Why does the average person hate nuclear power?

Raid active or something like that makes people die and mutate so it's scary and worse it can even blow up an entire city and kill everyone earth.

Would building nuclear power plants underground help with the radiation and safety?

... they already are built underground.

the part you see is just the steam tower. nuclear power plants are literally just steam engines. all the nuclear stuff does is get hot to boil water. it's kind of disappointing.

Lacking deeper understanding, the average person relies on heuristically evaluating emotional value through association with concepts that do have an established emotional value (radiation, nuclear weapons, chernobyl, fukushima...)

The solution is either to increase understanding, or more practically, promote positive nuclear energy related concepts to guide this shitty heuristic people are using.

I propose we produce and positively market homeopathic medicine manufactured from nuclear waste to achive this (which also has the nice side effect of discrediting homeopathic medicine...).

>Lethal radioactive poisoning generally leads to death.
no shit

They don't understand that regulations permit coal power plants to spew out more radioactive pollution than nuclear power plants.

>no shit

None whatsoever, dick face

>work in city hall engineering department
>a local politician read about lockheed martin's compact fusion generators being worked on
>asks us to write a report about it for the future
>write 10-20 pages about fusion, pros and cons, prices, etc.
Was fun but too expensive.

Wait till we can achieve ignition using d-t ice pellets. Then we will be cooking with gas!

Wait a second....

Because a nuclear incident in part of a Japanese plant, not even a full plant catastrophe, has effectively poisoned the Pacific for decades.

Wrong

this

Castle Bravo did far worse damage to the Pacific Ocean than the Fukashima disaster did.

because radiation is extremely dangerous. people are scared of airport scanners, x-rays and CT scans, and you think they're going to be cool with something that can melt-down at any moment and blast them with at least 100 milisieverts to multiple sieverts of ionizing radiation and give them cancer at a rate that is highly increased to what their natural risk was? That's fucking retarded.

And do we still test fire hydrogen bombs in the ocean?

Radioactive waste lasts for a gorrilion years.

Up until the 1990's we did.

And yes, those isotopes are still present in our oceans.

Fukushima was small potatoes relative to the nuclear testing we conducted for 40 years

Because everytime there's an accident, the place becomes uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years.

Why bother with dangerous materials when you get free energy from the sun? The sun is also a nuclear reactor and much farther away and hence safer.

>posting the same fucking tsunami map as if it was radiation
Every thread

Because it's the one thing France does right other than pic related.

H8ers.

theres a good point under that paranoia - we missed the boat on the generation in which it would have been wise to keep building out more nuclear base capacity

at this point the cost curves for renewables are fine

because the word "nuclear", call it green energy and everyone is on board

>at this point the cost curves for renewables are fine
kek

hgggghhnnnnnhtedrbtjhkj

When Three Mile Island went critical, you lost the right to say that nuclear reactors are completely safe.

When Chernobyl went critical, you lost the right to say that accidents were the result of poor design and not inherent to all reactors.

When Fukushima went critical, you lost the right to fucking speak.

poor quality bait

Saudi funded propaganda

Eat shit and die you worthless waste of human skin.

>your average nuke shill

Right. I get paid for sitting on my laptop responding to uneducated meth junkies like you.

Because nuclear is fucking shit you brainlet. Nothing will ever beat solar. It is the end all of power.

Well, fuck, it is okay then.

nuclear isn't flexible enough for the energy needs of the future. at best, it will be used for large industrial loads.

Of course it is. We are still detecting the radioactive fallout from that explosion

I don't think the person who drew that really understood what a Dyson sphere is.

...

If your're going to try and pass the Tsnumai Wave height map off as a radiation map, you should at least use the version that doesn't say "Maximum Wave amplitudes"

That's totally "maximum radiation wave amplitudes".

I think it's sorta hilarious at this point

Because nuclear waste

The CANDU reactor is the best reactor. Third worlders should live up to the standards of the modern age tb.qh

Because nuclear power competes with the oil porky, basically.

Fukushima isn't exactly helping things. Now they are claiming the rods have likely melted through containment and could end up in the ocean and be the largest radio active disaster ever.

FYI the same people also don't know that there are more than one type of reactor

Because when it goes wrong, it goes insanely dangerous
>Chernobyl
>three mile island
>Fukushima

Nuclear is also very subject to political tensions. I have in mind plutonium recycling vs just considering it a waste if uranium keep being that cheap.

Nuclear is a "short term solution", as we suppose that when nuclear resources will run out, we will have solved the energy crisis.

But often, the people hating on nuclear power are the very same people that don't want to give away their standard of living.

>There is no RadAway
WROOOONG. It's called Ex-Rad.

...okay so it's not a catch-all cure for lethal radiation poisoning but hey we're getting there.

Artists usually are not scientists, engineers, or mathfags. they get a pass because "magic tech."

It scares people because it's new and buggy.

Do people not live in hiroshima or nagasaki? Nuclear CAN make a place uninhabitable, but not every accident leads to that.

Because they think nuclear power gives cancer magically.

You know more people die per kilowatt/hour due to coal and oil plants, right?

>can be fit in a vault about the size of a quarter of a football field very safely
Except that is not true. We are already having trouble with stored radioactive waste from < 50 years ago.

And it is dangerous for tens of thousands of years. You just cannot ensure that it will be safely locked away for that long. You cannot even properly plan ahead 100 years. And all the while new waste is produced. How little it may be, it adds up to a lot.

Either:

A) they're uneducated about the subject or,

B) they recognize the many benefits and understand the process, but also know that accidents, while rare, can be absolutely devastating and have huge ramifications for decades or even centuries to come. Additionally, because of this, they make for extremely tempting targets for terrorism, enemy military action, and make for a huge risk during natural disasters (depending on location/design and severity of event)

I forgot to add on to 'B' - also, dealing with the waste results is a huge problem because there's no way to guarantee that our methods will be safe for the huge amount of time for this shit to fully decay.

