From a technical standpoint Pebble-Bed reactors are a perfectly valid solution to the nuclear issue. Waste storage and disposal is much easier. Though the half-life is the same, the pebble containment lowers risk of leakage by a tremendous amount. Needs more money for further development which has been stopped by anti-nukers.[quote=“Jason, post:47, topic:36342”]
Nuclear power is almost never an option when I ask that question and I’m not sure why.
Just read about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, not to mention Fukushima.
The anti-nuke movement, like so many others is driven by fear. the NIMBY (not in my backyard) effect reigns supreme.
[Quote=“On a side note”] My father died from pancreatic cancer caused by a particle of dust from the second US nuclear test in the Bikini atolls after WWII. He was a Navy helmsman, tasked with towing an irradiated submarine back to San Diego for detailed research before being sunk. For a four-hour watch per day he was posted on the submarine conning tower in case he had to go below and change the rudder control. No protection was given. They were told the radiation didn’t last long and was washed off the sub
He pick up a particle of plutonium dust and had various health issues throughout his life in different parts of his body (no idea it was caused by radiation and it kept migrating). Eventually it lodged in his pancreas. At age 69 he got cancer and died is six weeks.
The doctors at Loma Linda Hospital in California found the particle and removed it, but it was too late. They knew exactly which bomb it came from without even asking. It had a specific radiological signature, as all bombs do.
No suite was filed as others had tried to sue the government. The only offer was to have “free” VA treatment, which my dad refused as he had good medical insurance and refused to go to the VA. Too many of his Navy buddies had been treated poorly and died there.
Off my soapbox now [/quote]
However, that does not make me an anti-nuke. I believe it is a valid power source if handled properly.