The monetatry cost of Nuclear Power

  • Thread starter Thread starter Woodrow
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 30
  • Views Views 4K
MTAFFI said:
The question with Iran is can they pay to clean it up? and if they cant they definitely shouldnt have it

either way nuclear waste is about as bad as you can get for the enviroment, to bad people dont want to spend more time looking at solar or wind or something that doesnt have such horrible by products that will eventually ruin the world for our children... everything seems so grim, I mean with war, waste and other extinction level events the future may truly end sooner than most think imsad
Click to expand...

People think clean it up mean's cleaning nuclear waste. You can't make nuclear waste clean, but what that mean's is safely removing the nuclear waste and it's traces and disposing them in a safe manner.

Which easily can be done. Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it.
 
Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it
Click to expand...
.

We don't have that in Texas yet. The idea is to keep it containerized and hope that some day in the future somebody will find a way to actualy dispose of it.
__________________
 
Skillganon said:
People think clean it up mean's cleaning nuclear waste. You can't make nuclear waste clean, but what that mean's is safely removing the nuclear waste and it's traces and disposing them in a safe manner.

Which easily can be done. Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it.
Click to expand...

yeah they put it in barrels and bury it underground

http://www.uic.com.au/nip49.htm

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=14

those two sites should give you quite a bit of insight as to how bad this waste could eventually be for our enviroment, not to mention that this waste can be stolen and used for weapons grade material
 
MTAFFI said:
not only that but it isnt exactly "proven" that they do have nuclear power, even though we all know that they most likely do
Click to expand...

If you too would read news, you also know that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert admited about month ago that Israel has nuclear weapons... :eek:
 
sister harb said:
If you too would read news, you also know that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert admited about month ago that Israel has nuclear weapons... :eek:
Click to expand...

and if you read the news even further you would see he retracted the statement and denied that Israel had the weapons. However as you quoted in my post everyone knows they have the capability anyways
 
Skillganon said:
Come on if they can produce a nuclear energy facility they will have the knowledge how to dispose it.
Click to expand...

Nobody else has. In every case it's just a matter of deciding which dumping or burying option is the cheapest or least environmentally damaging (depending on political priority).
 
Interesting prime minister if nobody can´t trust his true words... but I have seen he is real zionist. He promised before to president Abbas that roadblocks in the West Bank will lifted... :rolleyes: Yep sure if you trust the words of zionist you really are losted...
 
Woodrow said:
A lot of us in the USA are also wondering the same thing. Israel has no legitimate need for Nuclear Weapons any potential enemies they have are much too close to them for them to risk using nukes. It would be self destruction for them to ever use a nuke.

Only an idiot would risk using a nuke against any country that is less than 10,000 miles away from them.
Click to expand...

There is such a thing called tactical nukes, these would be confined to much smaller areas and could be used against an invading army or part of a city without the widespread damage of a larger one.
:eek:
 
Agnostic said:
There is such a thing called tactical nukes, these would be confined to much smaller areas and could be used against an invading army or part of a city without the widespread damage of a larger one.
:eek:
Click to expand...

that is true. However, they do not make much sense as conventional explosives would be just as feasable and cheaper.

The so called suit case nukes are primarily a terroristic weapon designed to be hand carried and spread terror through the fear of radiation. As a battlefield weapon, they are not needed.

we learned in Nam that the carefull select dropping of small conventionals has the same explosive effect as a nuke for a small area. The main immediate damage from any bomb is caused by the sudden increase in air pressure. You need only double the air pressure in a small area to have total devastation of that area. Small targets only need small bombs. The widespread secondary effects are caused by flying material and fire.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top