[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 840x578, nuclearpower[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1774682 No.1774682 [Reply] [Original]

Writing a paper on the advantages of nuclear energy and the general public's irrational fear of it.

Picking up the Opposing Viewpoints on the subject, any other book recommendations?

>> No.1774686

1) Go to a church
2) Do survey
3) Gather results

>> No.1774691

Cracked.com wrote on article on this, blamed it on the Simpsons. Plagiarize it.

Also, I personally blame Chernobyl and communism/liberalism's general irresponsibility with nuclear power for scaring rational people away from it.

>> No.1774699

>>1774682
there is nothing irrational about potential Chernobyl-like incidents and nuclear waste-products

>> No.1774693
File: 170 KB, 400x400, what_the_fuck_am_i_reading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1774693

>communism/liberalism's general irresponsibility with nuclear power for scaring rational people away from it

>> No.1774701

>>1774691
I do plan on mentioning the Simpsons, but not zeroing in on it. I would mention STALKER too, but my credibility would go with it. The main reasons are shit like the Simpsons, then Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

>> No.1774702

>>1774699
You can say that about a lot of other technological advantages that can potentially help us for the greater good.

>> No.1774703

>>1774699
Yes there is. US reactors -- and all other 1st world reactors -- are in fucking containment buildings.

>> No.1774707

>>1774699
Chernobyl was what, 25 years ago? In Soviet fucking Russia? Technology has gone a long way. Reactors are contained. Three Mile Island was largely because of poorly trained techs. We just need to take the right precautions.

>> No.1774708

>>1774699
That'll only happen if liberals are put in charge of running them, like in the USSR.

>> No.1774709

even nuclear is a temporary power source. Uranium decays whether or not we use it, I know the rate is slow, but mining it is hard and processing it is hard, and the amount on earth is limited. I support wind power as the source of the majority of our energy, if there is a windmill accident you're fine as long as you are at least one falling windmill radius away.

>> No.1774716
File: 73 KB, 315x215, chernobyl_site.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1774716

>the general public's irrational fear of it.
Those irrational Chernobyl citizens evacuating a perfectly good city.

>> No.1774717

>>1774709
WIND TURBINES.
WIND TURBINES YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

WINDMILLS DON'T DO SHIT. YOU WANT WIND TURBINES.

>> No.1774722

>>1774716
At least we got artifacts and emissions.

>> No.1774723

>>1774716
>implying any place in russia can be considered at all "good"

>> No.1774732

It's like the airplane industry, really. Yeah, when accidents happen, it's really awful. However, it's cleaner, cheaper, more efficient, less wasteful, and when you tally the deaths and health problems associated with Nuclear power plants against the deaths and health problems that result from our other current transportation methods(which are less efficient, so we have far more of these), the statistics in favor of flying long distances versus driving are staggering.

It's the same for nuclear power. One plant goes down, kills a few people, everybody quails. However, we have far more fossil fuel plants which cause acid rain, air pollution, and regular work hazards.

Just do the math. Nuclear is the way to go.

>> No.1774735

So about them books.

>> No.1774739

>>1774709

I agree renewable energy is good...but do you have any idea how LITTLE power we get from wind turbines...we'd have to cover virtually every spec of open land to even come close to enough power

>> No.1774741

>>1774732

Didn't catch my analogy error in the first paragraph, where I say "nuclear" instead "airplanes."

>> No.1774754

So... No books.

>> No.1774758

>>1774702
>solar

>wind

and best candidate

>geothermal

also I would not mind teh nukes if it could be made mor efficient instead of "burning" shitloads of U-235 just to try shove U-238 up our asses afterwards

>> No.1774772

ITT: LEEBERULZ AND COMMIEZ ARE BE TAKING MAI FREEDUMZ!!1!

>> No.1774785

So does /sci/ have something against books?

>> No.1774798

>>1774732

Then use solar power. Virtually 0 deaths and, is potentially more efficient.

>> No.1774812

Use nuclear power to build massive dams near frozen areas, then use nuke power to melt ice.
There ya go.

*Be sure to have ever flowing waterfall design. Duh.

>> No.1774814

>>1774798
Space.

>> No.1774824

>>1774732
I dispute the air travel safety statistics. They are all based on the distance traveled not on the time spent traveling. Often quoted 50 times safer to travel by plane. I have spent probably more than 1000 times longer in my car than I have in an aircraft in my life which means on a time basis I am 20 times more likely to die in an aircraft. That is why life insurance premiums are much higher for pilots than taxi drivers. The insurance companys know the true statistics where the airline companys use spin doctors.

>> No.1774825

BOOKS.

I NEED BOOKS.

I NEED BOOKS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY. PERHAPS SOME EXPLORING THE CAUSES OF EVENTS LIKE LIKE CHERNOBYL AND THREE MILE ISLAND, OR MAYBE ON THE PUBLIC FEAR ITSELF.

THANK YOU /SCI/.

>> No.1774826

>>1774785
you can't intimidate a book into giving you the answer by implying it is not intelligent enough to give it

>> No.1774829

>>1774826
Good point.

I was hoping that by posting at 2 AM, I would get some nice Eurobros.

>> No.1774851
File: 277 KB, 699x945, 1284812082399.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1774851

>>1774825

>> No.1774855

>>1774693
How do explain communist russia being pro-nuclear?

>> No.1774875

>>1774851
Just frustrated.

>> No.1775011

So nothing?

>> No.1775045

NOTHING AT ALL?

>> No.1775051

>>1775045
>>1775011
I'M A /SCI/DUCK! I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER OUTSIDE OF KILLING SNORKS IN RED FOREST!!

>> No.1775057

>>1775051
Right. You go ahead and write a research paper off the top of your head and come back to me when it gets taken seriously.

>> No.1775079

OK here is an attempt. I was doing a lab and one of the experiments involved looking at various radiation sources and measuring the penetration of the radiation through lead. Anyway I took one of the sources for a laugh and held it up to my crotch. My lab partner had a wee freakout. He thought I would do permanent damage and have mutant babys. When I pointed out that the source was alpha particles (labeled alpha) and showed him in the experiment they were stopped by foil. So then when I did it with the other source (beta) after the experiment where we saw it penetrate several lead blocks again he freakedout. The source was small maybe a few hundred times background. Anyway I pointed out that pilots get larger doses of radiation than I got holding the source.
People have a unjustified fear of radiation because of the few accidents. My physics lecturer showed us a picture of the king holding a lump of Uranium and said that it feels warm! He told us the story of how marie currie died due to radiation exposure but her husband died from being run over and said that working with radioactive materials even when the dangers were not understood was safer than crossing the road.

>> No.1775112

>>1774798
not the guy you are replying to but you said it yourself
>potentially
here you go

>> No.1775120
File: 122 KB, 959x610, uranium - Google Search_1284882226817..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1775120

Everyone knows how Marie curie died but not many know how Pierre Curie died. This is an example of how the dangers of radiation are overstated.
Do a google image search for uranium (pic related). What are the images that stick in your mind? There are 4 images of scientists holding large pieces of Uranium but I bet you see the 4 images of mutant babys first.
There is an unjustified culture of fear around radioactivity.

>> No.1775284

Chernobyl is enough of a reason to fear it.

Get working on that thorium, scientists!

>> No.1775290

Depleted uranium is only harmful as a toxic metal, like mercury, not as a source of radiation. It has a half-life of hundreds of millions of years.

>> No.1775305

>>1775284
That's incompetent Russians. Nuclear powers requires lots of safety precautions, yes. Have an independent body testing the safety.