|
Navigate space Add Pro-Con page Add Op-Ed pageAdd Square This page Add Feature Box Add a Quick Link Box Add Sources Box Add RSS Feed Box Add an Op-Ed Box Add a Bottom Line Add a Footnote |
All We the Wiki pages can be viewed without logging in, but if you want to add or edit pages you must register and be logged in.
Nuclear energyHaving urged FDR to build the first nuclear bomb as the threat from Nazi Germany mounted, Albert Einstein later became haunted by the legacy of risks he knew nuclear power had left for us. To that end, he gave this advice: "To the village square we must carry the facts of atomic energy. From there must come America's voice." 30 years since the United States built a nuclear power plant and a climate crisis later (OK so depending on who you ask), nuclear power presents a compelling possibility on a scale large enough to meet energy demands without greenhouse gases. In taking another look at nuclear power, we must do the hard work of understanding the facts and the uncomfortable work of having real conversations between people who disagree. We're a little rusty at both, but up to the challenge I think. The stakes couldn't really get higher. But nuclear carries emotional baggage - the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, big mushroom cloud variety of baggage. We are hardly predisposed to listening dispassionately, and yet we must. In this next generation of America's nuclear debate, some of what we "know" about nuclear power isn't true anymore and some never was. To make good decisions on nuclear energy's future, we need to cut through the emotion and find good facts. In the book Power to Save the World
The EPA has a standard nicknamed Fencepost Man inside the nuclear industry. Fencepost Man is a hypothetical individual that you assume lives all year on the boundary of a nuclear site and grows all his food there and draws all his water from its wells. The people running the site have to make sure that it exposes Fencepost Man to no more than 15 rnillirem a year. As a point of comparison, cooking dinner on a gas stove exposes you to 9 millirem a year.
Labels |
Comments (1)
Aug 02, 2011
Brian Lupiani says:
Re: Quick Fact "There isn't highly enriched uranium at U.S. nuclear plants, so t...Re: Quick Fact "There isn't highly enriched uranium at U.S. nuclear plants, so they'd be unlikely targets for terrorist attacks."
The first part may be fact, but the second is an opinion. It assumes that terrorists (or blackmailers) would ONLY be interested in acquiring material for a nuclear bomb.
I think it's also, if not more, likely that "bad guys" will decide that they could either take a nuclear plant by force ,or threaten to crash an explosives-laden drone or plane into one. While many of us know that they couldn't create a nuclear explosion, not everyone knows or would believe that. The rest of us know that radiation could be released into the air, ground, and water.
One of the main purposes of terrorism is to terrify. I think a threat to release radiation in a populated area would do the trick, especially if it was done by people who were willing to die for their cause.