Is Nuclear Power an Eminent Threat to Health and Well-Being?

AI Thread Summary
Nuclear power is deemed a critical threat to public health and safety, with calls for its complete abolition. Proposed improvements to nuclear safety are viewed as insufficient to mitigate the risks of catastrophic meltdowns, which could release vast amounts of radioactive material. The discussion emphasizes the urgency for communities with nuclear facilities to advocate for total disarmament. Critics label the arguments for nuclear power as misleading and fearmongering. The conversation highlights a need for credible sources to support ongoing discussions about nuclear energy's risks.
ensabah6
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
The following is from counterpunch, and is copyrighted, but here is the link:

[crackpot link deleted]

conclusion "Nuclear power here earth, however, not only CAN be eliminated, it MUST be. No community with a nuke should settle for less than total abolition of this dire and eminent threat to their health and well-being.

Most possible "improvements" people talk about will have only a relatively minor effect, if any, on the likelihood that the next nuke to melt down might do so explosively -- blowing the top of the reactor pressure vessel more than a mile into the air, spreading 60 to 100 tons of radioactive poison into the atmosphere, poisoning the landscape for hundreds of miles downwind."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
ensabah6 said:
The following is from counterpunch, and is copyrighted, but here is the link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/hoffman06202007.html

conclusion "Nuclear power here earth, however, not only CAN be eliminated, it MUST be. No community with a nuke should settle for less than total abolition of this dire and eminent threat to their health and well-being.

Most possible "improvements" people talk about will have only a relatively minor effect, if any, on the likelihood that the next nuke to melt down might do so explosively -- blowing the top of the reactor pressure vessel more than a mile into the air, spreading 60 to 100 tons of radioactive poison into the atmosphere, poisoning the landscape for hundreds of miles downwind."

Hopefully there will SOON be similar follow up pieces from 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mickey_Mouse.svg" ', or other similarly respectable and carefully referenced sources. Their voices are numerous, but working TOGETHER we can be sure they are heard here in this engineering forum without delay. Edit: corrected format to all caps where appropriate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As mheslep implied, this is pure, unadulterated crap. Most of it is straightforward lies, the rest just intentionally misleading fearmongering/propaganda.

Locked
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top