Are you in support of Nuclear power?

[crimsonblue]

Poll question: Are you in support of Nuclear power?

Are you for nuclear power or against it?

[redqueen]

1. Take this shit to GD.

x(

:P

[Inchworm]

7. Hehe

If it doesn't involve alchohol, nekkid bodies, humor, or controllable emotions... signed!

:rofl:

Oh.. or general questions.

How's tricks? :P

:hi:

[redqueen]

10. Fruity!

I wish they hadn't added grape flavored balls though.

:P

:hi:

[hobbit709]

2. What kind of nuclear power?

Fission-NO
Fusion-Yes.

[crimsonblue]

4. interestingly...

scientists are close to confirming the existence of cold fusion. The problem to this point has been developing tools sensitive enough to verify the claims. I figure we are about 15-20 years from cold fusion being a reality.

[Lionel Mandrake]

18. Cold fusion was debunked a long time ago.

When competent chemists repeated the experiment of Pons and Fleishman, the results were negative.

It has also been pointed out that the amount of fusion claimed by those fools would have produced enough neutrons to kill them. The only plausible explanation for the lack of neutrons is that nuclear fusion did not occur in their experiment.

Nowadays the only funding for cold fusion comes from gullible investors.

[Juche]

20. And the navy

Gullible investors and the navy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510589,00.html


Twenty years ago this week, a pair of previously unknown scientists stunned the world by announcing they'd done the impossible by achieving nuclear fusion in a lab flask at room temperature.

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons quickly became celebrities as the news media hailed them for discovering a cheap source of nearly limitless power. But it all fell apart as other scientists couldn't duplicate their results, and the pair later admitted they'd made mistakes in the experiments.

Now a U.S. Navy researcher, speaking on the anniversary of their announcement and in the same city where they made it, thinks Fleischmann and Pons may have been right.


And its fox news to boot.

As far as nuclear, as a constant load bearing form of electricity that is not dependent on the climate (wind, tides, sun) it could be ok but I would prefer geothermal to nuclear for that purpose. Geothermal is cheaper and safer.

Nuclear is ok, but it is probably the most expensive way to get electricity.

[Lionel Mandrake]

22. I'm surprised at the Navy.

They should know better. Here's what's wrong with the research in question:

http://www.chemistry-blog.com/tag/pamela-mosier-boss/

[mainegreen]

3. No. I think everyone should have tubes to capture their farts.

The farts would be deposited and central fart repositories and processed into electricity.
Also, car seats would have input nozzles in the seats too.

[realisticphish]

5. assuming we have good plans for waste storage/disposal

100% for it. Much cleaner, and fairly low risk with modern technologies. Again, though, we would need to be careful about waste disposal, though

[surrealAmerican]

13. That's an awfully big assumption there.

We never have had good plans for waste storage before, I don't see why we would in the future either, and that's an very long future when you're talking about nuclear waste.

[realisticphish]

14. yes

but that's what i'm saying. for me the issue isn't meltdown, or anything, but rather the disposal. And honestly, i think something sun-related is the best bet.

[Initech]

6. I'll be sure to wear my "I Love 3 Mile Island" shirt

[realisticphish]

16. Three Mile Island was a success

Chernobyl was a fuck up, but at Three Mile Island, the safety measures totally worked. No radiation was released, and the problem was contained to one part of the facility

[Inchworm]

8. Never on a sex toy

:hi:

[no name no slogan]

9. No. I prefer nucular power

as well as wind and solar.

[old mark]

11. Didn't when it was new, but it's already up and running, so lets

use it. I guess this is a Yes.
Back when the big power companies were pushing for the first Nuc plants to be built, they ream a lot of TV ads saying that the average electric bill would be $10 a month when the friendly atom plants were making electricity, and the air would be clean and the water pure.

Still waiting on this.

mark

[LSdemocrat]

12. Let's put it this way: it should be easier to build a nuclear plant than it is to build a coal plant

[nomorenomore08]

15. I would say tentatively "yes," as a *partial* solution to our energy needs.

Beyond very real issues like pollution and climate change, there's the simple fact that the world's supply of fossil fuels has to start running out at some point. And I don't think any one "alternative" energy source can completely pick up the slack. So therefore, I think that in the future we'll have to depend on some combination of solar, wind, water, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. I realize there are serious downsides to nuclear power, but if we want to continue powering and feeding our civilization, we may not have a choice.

[ChazII]

17. yes n/t

[DS1]

19. Yes.

Science will prevail.

[bluedigger]

21. A qualified no.

If cost effective engineering solutions could provide safe nuclear power and dispose of the waste safely as well, then I would accept it as a sustainable source of energy. Right now, I don't think those solutions have been provided. Geothermal, solar, wind, and tidal sources of energy seem to have much more potential at this time.