EVE General Discussion

I live in Australia, not the US. I used the US as a reference because they are the best example of excellent and safe application of nuclear power, given that they've used it more than anyone else and have more plants than anyone else.

I think you'll find that nuclear power is very easy to be afraid of, and that fear drives a lot of the subjective validation that causes you to believe the misinformation spread by companies that want to squeeze every last dollar/euro/ruble they can out of fossil fuels. I'm afraid, though, that what you want is irrelevant to what we need, so you'd better brush up on that nuclear power knowledge so you can stop being afraid because I promise you, nuclear power is coming.

If you're worried about safety, I recommend looking into liquid fluorine thorium reactors.

Plus they hardly ever use baguettes for cooling reactors.

you know what this thread is leading to people......

Mandatory legal notices on everything. Disclaimers up the wazoo:

"Do not try to eat your dominix. The ship, it's fittings, or any other part of said superstructure are not meant for human consumption. CreoDron cannot be held liable for injury, loss, or death following from Dominix consumption. Please refer to the general terms and conditions, clause 23 paragraph B for further reasons why you're a deranged puppy that needs to be explained things like this"

Save New Eden before it's too late! Before dey tuk ar gunz!

Duk-A-DUR!

Not specifically, no. But this is the misconception that leads to arguments against nuclear like the one you made. If I was to write a paper that explores the frequency and reasoning of arguments used against nuclear, I have little doubt that the misconception that reactors can explode would be the number one fear-driving lie that leads people to believe they are a disaster waiting to happen.

FTFY.

Solar power anyone?

Supplementary only, not sustainable. Does the UK even have a sun?

Boy, you asked for it

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/

That's a result of chemical toxicity. Not radiological.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Chemical_toxicity

A teratogenic hazard. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

I might add that similar results were seen in people in combat areas in Iraq in 2004, when no DU was used at all, and then in Fallujah. Also from Wikipedia:

"Four studies in the second half of 2012—one of which described the people of Fallujah as having "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied"—renewed calls for the US and UK to investigate the possible links between their military assault on the city in 2004 and the explosion in deformities, cancers, and other serious health problems, even though no depleted uranium was found in soil samples taken from Fallujah."

There's more correlation between these deformities with conflict in tyrannical regimes than there is with depleted uranium. Uranium, and DU, undergo alpha decay, with the rare chance of uranium emitting double beta decay, but DU doesn't do that. It's highly unlikely that the radiation is causing health problems, but there are toxicity issues with hexavalent uranium uranyl compounds and like any heavy metal, as mentioned above, uranium is gonna be toxic, especially if it's ingested or otherwise gets into your bloodstream. There is no evidence to suggest though that the stuff is causing birth defects and deformities.