tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-197012134875784675.post8675587693181448737..comments2023-08-28T14:54:44.902+03:00Comments on Contorted Reality: The Nuclear DebateKartzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07299013774325722797noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-197012134875784675.post-20159364504654721302008-09-10T16:03:00.000+03:002008-09-10T16:03:00.000+03:00Anonymous writes:Hi All,First things first...Karth...Anonymous writes:<br><br>Hi All,<br><br>First things first...Karthick, please accept my congratulations on a well written piece....i can see u have done quite a bit of ground work to do what u have done.<br><br>i tend to disagree with u on certain issues that u have mentioned in ur write up...<br><br>1. the first one being clearing forest cover for digging up nuclear fuel and for construction of nuclear power stations..... the same happens when coal is dug up from the ground and when coal powered power stations are built.(Moreover no government is going to allow nuclear fuel like uranium to lie on the ground just like that....they will dig it up anyway..so i say why not use it for peaceful purposes for power generation)<br><br>2. Construction machines powered by electricity are making their foray into the automobile market and soon will be inducted by construction companies..anyways the greenhouse(GH) gases they emit are very nominal when viewed from a macro perspective....<br><br>3. millions of rural households across the world still depend on wood for their fuel needs..just imagine how much forest cover we can save if we r able to provide clean nuclear power to these households<br><br>@Karthick....i was quite surprised when u took sides cos when u present both sides of the coin the usual practice is to let the reader reach his own conclusions....if u insist on taking sides then i guess u would do better by providing counter arguments to the view u r opposing...<br><br>Ramanathan Palaniappan<br><br>By anonymous user, # 16. July 2008, 08:06:49Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-197012134875784675.post-21025801197022311152008-09-10T16:04:00.000+03:002008-09-10T16:04:00.000+03:00@PalaniappanSorry for this delayed response! Wante...@Palaniappan<br><br>Sorry for this delayed response! Wanted to get back to you earlier, but could not do so. In fact, I had saved my response as a draft which I produce below...<br><br>Dude... Thanks for your response, and welcome to my blog.<br><br>Well, the point I have tried to make here is this- global warming is already a serious issue. And nuclear energy is related to global warming too. As in, it can help prevent additional global warming (if established). But the flip-side exists. This issue is Janus-faced, so to say. It may even seem to loom around as, how Ogden Nash says, a vicious circle.<br><br>Consequences will indeed be there... That is precisely why I said the issue is Janus-faced. I have made an attempt to look from both points of view, and well, I felt the negatives outweigh the positives. Hence the bottomline.<br><br>There won't be anything which can be classified as 'the' solution. So, any decision made will take quite a lot of flak.<br><br>We should not let our actions spell doom for the future. But, let us consider some facts too...<br><br>At present there are more than 400 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industries worldwide suggest, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large, 1000-megawatt reactors. This proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.<br><br>The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident, the cost of decommissioning all the existing reactors etc. will involve huge expenditure. And if I may add, the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years; something which is not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.<br><br>It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.<br><br>Much of the world's Uranium is enriched in the US and Australia. The enrichment facilities require the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming. There are reports which cite the release of CFCs (the production and release of which has been banned by the Montreal protocol) by the enrichment facilities. CFCs also contribute to global warming, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than CO2. CFCs are responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion too.<br><br>In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.<br><br>Nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.<br><br>These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.<br><br>Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.<br><br>You may say, I have literally taken a plunge into Nuclear Chemistry, but well, these are facts too. Which you just cannot overlook, dude. And coming to the chemistry again (sorry, if the Chemistry part bugs u..!); Iodine-131, Strontium-90, Cesium-137 and Plutonium-239 are some of the most dangerous elements that are produced in nuclear reactors. May be we do have or we will develop the technology to try and avoid/suppress these emissions et cetra; but the facts do cut a sorry figure.<br><br>I welcome you to discuss this...<br><br>Kartz<br><br>By Karthik.S, # 7. September 2008, 15:06:46Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com