Why are people so anti-nuclear power?

[Aehl]

Well the problem is if you attack a nuclear country there is a possibility of setting off all of their bombs, missiles, or nuclear power plants.

WTF??

Nuclear weapons are NOT fratricidal, you cannot "set off " a nuclear plant as a nuclear plant isnt a fission device....where the HELL did you get this from?

Are you not old enough to remember Chernobyl? If so here is something for you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Why did Chernobyl happen? Because the Russian techs deactivated the safety systems that would have prevented it.

The event occurred during a late-night safety test which simulated a station blackout power-failure and in which safety systems were deliberately turned off.

[Wikiy]

Not taking the bait.

It's not a bait. What is it you think can happen? A reactor can "melt", penetrate the 10-odd layers of protection, have its nuclear fuel spill into a river, and then that contaminated water spreads to kill off humanity and other species? What are we talking about here?

[The High Druid]

Because when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_...sland_accident

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukush...clear_disaster


And not only that, we don't know what to do with the by-products:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU

[Dsonsion]

Not taking the bait.

I don't know why you're calling it bait, I really want to know what you mean by great potential risks.

[Alydael]

It's the most efficient source of energy we have to this day and the most reliable, so why are so many people against it?

We can increase the efficiency tenfold, if not more, from the same amount of fuel compared to old reactors if we would build new ones today. We could develop reactors that can use the waste of the reactors today as fuel. We could reduce the waste to only last centuries instead of millennia.

Unlike solar or wind energy, nuclear power is far more reliable and does not rely on good weather conditions to produce power.

Nuclear power is actually fantastic and very clean.

The only problem is, when something goes wrong (think Chernobyl or Fukishima) it goes really wrong. I think scientists can still detect radiation from Chernobyl in the animals in eastern Europe. I still don't think anyone lives there.

[Paulosio]

look into what actually happened with chernobyl. it was a disaster created by a russia trying to win the nuclear arms race. very cheaply made, unsafe, no real safety protocols. a modern, well-built nuclear power plant has little to no chance of that result.

Fukushima too. Accidents can happen with anything... The problem is when accidents happen with a nuclear power plants the results are more serious and the resulting problems can last for generations.

[snplisk]

And not only that, we don't know what to do with the by-products:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU

Getting your information from current year guy. lol
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#4b7900618f5c

[Shakari]

Plain fear of the results of what happens if it do go wrong, no matter how unlikely. The cultural impacts of events like Chernobyl is a pretty major factor.

Very much this ... doesn't matter if its a very small chance something will go wrong, the fact that an area will be uninhabitable for 10's of thousands of years it it does is a rather huge negative in most peoples minds.

[Dsonsion]

Anyone has data on the current radiation levels around the Chernobyl and Fukushima plants? I had it linked somewhere but seem to have misplaced it.

[Selastan]

I'm all for it, 100%. We need any and all resources available on our planet devoted to Cold Fusion research.

[Shalcker]

That's what has been promised for decades now, "there won't be any accidents, it's modern tech! It's 3rd generation! It's safe!" And then it isn't, like before. Excuse me if i don't believe those fairy tales anymore.

You do know that Fukushima is even older plant then Chernobyl, right?

Nowhere near 3rd generation.

- - - Updated - - -

General lack of education and average IQ.

Perhaps even dropping average IQ... you do need actually competent people to operate them, and those seem to be in short supply nowdays...

[Zecora]

Why are people so anti-nuclear power?

Because they are intelligent enough to consider the enormous drawbacks of nuclear power? And because they know recent history.

[Shalcker]

Ever seen a gas station explode? Still seem to be using those. Ever heard of a mine collapse? people still work there. Ever seen a boat sink? Ppl still use those? Ever seen a plane crash? Ppl still fly in them. Ever seen a car crash? People still drive them. Point is, if your fear of death is stopping you from doing somthing that makes life easier. Then why get out of your house?

"Look how many people died from collapsing houses too! What, earthquake engineering? Better materials? Better designs? But people keep dying every year due to houses collapsing in earthquakes! Clearly solution is not to build any houses! The risk is too high!"

Oh right because you cant just look at oh someone could die from this and then not look at all the benefits that come from using the product.

[Fojos]

Because most people are anti-science and anti-technology, on both political sides.

Just look at how the general public, especially on this page, treat GMO technology as a bad thing.

