Dr. Helen Caldicott
Press Conference clip – March 18, 2011 – Montreal Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTo49d6kLtY

After you watch – post your thoughts, ideas, feelings about production of the elements that go into ‘nuclear’ power and weapons and the use of them. Do you believe, honestly, that we can safely create, store, use, and then ‘isolate’ what remains of nuclear power?

we have been using and storing nukes for about 70 years now, with "mostly" good results... i dont see any need to change or stop using them...

What is she a doctor of?...

just curious.

http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm

It is a bad video. She appears to be rather over-alarmist.
Here is where you can learn about Nuclear Energy from someone who
actually understands the issues.

The Nuclear Option by Bernard Cohen

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

It was already to late when the U.S dropprd the first one on Japan. The nuclear day was born then. Massive destruction.

Todays situation is....it only takes 2 nukes (ground zero)to harm the entire planet. 3 nukes and there will be no-one left apart from the US president.

The storage or the spent rads is another problem. The rads will outlast the storage containers building radiation inside. So they are stored under ground many miles down. So what, big deal. What you dont know wont hurt you. Right??....Wrong, it will kill ya one way or another.

Look at Japan now with the massive problem they have now due to natural forces. Imagine if war comes...then what if it is blown up. Radiation dispensed in the air to be carried by the wind around the world. So you safer in where ever you are for the time being you think. Well think again. Your not and you wont know until you get radiation sickness, then its too late. Sounds grimm doesnt it, but thats the reality of it all.

3 nukes people is all it takes to totally destroy this planet and leave the ants and cockroaches abd some spiders to rule this burnt out planet. 3 nukes and its getting closer with the cranks that are in power these days. Then it will be one crank that starts it all then the other will retaliate with his friend. We are all fried. To late to pay your taxes then. It is a gruesome and extremely slow painful death that you face.

why don't they blast all the spent rods into space?...seems like some of there other missions are more wasteful than that

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

http://www.logtv.com/films/chelyabinsk/nuclear.htm

stupid russians

We are less than 30 years away from a viable source of energy using nuclear fusion.

There has been ongoing work in the field and will one day be a means to produce far safer and larger quantities of energy.

fission to produce power is pretty much over..

Fusion is the future..

Aye...

First they need to stop trying to BLAST fusion into existance...

and learn to use a controlled burn.

'Soft fusion'.

Less 'yeild' in energy but more energy in the long run.

Kinda like an 'ion' drive... small energy applied over time generates big push.

Safely is the key word and no it will never be safe. Just like the earthquake in Japan there are too many variables that are not in our control and never will be.

No doubt..

Livermore has created a laser system that uses 192 lasers to evenly heat the capsule and they compressed the capsule and were able to heat it up to 3.3 million degrees Kelvin.

They have to find a happy medium between the amount of fuel in the capsules vs the ability to ignite multiple capsules every second..

Then there is how are they going to capture the heat to produce the steam..

alot of questions.. but I believe its going to happen..

Three million K.

so much heat.

why?

Plasma does not have to be 'hot'.

It just needs to be energetic.

To create energy.

Its my recollection that they fired 1 megajoule into the capsule.

I'll have to find the article..

http://www.physorg.com/news183879299.html


I read it somewhere else, but this gives the basics of what they did.

This is a very bad video. She mixes the dangers of old Russian tech with modern designs which is completely meaningless. Much of her discussion is about half-lives of isotopes to make them sound scary.

The Japanese were stupid to put reactors near major faults, and we have a couple that could be better located, but the reality is that our nuclear industry is far safer than our coal or oil industry and is badly needed to insulate us from foreign oil woes. Electric cars and plug in hybrids will eventually dominate the market and the juice to run them will need to come from somewhere besides dirty coal.

Nuclear power production is very dangerous but so is any type of
energy production. There is a good case that nuclear energy despite
the accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima is still
safer than alternative sources of energy.

One must weigh the occasional severe nuclear accidents against day
to day mercury emissions and miner deaths, carbon dioxide, acid
rain, ozone depletion and offshore oil explosions, marine contamination,
and the like.

Those who wring their hands and beat their chest over nuclear energy
simply do not have a reasonable perspective of the alternatives. We
have fouled our environment for centuries with by-products of our
search for cheap energy and the contribution from nuclear energy has
been only the tiniest fraction of it.

Yes, we need to be safer, cleaner and more careful and less wasteful.
We need to conserve our energy and our planet. But we must see clearly
and be honest about where to focus our efforts and how to be most
effective. The answer may not be to forswear nuclear energy in favor
of worse alternatives like burning coal and oil...

http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/