TED Conversations

HILFI GHASSANI

This conversation is closed.

should we allow the nuclear power,,???

think deeply about the harmful effect,,,,

Share:
  • thumb
    May 22 2011: should we allow chemical processing plants? think about the harmful effects.
    should we allow mining?
    • thumb
      May 23 2011: There are more KrisztianShould we use ground water for irrigation ? Should we drive car & fly plane or go for space exploration ? Should we go for research in bio-tech and field of genetics and so on ......... all these have harmful effects as well
  • thumb
    Jun 2 2011: hi hilfi, my indonesian sister... ^^
    i believe that nuclear energy will be very useful in the future... it is true that it may cause some damages, however...there are thousands people out there who are ready to play their role in in avoiding, or at least minimizing those bad effects if there is something unexpected happen...

    in 2009, there are more than 50 nations were in talks with the UN atomic watchdog to build nuclear power plants... if they are ready with the consequences, why not? this is about whether they are ready or not...

    1. are their people psychologically ready to live under "the feeling of wide-awake" ?
    2. are their geograpic conditions stable enough?
    3. are their human resources eligible enough to handle such kind of great-risky power?
    etc.

    we do need to consider many things in utilizing nuclear power... ^^
    banning the use of nuclear power is not the solution...
    people need light... ^^
  • thumb
    May 31 2011: why not? if handled with care than why not it consumes less and supplies more.It's worth!!
  • thumb
    May 24 2011: Of course we should! Although the tragedy happened in Japan made us feel sad and disappointed about nuclear power, what we really should do is to control the nuclear power and limit the bad effects! We have few options to choose when we abandon the use of nuclear power, we don't have enough resources to develop our society!
    • thumb
      May 24 2011: i would even reject the notion "tragedy". as of now, fukushima caused as much deaths as an average car accident. the tsunami dwarfs the effects of the nuclear accident in every aspect. and though the danger is not yet over, probably it won't get too much worse either.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: The problem with radiation is that it tends to be so long-term...there's going to be an enormous area around the plant where people are going to have to avoid for literally some hundred plus years. I get the feeling the real deaths associated with the Fukushima incident will begin a few decades down the road as multi-generational mutations, cancer and so on start to crop up.
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: this enormous area is 30 to 50km. it is so lightly contaminated, people can probably move back within years. science so far could not find a link between cancer and radiation below 100mSv.
  • May 24 2011: Nuclear energy is not a permanent energy fix but it sure is better than using Coal which is the leading energy producer and also produce the most carbon emissions of the two. As of 2009 Nuclear powers almost 20% of the worlds electricity because of its reliability and affordability. If you want a good example of how nuclear is being used take a look at France. Nuclear powers almost 60% of their electricity.
  • thumb
    May 24 2011: Whether we should "allow" it or not is immaterial...it's here. This is comparable to the banning of drugs we have right now, hundreds of billions of dollars go into trying to stop drug use, production, and sale and it's never even put a dent in the actual business. All banning nuclear power will do is force it into other nations with more lax laws, lesser quality control and so on. Like it or hate it, nuclear power is here and it's not going anywhere.
  • thumb
    May 22 2011: i think ,, we should think over about this effect,,
    surely, it has positive effect,,
    but if there is a mistakes,,
    it can damage many things and give us bad effect in our life..