on the large-scale. It's given green energy a bad name leaving many to think that coal and oil are the only way to go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s probably affecting our country the worst; Australia a large user and exporter of coal. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s allegedly causing our worst drought ever and when a state premier (governor I think is the American equivalent) mentioned using nuclear the media sensationalised it and portrayed it as a big evil. It makes me sad but if people want to destroy the planet itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s their choice.

[rocketman089]

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's too bad the majority of environmentalists frown even more upon nuclear energy than fossil fuels. The majority of anything I've seen on the internet or news about transfering dead fuel cells to underground burial places weren't without the share of an angry mob with gasmasks on and picket signs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you mention, the Chernobyl incident isn't going to be going away anytime soon, they'd rather focus on the bad and the past instead of working to finding safer ways to harness nuclear power and transporting it.

[Evil_Elf]

See, what the environmentalists really want is for the world to go back to candles and horse drawn carriages.

[Dark_Tigra]

See, what the environmentalists really want is for the world to go back to candles and horse drawn carriages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it better not be bee's wax candle's either, because you can't use animal products!11one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 10 years we'll be running on Hydrogen 3, so I'm not too worried about it. It is kind of lame when you look around at the enviroment in some places and it's just RUINED, but hey, what can ya' do. Maybe once oil is gone, people will start trying to actually fix it. :P

[Hannibal]

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blaming communism for blatant human mistakes when building that reactor is a bit off...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happened at Chernobyl was caused by a number of security measures not being stuck to. An experiment was scheduled, was executed with too small a number of scientists, the control staves (I hope that's the correct English word in this case) were too big for the mediator, so the controlled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear reactor) turned into an uncontrolled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear bomb), and to top it all, the concrete roof came off in an explosion, blowing millions of heavily radioactive particles up to two kilometers into the sky. The fallout affected most of Europe, and even today radiation levels at the Chernobyl site are way above average and the effects of the fallout still contribute about 200 microSievert to the amount of radiation European citizens yearly suffer.

[my_pet_worm]

it is getting worse, and NOT slowly. in 5 years new zealands waters have gone down 4 degrees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stupid American politions should start saying only use cfc free stuff, but no, if india and china don't have to(because therestill growing countrys, still not to much tech) then they shouldn't have to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if the world kept going as it was in the year 2001, then the next ice age would be in the year 2100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the americans are starting to fix things though, apparently those double decker buses are being taken out of certain city's because they are VERY pollutive.

[Antega]

Global warming will happen slow. The only time people will ever do anything about it is when it starts costing more money to put up with it then it would to sort it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right now? We probably have the technology to develop ways of generating electricity/powering cars without the use of fossil fuels. Its just cheaper to use them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eventually, when people start dying to storms and houses are lost in floods, insurance companies will go bankrupt and the government will be FORCED to do something about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should be interesting.

[edge0303]

think the ppl are finding ways to use energy without 'touching' those fossil fuels cuz at the rate that they are using it,it will end in like...50 years....

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Srry to say, but i dont see how its safer and more envionmentally friendly, when the left overs are toic and radiat, and also we have to find a place to store them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chernobyl showed us how bad it can be actuly. It showed that only a small design flaw can creat something big. And also look at whats left over. If something ever goes wrong we can see what the fate of that area would be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We should stick to more stuff like wind and sun energy. Thats the safest and most envromentaly friendly way, except kinda expensive.

[E-man216]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Srry to say, but i dont see how its safer and more envionmentally friendly, when the left overs are toic and radiat, and also we have to find a place to store them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chernobyl showed us how bad it can be actuly. It showed that only a small design flaw can creat something big. And also look at whats left over. If something ever goes wrong we can see what the fate of that area would be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We should stick to more stuff like wind and sun energy. Thats the safest and most envromentaly friendly way, except kinda expensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wind power isn't feasible becuase of the fact that very few places in the world have enough wind over a large enough area to power a station constantly, and in the few areas where they are avalible for placement, most residents will reject them because the re-sale value of the near-by land will plummet. Solar faces many of the same problems, and generally doesn't produce that much electricity.

