Nucleare ? yes please

[Alexandri Magni]

1-le scorie non si smaltiscono, si accumulano...quindi sono un problema,da qualche parte devono stare

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.htmlAs
an initial perspective, it is interesting to compare nuclear waste with the analogous waste from a single large coal-burning power plant. The largest component of the coal-burning waste is carbon dioxide gas, produced at a rate of 500 pounds every second, 15 tons every minute. It is not a particularly dangerous gas, but it is the principal contributor to the "greenhouse effect" discussed at some length in Chapter 3. The other wastes from coal burning were also discussed in Chapter 3, but let's review them briefly. First and probably foremost is sulfur dioxide, the principal cause of acid rain and perhaps the main source of air pollution's health effects, released at a rate of a ton every 5 minutes. Then there are nitrogen oxides, the second leading cause of acid rain and perhaps also of air pollution. Nitrogen oxides are best known as the principal pollutant from automobiles and are the reason why cars need expensive pollution control equipment which requires them to use lead-free gasoline; a single large coal-burning plant emits as much nitrogen oxide as 200,000 automobiles. The third major coal burning waste is particulates including smoke, another important culprit in the negative health effects of air pollution. Particulates are released at a rate of several pounds per second. And next comes the ash, the solid material produced at a rate of 1,000 pounds per minute, which is left behind to cause serious environmental problems and long-term damage to our health. Coal-burning plants also emit thousands of different organic compounds, many of which are known carcinogens. Each plant releases enough of these compounds to cause two or three cancer deaths per year.1 And then there are heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and many others that are known or suspected of causing cancer, plus a myriad of other health impacts. Finally there is uranium, thorium, and radium, radioactive wastes released from coal burning that serve as a source of radon gas. The impact of this radioactive radon gas from coal burning on the public's health far exceeds the effects of all the radioactive waste released from nuclear plants (see Chapter 12).
The waste produced from a nuclear plant is different from coal-burning wastes in two very spectacular ways. The first is in the quantities involved: the nuclear waste is 5 million times smaller by weight and billions of times smaller by volume. The nuclear waste from 1 year of operation weighs about 1� tons2 and would occupy a volume of half a cubic yard, which means that it would fit under an ordinary card table with room to spare. Since the quantity is so small, it can be handled with a care and sophistication that is completely out of the question for the millions of tons of waste spewed out annually from our analogous coal-burning plant.
The second pronounced difference is that the nuclear wastes are radioactive, providing a health threat by the radiation they emit, whereas the principal dangers to health from coal wastes arise from their chemical activity. This does not mean that the nuclear wastes are more hazardous; on nearly any comparison basis the opposite is true. For example, if all the air pollution emitted from a coal plant in one day were inhaled by people, 1� million people could die from it,3 which is 10 times the number that could be killed by ingesting or inhaling the waste produced in one day by a nuclear plant.

[Boba Fett]

Ah, l'ennesima discussione sul nucleare... Comunque guardate che costruire centrali nucleari non significa escludere l'energia solare, senza contare gli insormontabili limiti tecnici di questa fonte (intermittenza in particolare).

[dDuck (POL)]

Come dire.... non avete rovinato abbastanza la terra, il cielo ed il mare?
Ma che male vi hanno fatto per odiarli cosi' tanto?

quale e' la soluzione signor comunista : cernobil o il prosciugamento del lago d'aral ?


e mi spieghi perche' una centrale nucleare che occupa una piccolissima area e nn emette nessuna emissione di anidride carbonica o solforosa deve rovinare la terra ? (centrali comuniste ed insicure a parte)