[Fuiking]

look into what actually happened with chernobyl. it was a disaster created by a russia trying to win the nuclear arms race. very cheaply made, unsafe, no real safety protocols. a modern, well-built nuclear power plant has little to no chance of that result.

Nice... Ever heard of Cattenon, Tihange and Doel? Those 3 are in a bad shape, if they go, they will take out much of Belgium and the Netherlands.

[Fojos]

Because they are intelligent enough to consider the enormous drawbacks of nuclear power? And because they know recent history.

If they actually knew recent history they would still know it's the safest. You know niclear weapons exist regardless of nuclear reactors?

[Sargerasraider]

First, the amount of people in this thread that have conflated nuclear power and nuclear weapons is astounding.

Second, nuclear energy provided the only realistic method to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. We should have been expanding our supply 30-40 years ago. Unfortunately, since renewables are not yet ready to meet our needs, we either go back to living in the forest, or we keep emitting carbon. Congratulations.

[Atrea]

It's the most efficient source of energy we have to this day and the most reliable, so why are so many people against it?

We can increase the efficiency tenfold, if not more, from the same amount of fuel compared to old reactors if we would build new ones today. We could develop reactors that can use the waste of the reactors today as fuel. We could reduce the waste to only last centuries instead of millennia.

Unlike solar or wind energy, nuclear power is far more reliable and does not rely on good weather conditions to produce power.

Well, for starters - I'm not sure who you're talking about when you talk about "so many people" being against nuclear power. But moreover; why throw shade (pardon the pun) on solar or wind energy? Why even bring them up?

Like you said; nuclear power is the most efficient source of energy we have to this day, and is the most reliable.

It does have its drawbacks, however.

Unfortunately, like most other forms of energy production, nuclear power is reliant upon fuel - a non-renewable, finite natural resource. No matter how efficient we make the reactors, that will never change. As power generation originates from a central point (the power plant itself), its service delivery is by its very nature limited to an electrical supply grid. Meaning, your access to nuclear power is still dependent on a more or less direct line between your outlet and the power plant. If any point in that chain breaks, your power is out.

Consider as well that there are some places on Earth without access to such an electrical grid; not just remote places either. Places not far from your own back yard have limited access to electrical power. It's just a fact of life; you can't put electric poles everywhere.

But solar and wind power are self-contained. While large solar and wind farms exist, personal versions do as well.
Unchained to an electrical grid, solar and wind power allow for access to electrical power anywhere on the planet. They are a limitless resource, not dependent on fuel, and pose no great risk if mishandled -- the worst that could happen is a structure could fall on someone, or some of the storage batteries become damaged somehow; the method itself is not inherently dangerous.

In the real world, there's no single right answer to a question as complicated as "meeting the world's energy needs". Nuclear power is an integral part of meeting the demand of those needs. But it isn't the only player in the game, and putting down the other players in the game - particularly the ones on the same team - is just asinine.

[willtron]

Well the problem is if you attack a nuclear country there is a possibility of setting off all of their bombs, missiles, or nuclear power plants.

Nuclear weapons aren't some crazy volatile thing that explodes if you look at it funny. It's pretty difficult to get a nuclear bomb to go off.

[Biomega]

Because they are intelligent enough to consider the enormous drawbacks of nuclear power? And because they know recent history.

And yet they seem strangely oblivious (or outright in denial) of the enormous drawbacks of fossil fuels. Just because it doesn't go boom in one second and kills some people doesn't mean it doesn't kill A LOT MORE people in the long run. Global warming is one of the most dangerous threats to human existence, and yet people are happy to point fingers at Chernobyl and Fukushima as the chimneys behind them go on their merry way.

No one is saying nuclear power doesn't have dangers, but any evidence we have says that it's EXTREMELY safe overall. People have already brought up the plane crash comparison, and it's very apt - 100 people dying in a plane is a very emotional image that sears itself into your mind, while the fact that 100 people A DAY die in automobile accidents in the USA alone is blissfully ignored (37,461 deaths in 2016 according to the NHTSA).

Nuclear power is a very volatile issue in the public eye, and the debate is heated and not very informed. Publicity is the key word here. Things like Germany pulling out of nuclear power completely looks good on TV, but where do people think the power is going to come from now? Surely not solar plants and wind farms, those are far, far away from providing enough to meet the demand.