Radiology Questions

ANSWERS FOR RADIOLOGY STUDENTS

Radiology School

..Why are people so scared of Nuclear Energy?

France is 70% Nuclear Fission, yet many countries are too frightened to see it as their main source of ,energy. Waste?.

.. fossil fuels yearly produce 27.000 million tons of CO2 a year, the same energy produced from nuclear – fission reactors would generate two million times less waste and occupy a sixteen – metre cube. CO2 is invisible and has the potential to kill everyone..

Peoples fears in my opinion are uninformed.. and often misplaced.

And WHY are we not not investing everything into the potential successes of Nuclear Fusion which could solve all of our energy and pollution problems!!

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

  • reggie says:

    Perhaps most fear is due to the unknown and scare stories. However those who are informed should still be afraid because ultimately nuclear programmes are run by ignorant, penny pinching governments

    September 2, 2013 at 10:28 am
  • knownout says:

    It is not the energy as such ,, it is the means of producing it , people are frightened of nuclear plants ,, Remember Chernobyl and that island place in America , a fault or leak can have such long lasting effects , mm So build a huge plant in the Arctic perhaps and supply the whole of the country from it ,, not have lots dotted about

    September 2, 2013 at 11:03 am
  • Bazspur6 says:

    its the penaltys people pay when it goes wrong as in chernobyl. it’s a high price to pay. if it was introduced it would be no cheaper as the power company’s are corrupt and will fix the prices anyway. people should look to create their own power source with wind turbines and geothermal heating.

    September 2, 2013 at 11:36 am
  • Twisted_Ace says:

    Why are people scared?

    Chernobyl.
    Three Mile Island
    Browns Ferry
    Rancho Seco
    Davis Besse
    Turkey Point
    St. Lucie
    Beach Point
    Kyshtym
    Windscale
    Sellafield
    Saint Laurent
    Tokaimura
    SL-1
    Goiânia
    Asco

    That list of disasters (and more…) is why people are scared of nuclear energy.

    September 2, 2013 at 12:25 pm
  • timothy p says:

    Chernobyl and three mile island come to mind.

    Chernobyl was a huge disaster that impacted a large portion of an entire continent. The area still isn’t habitable and will not be for quite some time.

    Very seldom does something go wrong, but when it does it is potentially on a very large scale.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm
  • stl_luna_7 says:

    They are afraid of a meltdown. But with the newer containment systems there appears less chance of that happening. The only issue I can see is the nuclear waste and what to do with it.

    September 2, 2013 at 1:26 pm
  • Micheal says:

    It may destruct anything,that you can image.

    September 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm
  • Arlene says:

    I don’t know if you know much about Three Mile Island. They almost went to complete meltdown in the 70′s and there is always Chernobyl which is still an uninhabitable contaminated area to this day. These plants work only as well as the people running them and humans are flawed creature capable of huge mistakes. I would not want one in my neighborhood. I live about 50 miles from The Indian Point plant in New York which is now privately owned. They are forever having problems with their alert testings. They have released radioactive steam into the atmosphere and the water being tested around it is not always up to par. the town that it is in looks sickly when you drive through the trees and grass don’t look as healthy as the surrounding towns do. On Long Island the residents successfully rallied to shut down their plant due to large clusters of rare cancers in children. I know that it is a viable and needed source of energy but I am still not sold on their safety for the surrounding environments.

    September 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm
  • topstardust says:

    I think that after so many accident in the nuclear field people like me don’t like radioactive waste
    after the japanese bombs of WW2 there has been tons of other accident in the fields
    and too many people die because of nuclear

    September 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm
  • Nickfett says:

    Nuclear Energy is one of the safest, cleanest, energy sources we have available to us. The risks are very minimal for running a plant. The general public is just naive to it and that is why that are afraid. If they knew more about it and actually used some logic, they would see that harnessing nuclear power is common sense.

    September 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm
  • jcurrieii says:

    My biggest concern about nukes … and I am resonably well informed on the subject … isn’t the bug-a-boos that might happen (although a Meltdown is enough to scare the crap out of anyone), since as another poster stated, nukes are cleaner than most (although properly done, Hydro and Wind power are infinately “cleaner” than nukes). The problem *I* have comes after that power is made…the nuclear waste that is going to be blasting out alpha and beta radiation for the next million years! Almost every nuke in the world has already exceeded the containment space they have available in their water tanks, and many or most have had to start storing sealed casks of highly radioactive material externally on-site.

    Some strategically placed high explosives, and that is one REALLY nasty dirty bomb…

    Then … do YOU want to live next to a nuke in an Earthquake zone?

    As for fusion…I agree, it could be a Godsend…but at the same time, until we can perfect Cold Fusion, the idea of a Tomahawk reactor in my neighbourhood is not one that sends me goosbumps, more like chills down the spine. After all, you’re talking about an explosive (although reasonably stable) element being heated to thousands of degrees. While the risk of radiation, while present, is miniscule compared to a fission reactor, a runaway could cause as many problems as a runaway fission reactor, even if of a different nature (after all, the tomahawk is a high-pressure and VERY high-temperature device). I’ve heard of volcanic eruptions doing less damage! :D

    Good Luck!

    September 2, 2013 at 3:18 pm
  • USAaOK says:

    Most of you people are really morons. Please, enroll in some science classes at your local college, then you will find the real facts on how nuclear energy is very safe. And if you can’t afford a college education then go to place called a “Library” and try this hobby called “reading.”
    If you look at the real facts, you will find that more lives are saved every year from nuclear science (such as nuclear medicine), than people that have been killed by nuclear science.

    And answer this. How many people died from the Three Mile Island incident? Or for that matter how many people were even harmed? Also, what was the environmental impact? The problem was averted because our technology did everything it was supposed to do.
    Comparing the Russian technology used at Chernobyl to what we now use in the U.S. is like comparing a cow to a pig.

    Also, their is not enough “Critical Mass” at a Nuclear plant to every cause a nuclear explosion, it is impossible.

    September 2, 2013 at 4:07 pm
  • Noah H says:

    My objection is that there’s no place to put the waste products. It keeps stacking up ‘on site’. Nobody wants to store this stuff in their state and it’s possible that geologically speaking there is no place to store this waste for the 10,000 years it takes to reduce these radioactive left overs to a ‘safe’ level. The human race has only been marginally civilized for 10,000 years. It’s not likely that 10,000 years from now that our technological civilization will be around to remain on top of our 21st century attempt to secure this deadly material. A sudden disruption of the chilled water that keeps the physically hottest waste from melting down means that this material will explosively burn within days if the technology that keeps it cool breaks down for what ever reason. Worst case, a cloud if radioactivity will spread out for who knows how many miles…it could happen, so why take the chance when we could could go solar and wind? Maybe we would have to turn off a few lights and work toward more electrically efficient appliances, but there’s no reason not to do that anyway. I find it particularly egregious that the federal government MUST underwrite this PRIVATE industry with tax breaks and subsidies and supply security through the Dept. of Energy at taxpayer expense. Nuclear energy’s time has come and gone…it’s time to move on. Maybe centralized power generation has as well. We have millions of acres of unused roof tops in America, everyone a potential electric power generating venue….no nukes needed!

    September 2, 2013 at 4:53 pm
  • Julia says:

    CO2 is actually carbon dioxide…we breath that in….its CO that we need to be afraid of.. it stands for Carbon monooxide and the trees suck that in and produce CO2 right?

    September 2, 2013 at 5:13 pm
  • Andrew says:

    Same reason they don’t wear Russian underpants, Chernobyl fallout.

    (Think you have to be English to appreciate it!)

    September 2, 2013 at 5:26 pm
  • sophie g says:

    no

    September 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm
  • Bohemian_Garnet_Permaculturalist says:

    How about just this one little sad fact (and yes it really is a fact). The U.S. Government is STILL trying to come up with a design or symbol, which will be recognized by humans ten thousand years from now. They need the symbol to mark the nuclear waste disposal sites.

    They don’t want humans in the future to try and build a city, or farm where a nuclear waste disposal site is…..ten THOUSAND years into the future.

    That alone tells me that nuclear energy is the good “clean” alternative energy to pass onto our children, and grandchildren.

    ~Garnet
    Permaculture homesteading/farming over 20 years

    September 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm
  • Nicholas says:

    Not really

    September 2, 2013 at 6:31 pm

Radiologie-Wörterbuch | Dizionario Di Radiologia | Словарь Радиологии | 방사선학 사전 | Het Woordenboek van de Radiologie
放射学字典| Dictionnaire De Radiologie |Λεξικό ακτινολογίας | 放射線学辞書