 

 

 

Nuclear really is the way to go. Chernoble was a result of lax security and safety standards and extreame budget cuts by a economicly waning nation. Nuclear power plants can be very safe as long as the right protocol levels are observed. The waste product storage isn't really that big of a deal, there are thousands of remote, low-water table areas suitible for storage; Siberia,the Northern Canadian sheild, Northern Alaska, and the Antarctic treaty will run out within the decade, and given current U.N./U.S. relations, I doubt the U.S. will sign up again, opening up the possiblity for a gigantic stoarge area. The drawbacks of a nuclear power plants are definetly limiting though... The average lifespan of a nuclear reactor is only 50 or so years before the complex becomes too radioactive to function.(most are shut-down at 40 just to be safe.) Thermal pollution by the plant can also wreak havoc on a rivers ecosystem. Cancer rates will also rise near the plant too .

 

 

 

Within the century Fusion powerplants will be online, solving all of our power needs; unlimited fuel, relitivly little amounts of waste, and in the event of a meltdown the blast/fallout would cover a significantly smaller area.

[Mayjest]

Hit the 110 F degree at my house today, but that's normal here. I honestly don't pay attention to global warming news nor do I care. The planet has cycled through Ice ages and warm ages every some odd thousand years. Last ice age what? 25 thousand years ago? Maybe we're just do for another climate shift. It's happened before 10's of thousands of years ago, we survived, it'll happen again, and we'll live on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the climate change that's happening/will happen is man made, and the temperature increase/decrease (depending on the area of the world. Yes, some places are getting colder, it's to do with sea currents) is a lot faster than the last 2 previous ice ages (the ones we know about the most). No one knows if this is going to make a difference, but there's a fairly large chance that it will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another point about ice ages is that only around 5% of the species that exist at the start of an ice age still exist by the end of it. Many species become extinct while new ones are created to cope. If we go into an ice age with our current human bodies, we will become extinct. And the temperature change is too fast for evolution to adapt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of the nuclear waste left behind. No one is entirely sure how long it will take for the waste to become safe, and current laws on how to store it are causing more harm than good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, what the environmentalists really want is for the world to go back to candles and horse drawn carriages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that would be the Armish. Enviromentalists don't want to die, and we don't want our children/grandchildren to die. I saw a great Simpson's episode yesterday, and it seems to sum up the opinion of today's masses: "Children are the future, but I'm here TODAY!" Being selfish today will only hurt people in the long run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 10 years we'll be running on Hydrogen 3, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the moment we use more energy creating the hydrogen fuel than we gain from using it, so it's a waste of energy and money. No government (with the possible exception of Japan - and they use a fairly different commercial system) is investing in it in any amount. The only way it will work is if we crack 'cold fusion', and we're a LOT longer than 10 years away from that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