Chernobyl plant shut down 10 years after the disaster. There are people living inside the exclusion zone just fine. Areas like that are probably more inhabitable than your average coal mining town. It's mostly a matter of radiation being invisible and therefore scarier than blacklung or predatory tigers.

Commie get out reeeeee
Communist stupidity is one of the biggest reasons nuclear is so feared these days.

Because they realise that if you used nuclear instead of fossil fuels, the waste produced would be far greater than it is right now, especially considering an increasing population

>Onconova suggests that Ex-Rad protects cells exposed to radiation against DNA damage, and that the drug's mechanism of action does not involve scavenging free radicals or arresting the cell cycle. Instead, they claim it employs a "novel mechanism" involving "intracellular signaling, damage sensing, and DNA repair pathways".[4]
Sounds an awful lot like a bunch of solar freaking roadways to me

What? Nukes are way cleaner than reactor accidents.

It's so little they've been storing it on site at the reactors after the 3 faggots that live near Yucca mountain got the project stopped.

And if we were actually serious about nuclear, we would reprocess said waste into far more fuel. What does end up totally unusable can just be buried. Volumetrically the far least intrusive kind of waste. Nuclear waste is not nearly the problem it is made out to be.

>all the nuclear stuff does is get hot to boil water. it's kind of disappointing.
Thats what my reaction was too when I tood thermodynamics

They're afraid

or you know the fact that it literally says "tsunami"

Because they're conditioned to think so.

You dumb niggers need to stop posting this as a reply. Your post can start with this, then be followed by an actual explanation, otherwise just shut the fuck up and stop looking dumber than the post you are replying to.

>CANDU
DINDU sounds not very promising.
Russian fast neutron reactors are the future. VVER is the very cool present.
Anyway, which reactors are the best shall be decided over a hockey match.

Why not just dump the waste into the Earth core? Worked just fine in Master of Orion 2.

Is this a serious question? Because the answer is that there is no need for such measures. It's fine.

I've wondered something like this too. Not the core just the mantle. Seriously why not?

Cost money to bury nuclear waste. Especially that deep.

Keep in mind the deepest anyone has drilled is roughly 7.5 miles underground (see Kola Borehole). Modern alloys, lubricants and methods really cannot drill much deeper than this.

There was an idea floated some years ago about deep-sixing nuclear waste at an active fault line deep under water. The idea is one continental plate would take the waste and "fold it" underneath another via the active fault line. The problem is the fault line isn't moving quickly enough to dispose of the waste and there is the issue of radioactive material leeching into the ocean. The idea was eventually abandoned.

---a clarification , the idea was to send the nuclear waste down to the mantle via that fault line

Bear in mind that there were two options to dispose of nuclear waste...1) as you said, toss it into a subduction zone, and 2) drill into a salt dome, which is one of the most stable geologic formations out there. When people began to realize that the options were to put the stuff in either the most or least geologically stable formations, they realized they didn't have a damn clue what they were talking about

Why not toss it into active volcano? Uranium and sheit is heavy and will surely sink into molten silicon, what could possibly go wrong?

>Intracellular signalling
What do you know, now a cell can talk to itself!

That is correct.

Yucca Mountain was the other location.

But that literally became a political hot mess for the US government so that too was abandoned.

>inb4 getting Superman to toss it to the sun like he did in that one awful movie

I'm sure it end result will eventually be some weird (and somewhat toxic) antidote that vaguely resembles Prussian Blue

So what do you recommend a nuclear capitalist empire?

Solar is just uncontrolled nuclear

>t. wizard scientist

Bring Russian physicists and engineers behind the tokamak design to America, give them 4 times the funding and access to the NIF at Lawrence Livermore and have them build a power generator.

It will be a glorious day when we achieve ignition. Imagine the looks on the faces of the Germans when we achieve a monumental first in human technology

>mein gott our Wendlestein-X ich sheiss

Because nuclear power is retarded. This isn't a conservative website, go shill somewhere else.

>nuclear power is retarded

ITER requires an international collaboration for it just to achieve lengthy fusion with no output. Those superconductors, magnets, shields etc all come from around the globe. You think US got it all except for some russian physicists?

How will we store the waste safely for millions of years

I don't have to propose anything. I am merely rejecting your proposition. It won't work and will just make things worse. Unlike you I've experienced it.

I was actually being a little sarcastic. However we have what most other countries don't have: money.

Yes even in this shitty economic climate we have the ability to raise capital. At least more quickly than say the Germans.

In all seriousness you make a point about ITER. I think it's important to note that the ITER has a higher chance of success than most other projects, given the collaboration and the funding.

Side note: the NIF isn't a complete failure. I think someone is gonna figure out how to sustain first plasma for longer than several minutes at that facility (and that research will aid the ITER team in France)

There has been a pretty strong cultural conditioning to make us equate "radiation" with "YOU WILLDIE HORRIBLY FROM INCURABLE DICK CANCER!!!!"

Given that erroneous equation, fearing nuclear anything is not unreasonable. Especially given now little people know about the sources of radiation in their lives. You see that in everything from people who were terrified of the security scanners at the airport before boarding a flight across the country, or the people near me who worry, however slightly, about the radiation from a nuclear plant 15 miles away when there is a big honking pile of gently radiating coal outside the coal fired plant 10 miles away.

Since radiation is not measured in centimeters (see scale at lower right," this map has nothing to do with radiation. As somebody will have pointed ut by now, this is a map of the height of the tsunami wave as is propagated across the Pacific.

>radiation is extremely dangerous

And what about chemicals?!!? Can't forget how dangerous chemicals are!!!