Bernard Jenkins

14 Comments

  1. Earthquakes will take care of the debate for the next 3000 years, you may as well build thousands of them.

  2. nuclear energy is by no means a good idea.The impact is not worth the trade off .the cost is to high and the risk is to risky.they say it has no carbon foot print but that is not true .what i am concerned with is the by product .I would much rather have smog than radioactive fallout.

  3. legalize Hemp and we can use that for energy combined with solar power can power our whole nation.

  4. 985.000 deaths as a result of only one nuclear genocide plant,
    not enough for nuclear lobby nazis ?
    ['Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment' the New York Academy of Sciences'].
    Stop that madness – nuclear genocide power – no more – no where !
    Nuclear lobby to the court .

  5. Yes Nuclear Power Energy is definitely an great radiation increasing technology.Is radiation less dangerous than coal smog. I don't know. I can see smog and avoid it but I can't see radiation and thereore cannot avoid it. I also don't like not knowing why I'm sick or what's doing me in. The best works of art music were created before electricity was invented. From darkness we get rest and inspiration. We need darkness for inspiration. Better to have less lights and renewable energy

  6. The operation of nuclear power plants refers to a number of unresolved questions for Which there is no satisfactory answer. With the term of this deadly technology to grow even more problems. It`s astonishing that this is now even considered yet. It is determined at the instigation of the IAEA, which has failed utterly in every disaster.

    People do not want nuclear power plants!

  7. @decycle1 all the energy ti takes to build one ,not to mention the the big giant hole in the ground from mining uranium.
    Then figure in the storage of the spent fuel rods which is at least 100yrs or more.
    That is with out considering the all the risk of failure.Jersey,Russia ,now japan 3 is a charm time to quit. America has over 30 reactors which could be considered antique and running dangerously over their intended capacity . if you feel safe the you are just ignoring all the facts

  8. This should be named Uranium power in a warming world. There are safer alternatives, Thorium anyone?

  9. Unfortunately, the 22nd century probably see armies of peasant/slaves being forced to turn gigantic hamster wheels to generate electricity for the elite. Why? Because most people are stupid sheep who don't understand that even with an occasional Chernobyl or Fukushima, more radiation is released into the environment by COAL USE than is released by nuclear.
    FWIW, the global elites like this just fine. They WANT the post-peak oil world to be a neo-medieval hell… they'll have more POWER that way.

  10. thorium thorium thorium thorium L.F.T.R.! why does this knowledge continue to be run asunder by industry while the sheep are led to slaughter!

  11. "Nuclear energy has drawback" now that's an understatement. Nuclear power has just taken 14000 lives here in the usa and yes it was Fukushima'a first shot and the sting continues. Nuclear = Death plain and simple. We also need to address the climate crisis with a climate tax paid by the fossil fuel producing companies such as Shell, Cheveron, etc. but very soon it will be too late if it is not already. JMHO

  12. People over react to the dangers of nuclear power, when coal fired power stations release harmful gases into the atmosphere, and mercury into the soil and water, that is ultimately absorbed by fish in rivers and oceans.

    The World Health Organisation estimates that in 2012 7 million people (out of a world population of over 7 billion) died all over the world, as a result of the effects of air pollution.
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

    The health effects from air pollution include cardiovascular effects such as strokes and ischemic heart disease, pulmonary diseases and cancers.

    Any power generation technology will always carry a degree of risk. Nuclear power, historically has caused a lesser proportion of fatalities compared with burning fossil fuels.

    Since 1945, using the worst case (some may say overinflated numbers), and including the Japanese fatalities from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (technically they weren't as a result of nuclear power plant failures), I've estimated that 1.9 million people have died from exposure to nuclear radiation. That averages out to 28,359 people a year since 1945 to 2012; far more people die each year in car accidents, with an estimated number of 1.2 million deaths.

  13. Another unfair accusation levelled at nuclear power, is that critics blame the technology, instead of blaming the criminally negligent corrupt corporations and corrupt government officials, who deliberately build nuclear power stations on questionable terrain, or buy the control room equipment from different suppliers, or the lowest bidders.

    I have developed several lung complications as a result of being exposed to air pollution, so I know my potential life span has been reduced as a result of fossil fuel burning. When I die, add me to the 7 million global deaths from air pollution. I hope to live long enough to see most coal fired or gas turbine power plants knocked down and replaced with cleaner nuclear power plants; whose waste is much more readily containable and much more carefully regulated and controlled, compared with the easily released exhaust from the coal fired and gas fired power stations' smoke stacks.

  14. Why does the representative from UCS spend all his time discussing the failures in the nuclear industry and regulatory agencies, rather than offering what requirements are necessary to make nuclear safe and productive, without which it cannot stand?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *