Bush said that nuclear power is "clean and safe"? Do the Americans believe that?

Question

Bush said that nuclear power is "clean and safe"? Do the Americans believe that?

Answer 1

Nuke power is safe and clean.

It is just that many people still believe the old soviet disinformation.

There old disinformation campaign was so good that they even helped it by melting one of there own reactors.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/artic...

The accident at Chernobyl only proves that the soviets cared nothing about there people. chernobyl was a piece of sh*t plant of a design that would never have been allowed in the US

In fact they had a different standard for the reactors in Russia then they had for reactors in there satellite countries like the Ukraine where Chernobyl is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_d...

The standards in the US have prevented any accidents

we have over 10,000 reactor years of operation with any accidents (207 reactors X years of operation of the reactors)

The US has had over 200 reactors. with no major accidents

three mile island was not  nuclear accident as the safety systems in the plant and the containment building controlled and contained the problem.

That means that three mile island was classed as a incident

not a accident. only the anti nuke people call three mile island a accident that is what is called propaganda

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collec...

the people that think that nuclear power is unsafe.

don't have any idea what they are talking about.

don't understand any thing about a nuclear power plant.

and will never change there minds

because they like to be stupid.

if someone reads the real story they would understand nuclear power plants.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip.htm

we have enough nuclear fuel for 500 years to replace all coal and to stop importing oil already mined if we use the right nuclear fuel cycle.

that means recycling our spent fuel rods that every other poster above that i anti nuke calls nuclear waste.

plus using our old nuclear bomb pits off the shelf' dismantled nuclear weapons. and some of the depleted uranium we have stored to make more fuel rods

plus using the rest of the depleted uranium in fast neutron reactors to make fuel out of it.

this would give us the fuel to run 500 reactors for 500 years

then we have still unmined another 500 years of fuel in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breede...

if we used this fuel cycle and added a few accelerator driven reactors to burn the non-fuel waste that would be left from recycling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcritical...

The US Navy has accumulated over 5500 reactor years of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships (with 103 reactors as of early 2005).

the US Navy also has the best trained reactor operators in the world.

a large number of these operators when they leave the navy go to work at the commercial nuke plants in the US.

this leads to the US having the best and the safest trained operator at our nuclear plants.

Answer 2

No, George Bush lies all the time. http://www.foulmouthshirts.com/Political...

Answer 3

Oh please.. what nonsense is this!!!

Does he even know the hazards of nuclear waste? Disposed nuclear fuel wastes can cause maximum damage to biological species, particularly marine life cuz the sea is where the US dumps its waste. Radiations from these wastes can kill a person in time ranging from moments to hours!!!

Having said that, i don't deny that nuclear energy is arguably the most efficient mode of energy. But i definitely disagree that it is cleaner than energy from fossil fuels, eventhough it does not emit greenhouse gases.

PS: There have been reports that USA is dumping its nuclear waste in the Indian Ocean. Well, this message for George Bush: the world is not US's playground, mind you.

Answer 4

do we believe any thing he says hes a moron clean its not heard of nuclear waste safe remember three mile island and chernobal not to mention the hazards of nuclear waste itself like i said hes a moron

Answer 5

I don't. "they say" the chances are extremely low for a catastrophic event at a nuclear power plant.The Vice President shot his friend in the face. What are the chances of that happening?

Answer 6

no one really believe GW

is nuke power safe, no

Answer 7

What does he know, he can`t even pronounce "nuclear" right.

Answer 8

They should.  It is certainly cleaner than a coal-fired plant that feeds millions of tons of CO2, as well as other crud, into the atmosphere every year.

Answer 9

well...it's clean as can be all the way up until it gets to the waste, which is worse than any oil spill or toxic fumes. that and the threat of meltdown

If they ever found a way to nuetralize it or convert it to hydrogen or some other clean burning fuel, it'd be a new age.

Clean energy whose waste is recycled into clean fuel.

but as it stands, bush will say anything to get his way passed

Answer 10

Not if they think about the nuclear waste.

Answer 11

There are only a few Americans who still believe a word he says, and they are super busy looking for weapons of mass destruction...

Answer 12

I don't believe anything that comes out of that sorry excuse for a leader. He lies about everything. I'm sure his oil wealthy family will prosper from nuclear energy. With them, it's all about money.

Answer 13

Bush=WACKO!

Answer 14

500 years of nuclear power.....oh goodie!   How about the everlasting power of wind farms and the best fusion reaction since the dawn of time.... the Sun!   We need to concentrate on energy sources that won't run out in a few generations!

Answer 15

hi,

the man is a liar. do you believe a liar when he tells the truth?

Answer 16

well... it's clean-ish. the prob is the nuclear waste. i'll just paste part of what i answered for a related question, which i think is the main issue with nuclear power:

'nuclear waste still has radiation at levels unsafe for humans and generally, life. and the materials used to generate nuclear power have half-lives that are measured in many thousands of years (this means the length of time it takes for the radiation levels are reduced by half - often you need the waste to degrade to many 'halfs' the original radiation level) . in order to protect living things from the radiation it's necessary to shield the waste with concrete and lead, and the best bet today is to bury it deep underground somewhere that (we think) is not seismically active and wouldn't be for the next tens of thousands of years, with a way to access it in case we need to move it someplace else, and figuring out how to label the stuff and the location in a way that can still be understood several thousand years later, when maybe people speak a different language and may have forgot about the waste.'

so anyway, it would be highly irresponsible and shortsighted to build reactors left and right, before solving the waste disposal issues. the reason why many politicians favouring nuclear power don't want to talk about it is because factoring these in would no longer make nuclear power an attractive option, economically, compared with other power generation options.

also, what is meant by 'levels unsafe for humans' is not really the same in magnitude as your general pollution 'unsafeness'. high radiation not only increases the level of cancer in the population, but also to the extent of mutations that cause horrible defects in the way life develops, esp. embryos in the process of expressing DNA. you get babies born with lungs in the wrong place and things like that, that die as soon as they're born, in places where US troops had used depleted uranium munitions. there's a horror factor involved in the effects of radiation, that i think makes people recoil from it more than from other diseases.