think the ppl are finding ways to use energy without 'touching' those fossil fuels cuz at the rate that they are using it,it will end in like...50 years....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, the Oil in the North Sea is expected to run out in 30 years, unless we find more. Which at the moment is unlikely. We don't know about OPEC countries, because they refuse to release the statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for coal, I've heard everything from 250 years to 70 years, so I am not sure which to believe. The point stand though: In approximately 3 generations we will have run out of fossil fuels, forcing us to go back to "what the environmentalists really want" - "candles and horse drawn carriages". So actually, saving energy now will prevent us from going back to candles and horse drawn carriages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wind power isn't feasible becuase of the fact that very few places in the world have enough wind over a large enough area to power a station constantly, and in the few areas where they are avalible for placement, most residents will reject them because the re-sale value of the near-by land will plummet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Either 70% or 90% of the Earth is covered by water (I can't remember which is the Earth and which is the human body, but I think the body is 70% and the Earth is 90%). Of that percentage, I think around 10-20% is in shallow water, at a fair distance away from land. The sea also is fairly flat. And if you've been on a boat out to sea you will know there's a lot of wind there. That sort of area is perfect for wind farms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Siberia,the Northern Canadian sheild, Northern Alaska, and the Antarctic treaty will run out within the decade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of those areas are nature reserves arn't they? Yay! Lets creat mutant wolves! I'm sure that will help solve out energy problems!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The average lifespan of a nuclear reactor is only 50 or so years before the complex becomes too radioactive to function.(most are shut-down at 40 just to be safe.) Thermal pollution by the plant can also wreak havoc on a rivers ecosystem. Cancer rates will also rise near the plant too .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, a fairly balanced report. This is the reason why people do not want nuclear power. At the moment the power stations have to be relatively close to where they supply the power, or it becomes inefficient. And people do not want increased risk of cancer (look at the mobile phone tower debacle we're having in the UK) near where they live. At the moment, Nuclear power will not happen, at least on the scale necessary to remove our dependance on oil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within the century Fusion powerplants will be online, solving all of our power needs; unlimited fuel, relitivly little amounts of waste, and in the event of a meltdown the blast/fallout would cover a significantly smaller area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that's within the century. Before that happen's we may well have run out of oil, crashing our economies. Which means there'll be no money to fund the cold fusion research. So we won't get cold fusion in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one can ignore the fact that we are facing a crisis. Maybe not in the next 20 years, but soon. I'd guess that most people here will be in their 30s or 40s by the time it hits. I'm sure we'll be worrying about our children's future, how are we going to care for them after we've gone? Why did we make such a mess and leave innocents to clean up? By the time the crisis hits, we're going to regret the way we live now.

[Firemasterd]

Ahhhh. a school topic. I just got out of school 6 days ago and i learned about this during teh middle of the school year. Anyway at least for me i live in a place in michigan that doesn't have those giant smoke stacks with tons of smoke and chemicals coming out of them, so the air is cleaner then stuff by the major cities. The only thing i know, which i learned in school, suprisingly :shock: , is that to stop global warming we need to stop deforestation,(the cutting down of forests), and use less fossil fuels. well :P we use fossil fuels so much, like with all that oil and stuff. They need to find an alternate energy source, like i heard that they're thinking about using hydrogen as fuel. It's just something that i've haerd, don't know if its true or not.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

I'd just like to point out, in case it hasn't already been done, that global warming <> the greenhouse effect. They aren't the same thing. The greenhouse effect is something that can lead to global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I think it's a load of rubbish. Yes, the globe might have got warmer. Yes, it might still be doing so. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's because we burn fossil fuels, or anything like that. It's certainly true that it is a contributing factor, but not that it's the only one... or even the biggest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing to take into account is that we're coming out of an ice age still. The world is bound to get warmer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever happens, it's not enough to stop burning fossil fuels, or to live in wooden houses, wear wooden underpants or whatever it is they suggest we do: it's going to happen naturally, regardless. If species have adapted to the current climate, then they can b_____ well adapt to the changing climate too--it's not as if we can stop it changing, so all we can do is help them do either adapt, or keep them in man made climates/shift them around the world to places where they'll do better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*this one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, how much CO2 do we produce?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, many scientists are not sure the magnitude of past CO2 changes was large enough to initiate ice ages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...I'm going to assume you know which past CO2 changes they're on about, otherwise you wouldn't be discussing this (if you don't know which ones, look it up, it's interesting). Are we meant to believe that our use of fossil fuels causes a bigger change in the Earth's CO2 levels than the ones that allowed plant life to develop?

[dusqi]

