Is nuclear power ethically right?

[SjorsRosanne]

Is nuclear power ethically right?

 

I'm not sure whether this question is correctly placed in this section but okay. I'm not really trying to start a discussion I just want an answer to the question of the poll. This is for my research project and I need it urgently, picking yes or no won't take you a long time, please do this for me....

[YT2095]

I say Yes by default, as I see no Ethical problem with it, it`s like asking are Chemicals ethically right?

 

Everything is made of Chemicals, the Sun is Nuclear....

 

I fail to see where "Ethics" come into it???

[iNow]

I say Yes by default, as I see no Ethical problem with it, it`s like asking are Chemicals ethically right?

 

Everything is made of Chemicals, the Sun is Nuclear....

 

I fail to see where "Ethics" come into it???

 

Very well said, YT. I presume the ethics part is not so much related to the power itself, but to the disposal of waste from generating said power (and that bears note that we've come quite a long way since the 70s...)

[Phi for All]

I'd say the ethics only comes into it when intent is examined. Tools aren't good or evil, nor are they bound to any ethical constraints. It's the intent of the wielder that determines whether their use is ethical or not.

 

A laser can be used to correct human vision (according to the LASIK people ) but it can also be used to sight weapons on targets of ethnic cleansing. The same is true of nuclear power, it can be used in various ways. Intended use is ethically measurable, the tool itself is neutral.

[DrP]

Obviously I would say that any mistreatment of the waste is ethically wrong. But how can nuclear power be ethically wrong on it's own? Especially when we are all concerned about the use of our rapidly declining stocks of fossil fuels.

[Severian]

Anyone who votes no should be forcibly prevented from using any energy originating from the sun. To save them from their own hypocrisies.

[Mr Skeptic]

Nuclear power (as an electricity source, as others have mentioned it also has evil uses) is a safe*, carbon-neutral, reliable power source. All of its most dangerous waste gets put in big metal boxes that can survive being hit by a train. Comparatively, coal power plants are dangerous*, emit CO2, and are a more limited resource. Hence, it seems like a correct choice to use nuclear power instead of coal power; however, there may well be better power sources in the future or even now under certain circumstances.

 

* If you compare the number of deaths caused by coal and nuclear, it turns out coal is more dangerous. Much of this is simply due to the volume of coal burned, hence lots of coal must be mined (and miners occasionally die in cave-ins), and lots of pollution is released (into the air, also causing deaths). Meanwhile, nuclear uses very little fuel, and produces nearly no pollution that gets into the environment (it's put into storage).

 

Historically, coal miners had horrible working conditions and low lifespans, and coal plants did not even try to clean their emissions. Historically, there has been one nuclear power plant disaster.

 

---

Oh, I should add that nuclear power plants themselves have many additional uses. There was an incident in Canada where one of the two nuclear plants responsible for making isotopes for medicine was shut down, which was quite a disaster for anyone needing those treatments. However, and this I think is the greatest danger, nuclear power plants can be used to make weapons grade plutonium.

[thedarkshade]

Is nuclear power ethically right?

 

I'm not sure whether this question is correctly placed in this section but okay. I'm not really trying to start a discussion I just want an answer to the question of the poll. This is for my research project and I need it urgently, picking yes or no won't take you a long time, please do this for me....

It is not the nuclear power that should be concerning ethics, it is the way it is used. Nuclear power without any doubt is a great source of energy, and using it in proper way and in ways which are relevant to humanity would only make it more precious. But again, I don't see any reason why this should concern ethics!

[timo]

Anyone who votes no should be forcibly prevented from using any energy originating from the sun. To save them from their own hypocrisies.

I don't really understand that. The problem where to store the reaction waste, safety problems and problems with military abuse (those three being the only possible problems with nuclear power I can think of at the moment) seem to have obvious solutions in the case of the sun.

[swansont]

I don't really understand that. The problem where to store the reaction waste, safety problems and problems with military abuse (those three being the only possible problems with nuclear power I can think of at the moment) seem to have obvious solutions in the case of the sun.

 

Which means that the issue of nuclear power isn't inherently ethical or unethical. It's specific incidents that might have ethical considerations. I think the original question is way too vague, and too limited. My answer to "Is nuclear power ethically right?" is "orange."

