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.

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)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 23 2011: This is not a degrade and disposal but a clean up aftermath - Geobacter with nanowires for uranium reduction - what do you think? How effective? What scale?

    Microbes Generate Electricity While Cleaning Up Nuclear Waste -


    And here's another to clean up Nuclear contamination in water - Nanofibres - 1 gram to 1 tonne of water.

    Professor Zhu and ANSTO - like the dumb psychic also states 'we need to solve


    "Even if we decide that nuclear energy is not the way we want to go, we will still need to clean-up what's been produced so far and store it safely,"

    What do you think about this? Can it be funded and developed quickly? How far away are these solutions from being applied in real situation? Could that be one of the reasons Barack Obama decided not to bury waste in a big hole in Yucca Mountain volcanic crater and keep it temporarily stored at US plants?

    Can these solutions suffice to clean up existing waste - stored in underground and deep sea caverns?

    Of the 12 countries involved in producing 4th gen nuclear reactors - most won't be deployed until 2025. The first planned for next year. It will take many more years to decommission and replace all existing reactors. Several United Nations reports have predicted that the increase of natural disasters will ensure forced displacement of populations in all countries around the world to the extent of 250 million by 2025 - the Darfur displacement crisis comprises 4 million today - how can we minimise the risk to citizens in these critical decades - so that we have 1) prevention 2) protection and 3) clean-up as a readiness focus? What steps can we take to deploy 'civil defence' for natural disasters impacting nuclear disasters?

    These are the debates I believe we should be putting our time and energy into - not whether it is green or not. It won't be green until it is. Until then...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.