I'm quite keen on utilising technological advances, such as hydrogen power in cars. I think the governments of the world should subsidise these technological advances to completion and then subsidise consumers buying them so they are viable in terms of cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also in favour of world economic-based solutions to pollution. allowing countries to trade emissions for example. If properly put into effect, these produce the lowest emissions for the lowest cost. Of course, currently some selfish countries such as America and Australia haven't signed up for them. I read that there's a 40% chance that the gulf stream will stop in the next 50 years. If the gulf stream stops, then I'll be advocating revenge against these selfish countries.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there. The Chernobyl was not caused by Nuclear power but by Soviet Communism. I find it unfortunate that poor design and management from Chernobyl have put so much fear in nuclear power that I don't think people will change their minds until green's demand nuclear (fat chance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blaming communism for blatant human mistakes when building that reactor is a bit off...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happened at Chernobyl was caused by a number of security measures not being stuck to. An experiment was scheduled, was executed with too small a number of scientists, the control staves (I hope that's the correct English word in this case) were too big for the mediator, so the controlled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear reactor) turned into an uncontrolled chain reaction (supposed to happen in a Nuclear bomb), and to top it all, the concrete roof came off in an explosion, blowing millions of heavily radioactive particles up to two kilometers into the sky. The fallout affected most of Europe, and even today radiation levels at the Chernobyl site are way above average and the effects of the fallout still contribute about 200 microSievert to the amount of radiation European citizens yearly suffer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t blame it on the person without taking a look at the motivations behind their actions. If you look at the causes it becomes quite clear why their actions might have been influenced by a demanding communist regime. Just to let you know IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not anti communist, I actually am a supporter of a planned economy (government control) rather then a free economy. I just blame the corruption and inefficiency that it brought. After all why would people circumvent the security features when their lives and the lives of many (it was next to a city) where at risk. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like pulling a pin out of a grenade because you will be able to use it faster when you need it (I.E. a disregard for even the simplest safety).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/causes.html:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Causes of Chernobyl:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Lack Of A 'Safety Culture' - The organisations responsible for the Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant lacked a 'safety culture' resulting in an inability to remedy design weaknesses despite being known about before the accident. A secret USSR memorandum in the Russian archives "Chernobyl Construction Weaknesses" clearly illustrates this fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

- There were months behind schedule, they rushed it and didn't care. If they made this a success it would boost the morale of the people and it would create envy from other nations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Design Fault In The RBMK Reactor - The RBMK reactor type used at Chernobyl suffers from instability at low power and thus may experience a rapid, uncontrollable power increase. Although other reactor types have this problem they incorporate design features to stop instability from occurring. The cause of this instability is:

 

 

 

+ Water is a better coolant than steam

 

 

 

+ The water acts as a moderator and neutron absorber (slowing down the reaction) whilst steam does not.

 

 

 

Excess steam pockets in the RBMK design lead to increased power generation this is known as a positive void coefficient. This excess power causes additional heating thus producing more steam and means less neutron absorption causing the problem to escalate. This all happens very rapidly and if it is not stopped quickly it is very hard to stop as it supplies itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

- See below why this would become a problem. Might I add that technology has come a long way? It has been alleged (I don't have any sources on me) that the new series of reactors have so many safety features that it is impossible for it to blow up like it did in Chernobyl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Violation Of Procedures - While running a test of the reactor numerous safety procedure were violated by the station technicians.

 

 

 

+ Only 6 - 8 control rods were used during the test despite there been a standard operating order stating that a minimum of 30 rods were required to retain control.

 

 

 

+ The reactor's emergency cooling system was disabled.

 

 

 

* Communications Breakdown - The test was carried out without a proper exchange of information between the team in charge of the test and personnel responsible for the operation of the nuclear reactor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The head technician wanted to get the test done no matter what, it was behind schedule and if it passed it would look favourable on his record for a promotion he wanted. Thus he violated a lot of safety and didn't even ring up the head of operations when the problem began.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

When in matter of fact Nuclear power in my opinion (as a studying physicist) is the safest and most environmentally friendly power source out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of the nuclear waste left behind. No one is entirely sure how long it will take for the waste to become safe, and current laws on how to store it are causing more harm than good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However if we reprocess the uranium into Cesium-137 (with a half life of 30 years) it would take a few hundred years for it to be less radioactive then what it was originally in the ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few hundred years is nothing and we would find out a new way to get rid of it (I think something like sending it to the sun, via a space elevator would be the best way to deal with it) also you cant use Cesium-137 as a nuke in the conventional sense (it can be made into a dirty bomb however but you would be crazy opening a crate of it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The storage of it poses no problem the crates are tested like nothing else (after all the controversy the last thing you need is people claiming the storage vassals are not safe). The best bet is to store them somewhere that won't change much and is safe from attack. A good location would be in the side of a mountain (pretty much what those impossible fortresses of evil are based on).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If given the choice I would rather live around the corner to a nuclear plant then 10km away from a coal plant. The waste from a coal plant may cause big problems (reports of it killing up to 30k people in the US a year) whereas the only waste that can affect you from a plant is non-radioactive steam (the water that comes out from the plant is on a different circuit to the power source so it can't be contaminated).

