Is Nuclear Power Too Dangerous?

[raiha]

Well, you can recycle most nuclear waste (cost efficiently at that), and the rest can be put in a lead box under a table.

Cool! Stick it under YOUR gandchild's cradle! Too bad the lead breaks down before the actinides.
The IAEA has stated that one “1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 33 tons of spent fuel a year.” That’s a lot of nuclear waste that has been building up and continues to build up for onsite above ground storage. But, we don’t have to worry about that now, its an issue for a future generation.

Human beings, whether they be government bureaucrats, multinational corporations, or free market capitalists, will constantly need to watch the, oh so complex ethical dilemma, between compromising ethics and profit. Radioactive emmissions are conveniently invisible, so it is easier to get away with skulduggery. I don't care who you are, calling it is costly, hiding it is not! Humans are humans.

 

[jmdrake]

Current big government uranium / plutonium producing fusion reactors are too dangerous. But that's not the only option. It's the only option being pushed because:

A) It can be used to create nuclear weapons.

B) It requires big government funding.

C) It requires big government regulation.

There are other nuclear options that don't fit A, B or C.

1) Cold fusion. (Yes. It really does work).

2) Depleted uranium reactors. (And our government has the nerve to claim this stuff doesn't cause birth defects).

3) Thromium reactors. Killed by Richard Nixon because he only wanted the uranium reactors because of reason A.