Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic nuclear power or coal power plants Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]osmoticdespair[/m] at 3:56 am on Jan. 7, 2007[quote]About 5 years ago a guy came to my school to give a lecture on how terrible nuclear power is. I at the time had been told by someone in favour of nuclear power that coal power plants and mining operations (both related and unrelated to power generation) release far more radioactive isotopes to the enviroment and that opposition to nuclear plants on these grounds was scaremongering. I asked the guy giving the talk about this and he said yes it is true, but that nuclear plants create uncommon radioactive isotopes that are absorbed by the body more readily because we have not had as much exposure to them as we have the more commonly occuring in nature isotopes that are relesed by mining and the like. So I wonder what you think?[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post osmoticdespair Posted at 3:56 am on Jan. 7, 2007 About 5 years ago a guy came to my school to give a lecture on how terrible nuclear power is. I at the time had been told by someone in favour of nuclear power that coal power plants and mining operations (both related and unrelated to power generation) release far more radioactive isotopes to the enviroment and that opposition to nuclear plants on these grounds was scaremongering. I asked the guy giving the talk about this and he said yes it is true, but that nuclear plants create uncommon radioactive isotopes that are absorbed by the body more readily because we have not had as much exposure to them as we have the more commonly occuring in nature isotopes that are relesed by mining and the like. So I wonder what you think?

Replies Snouthead Posted at 4:26 am on Jan. 7, 2007 Nuclear power, hands down. And here is why: It is safer; meltdowns have only occured due to human error [ie: employees being over worked or jobs done unsatisfactoraily]. Plus the waste produced by the plants is not actually going to damage anyone provided it is stored properly. Meanwhile coal plants emit tonnes of wasted carbon that pollutes the atmosphere and destroys our health and the environment. It is cleaner; as above, no carbon pollution means its cleaner and the sky is blue! It is! It really is, as anyone down here or not in a major city will tell ya ;) And finally [in the case of Australia, which concerns me more than the rest of the world] it is an economic boom! We have the largest uranium reserves in the world! Wootness! Thus we can develop an entire industry around producing feul rods for other countries! Now aint that just dandy! Thuggen Posted at 4:18 am on Jan. 7, 2007 Ok. Coal is a lot more safer. Its true. Longy Posted at 4:12 am on Jan. 7, 2007 What he said ^ blacknwhite Posted at 3:57 am on Jan. 7, 2007 umm.. uhh.. the first one! :P All 4 previous replies displayed.