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear really is the way to go. Chernoble was a result of lax security and safety standards and extreame budget cuts by a economicly waning nation. Nuclear power plants can be very safe as long as the right protocol levels are observed. The waste product storage isn't really that big of a deal, there are thousands of remote, low-water table areas suitible for storage; Siberia,the Northern Canadian sheild, Northern Alaska, and the Antarctic treaty will run out within the decade, and given current U.N./U.S. relations, I doubt the U.S. will sign up again, opening up the possiblity for a gigantic stoarge area. The drawbacks of a nuclear power plants are definetly limiting though... The average lifespan of a nuclear reactor is only 50 or so years before the complex becomes too radioactive to function.(most are shut-down at 40 just to be safe.) Thermal pollution by the plant can also wreak havoc on a rivers ecosystem. Cancer rates will also rise near the plant too .

 

 

 

/quote]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok are you getting thos out of a book? the last two sentences are against the plants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you said that the stuff could be stored in remote location. Thats really not thinking itnot he future very well. We may need that land one day cause of population boom, or other parts of the world are dystroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though a reactor works for up to 50 years, the radiotn keeps going even though its shut down. It will go for hundreds of years. And that would mean that the area that it is occupying couldnt be torn down and used for other stuff becase that land is radioacctive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the exact same thing could happen with any other reactor that could happen with chernobel. And all the threats are the exacte same for any power plant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know those spaces where you said the wast could go, well if you put the solar panals in those places, it would be space better used.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you said that the stuff could be stored in remote location. Thats really not thinking itnot he future very well. We may need that land one day cause of population boom, or other parts of the world are dystroyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though a reactor works for up to 50 years, the radiotn keeps going even though its shut down. It will go for hundreds of years. And that would mean that the area that it is occupying couldnt be torn down and used for other stuff becase that land is radioacctive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the exact same thing could happen with any other reactor that could happen with chernobel. And all the threats are the exacte same for any power plant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know those spaces where you said the wast could go, well if you put the solar panals in those places, it would be space better used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s start farming in buildings because that is one of the biggest space wasters on earth. We could free up huge amounts of space if we farmed animals in building's or done hydroponicsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ in buildings. Let's start thinking about space wasted as a whole before we complain about nuclear waste. Proposed solutions to nuclear waste include using mountain sides which are of no use for us to build on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean reactors last for 50 years (is that from Sim City 2000 or something)? Reactors could last longer a lot longer if properly maintained, the fuel used in reactors are removable these days hence you don't need to build a whole new building if you want more power, just replace the fuel rods. Just like a car, you fill it the tank up with more fuel instead of buying a whole new car.

 

 

 

I guess reactors would last less then 50 years because technology would render the old reactors uneconomical. Who uses 50 year old cars or computers (even homes need renovations to stay useful)?

 

 

 

Once you put all the radioactive material in safe containers your free to remove the building since it's not radioactive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chernobyl can't really be compared to anything it is in a class of its own; if you want to compare the safety look at the Three Mile Island meltdown which occurred in America. It happened BEFORE Chernobyl yet the meltdown was completely contained and no casualties occurred.

 

 

 

The threat of something like Chernobyl is minimal; I would say youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re just as likely to have a problem with a coal plant. There is so much safety policy that any problem in the design and running of the plant would get it shutdown. Safety increases the cost of nuclear power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solar power will take years to get a return. It would take hundred's of square metres to power one home, it's completely unfeasible.