TED Conversations

Vivienne Eggers

Writing Thesis on Gaia Peace Philosophies Intl Law & Global Gov , Founder Gaia Life Way Intl Peace Institute

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Nuclear Energy is threat to life. Nuclear clean energy is a spin doctored myth that ignores the huge footprint of nuclear waste clean up

The debate about whether nuclear energy as a power is a commercially viable and clean energy source is ongoing.

Advocates of the nuclear position argue that if you read the 'facts' nuclear energy is even 'green' energy with zero or low carbon footprint.

I contend the position to say nuclear power has a zero footprint when this most lethal, toxic waste is virtually indestructible for millions of years. In scientific engineering, the risk cycle of nuclear power reactors cannot be fully validated as safe until waste can be permanently removed, stored, degraded.

Should governments have a policy to create more nuclear power plants before there is clean up and before 4th generation and further advanced technology can be adequately trialled and tested? Should replacement of old be the necessary policy before any new can be built?

The facts are that although nuclear power makes up 16% of the worlds energy supply - a significantly high incident and failure rate has been experienced since early inception. Every year there is at least one accident.

With the above fact in mind I wish to address the issues of waste solutions. How can we eliminate the critical risk of devastation to human?

What about solutions to degrade or transform it?

How might we remove it? (and permanently remove the risk)

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: I see you put "Japan Nuclear Tragedy" as one of your tags. Remind me how many people died from radioactive poisoning again? I sometimes wonder how on earth the nuclear hysteria managed to overshadow one of Japan's biggest earthquake/tsunamis in centuries, without claiming nearly as many lives, if any. If there's anything that we can learn from Fukushima its that the days of Chernobyl, the one real nuclear catastrophe that claimed still less lives than say Bopal, are over

    The truth is, we have an urgent problem to face, global warming. Renewables are not nearly efficient enough to tackle the problem and returning to carbon would be an absolute nightmare (coal, by the way, whose life-cycle kills many people per year, yet nobody seems to make a huge fuss about that). Nuclear fusion is maybe half a century to a century away. So nuclear fission is, as far as I can see, the lesser of many evils. Not that it's really all that bad to be perfectly honest. The nuclear waste is fairly limited and can be burned down to an extent in each subsequent generation of nuclear reactors. It's not as though all the waste from our current 3rd generation was left indefinitely stored undergroud, some of it has already been reprocesses in a few of these new reactors.

    The dangers of nuclear are overstated. It is a fact.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2011: Sad question Matthieu

      There are over 1000 thousand known bodies in the immediate radius of the power plant that are unable to be recovered due to the extent of radioactive contamination. Due to the high risk there currently no means of doing a full body count.

      In the 20 kilometer radius 70,000 have been evacuated. And a further 60,000 in the 30 kilometer radius. As you will be aware the extent of radiation poisoning and fatalities will not be quantifiable. So we are talking about an impact larger than Horishima. Impacts beyond the immediate zone have not been fully assessed and published. It is also not in Japanese interest to incite public panic. People as far as Tokyo are reporting and presenting with thyroid and other symptoms. Fatality count at this point remains unknown. As with Horishima - the real damage cannot be quantified for generations. Genetic damage and mutations being the greatest and long lasting.

      I so feel for them. Double strike. Two days ago a Japanese citizen told me there was a politician who wanted to close the plants down before the earthquake because he had reports that they were unsafe - mostly 2nd but some 3rd gen - but he was ousted and they stayed. This is another example where commercial gain overrode duty for public safety.

      Out of respect for the grief of Japan - it is a difficult matter to be too explicit - however I feel transparency in solutions by debate could and will help them also.

      I am concerned that we do not allow this practise to continue - and ensure correct action for survival preparation is taken - beyond storing iodine tablets.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: "There are over 1000 thousand known bodies in the immediate radius of the power plant that are unable to be recovered due to the extent of radioactive contamination." You mean dead bodies from the Tsunami? That doesn't count. Unless you think the power plant exploded? It didn't... I don't really get this sentence.

        "As you will be aware the extent of radiation poisoning and fatalities will not be quantifiable. So we are talking about an impact larger than Horishima."

        Ok, so because radiation poisoning is not quantifiable, more than 100,000 will die. What kind of flawed logic is that? You do also realise the fundamental differences between atomic bombs and nuclear power right? I find that comparing nuclear weapons to nuclear plants is often a sign that someone just doesn't know what they're talking about. The result of the atomic bomb was fairly straightforward, the bulk of victims made at the moment of the blast and some of the radiation thereafter. Generations don't really come into it, if anything, studies have shown that a hormesis effect has kicked in in places like Hiroshima: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis. Pretty credible given that life is naturally bathed in radiation at low doses anyway.

        I will agree that the plants should have been closed earlier and that financial gain won over common sense. The rest of your post though is complete jibber-jabber.

        "Out of respect for the grief of Japan"

        The grief over the tsunami. Japan was hit by a tsunami, that's what killed 99-100% of the people that are being grieved. Why is this ignored?

        I don't have interest in pursuing conversation in this thread to be honest, especially after you've claimed psychic powers.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.