/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump.

Bump again.

Another bump.

Yet another bump.

Find the "Opposing Viewpoints" book on nuclear power. I would amazon it but I am way to fucking lazy.

>>1759140
Nevermind, I amazon'd it anyway.

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Introducing-Issues-Opposing-Viewpoints/dp/0737744820

>>1759146
Ah, thanks. Any more?

Nuclear power is dangerous and a stupid idea. Solar/wind/hydro power is the way to go.

>>1759162
Typical willfully ignorant media drone.

>inb4 someone strawman my ass to oblivion by saying I am against solar/wind/power

>>1759156
Have you ever read anything from the Opposing Viewpoints series? Unless you are writing some doctoral thesis, you wont need much else than that book.

>>1759162
>Cheap, mostly clean reliable power is dangerous!
>Use Solar(Highly ineffective in anything but a rural setting)
>Use Wind(Highly ineffective as anything but a suppliment power source)
>Use Hydro! (We already do, it's not that great)

Nuclear and/or geothermal are the only sensible options that don't bankrupt a power company in a couple years.

>>1759175
>>1759188

Let me guess, you guys either work in the plants or with someone who wants to build them.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved the unreliability of nuclear power. You're just being optimistically deluded if you think it's still a good idea.

>>1759180
It's for a pretty important paper that I'm going to end up submitting for consideration to get published.
>>1759197
Because technology hasn't advanced since Chernobyl, right? 24 years ago. Longer than you've been alive.

>>1759197
>Three Mile Island
>Casualties: statistically one case of cancer
>Chernobyl
>Soviet Union

>>1759197
>he sites three mile island and chernobyl
>thinks he should be taken seriously
>completely ignores how every other first world country in the world uses oodles and oodles of nuclear power
>mfw

>>1759212
I would get that book as soon as possible, the sources that each of the author's use in their shorts could be helpful in getting more sources that work with what you are trying to say.

It has been awhile since I have read a book from that series, but they were always the most fun, and it would get me really thinking about the topic.

>>1759212
>>1759213

Nuclear power is unreliable and a single screw up can cause the thing to fucking meltdown and kill millions of people if it's near a heavily populated area. Would you sign a paper to build a nuclear plant when you knew that it was possible for that to happen?

It may have been the Soviets, too, but they were just as determined as America during the Cold War. We were just lucky.


>>1759215
>site

>>1759224
Alright, thanks man.

>>1759228
>Nuclear power is unreliable
>Two accidents in 30+ years.
>No accident you're aware of since Chernobyl (24 years ago in the USSR)

>>1759228
If all you can come up with to counter the points is a minor spelling error, you have a long ways to go before you can even have an intellectual conversation about what you had for breakfast.

>>1759197
>implying technology doesn't evolve over 35 years.

The chances of a meltdown with modern reactors(If we were allowed to build them) are so low they shouldn't factor in, especially since numerous fail-safes on in place in even existing facilities.

On top of that, compared to current solar and wind technologies, cost v. power output is to the point they aren't in the same league; by comparison solar and wind can't be looked at on the same projected cost page as nuclear, with wind farms being some-odd 300% more expensive, both initially and over the long term than a similar output nuclear power plant.

But then again those two meltdowns are the only thing keeping coal/natural gas plants in business; three cheers for fear-based propaganda, anyone?

>>1759197
>Three Mile Island and Chernobyl proved the unreliability of nuclear power. You're just being optimistically deluded if you think it's still a good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

>The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attribute A.

>>1759230
I am assuming you are at a university of some sort, but check your library first, they most likely will be able to get it from another library for you if they dont have it. Unless, of course, you like having books like that around.

>>1759237
Fear-based propagande is best propaganda.

>>1759244
It's not so much that I like to have it around, it's that I like to write and take notes in my own books.