[timo]

Which means that the issue of nuclear power isn't inherently ethical or unethical. It's specific incidents that might have ethical considerations. I think the original question is way too vague, and too limited. My answer to "Is nuclear power ethically right?" is "orange."

Hence my non-understanding of Severian's post. You can either interpret the question in which case the issue depends on how you interpret(ed) the question. Or you can take is "as is", in which case I think the question is technically incorrect. I wouldn't be too surprised if ethical judgements can only be made on actions, not on objects (with object being meant sufficiently wide so that nuclear power fits in - it surely isn't an action) . I even think "judging actions" pretty much is the definition of ethics (but that's just a layman's guess - clarification from a professional would be highly welcome).

 

Actually, I already had the idea that the question might be much smarter than it initially sounds. We have 12 replies to what -without interpretation- is not even a question. If you are interested in how humans react to improperly stated questions (either on the "positive side" of interpreting the missing parts or the "negative side" of blindly/zombiely reacting to emotionally-loaded keywords) that might be an interesting result. I'm not sure how you'd measure the people not having responded, though. Perhaps by counting the number of views (12:68 then, btw) or by somehow measuring the amount of discussion.

[iNow]

Hence my non-understanding of Severian's post.

My take is that severian was expressing a frustration that I have often felt myself. People are so damned uneducated that they often forget that the sun (aka solar power) is itself one huge nuclear reactor.

 

So, when they say they're "against nuclear energy" it shines a great big light on their ignorance, and causes me to take their uninformed opinion much less seriously.

[dirtyamerica]

Nuclear power is ethical as long as waste is disposed of ethically and legally (which is arguably two different categories).

 

Nuclear power is very reliable and cheaper to produce vs. coal. Wind and solar is highly unreliable but a nice addition to base load when it's available.

 

While the public has reservations about nuke power, I'd have no problem working at such a power plant (at "ground zero").

 

Electricity is a necessary evil so ask yourself which is worse..greenhouse emissions (from coal plants) or small amounts of nuclear waste (assuming spent fuel is dealt with appropriately)?

 

Coal-fired plants are being upgraded with much better emission control and monitoring systems so you might have a rebuttle there but yeah, nuke plants are the shizzle, IMO.

[Severian]

I don't really understand that.

 

The original poll question is "Is nuclear power ethically right?". Anyone who votes 'no' is therefore saying that nuclear power is not ethically correct. Since the Sun is a giant fusion reactor, and thus nuclear, the respondent must have an ethical objection to the Sun. Therefore they should be forcibly prevented from using any energy originating from the sun to save them from their own hypocrisies.

 

Clear now?

[Riogho]

What the hell kind of question is this?

 

and by posting this here arn't you getting some slightly biased results?

[iNow]

and by posting this here arn't you getting some slightly biased results?

 

Yes. It would be a sampling error, or, to be more precise, an non-representative cross-section of the population.

[bascule]

Coal, the mainstay of the US power grid, produces an abominable amount of carbon dioxide, which has known atmospheric detriments. Because of accumulated carbon emissions, of which coalfire powerplants make up a large fraction, half a billion people will lose access to safe drinking water in the next 15 years, on top of the 1.1 billion worldwide who already lack access.

 

Coalfire power plants have catastrophic environmental consequences. And while I certainly won't argue that people haven't lost their lives to nuclear disaster, the designs involved are largely obsolete (particularly the positive void coefficient design employed in Chernobyl. No such reactors remain in use) and the chance of such disasters reoccurring is slim to nil. Nuclear waste is an issue, more with transportation rather than storage, but again, it's a low risk endeavour compared to the known risks of wide-scale carbon production.

 

While there's hope for a greener future for coalfire plants (such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) I think nuclear plants are our best option for green power in the near future.

[ydoaPs]

I don't really have a problem with nuclear power. Contrary to what some people would have you believe, nuclear power really is safe. We take several different redundant safety measures and(at least the navy) use inherently stable reactors.

[foodchain]

I think its just that the reality of environmental impact is not understood. You don’t look at it from the perspective it needs to be, its individual on up. So you would have to generate enough nuclear energy to satisfy the energy needs of a nation the size of America, which grows. This of course has its by products.

 

Here is another issue. Maintenance of the structures, more so when you might have competition on a market making decisions of how much to spend on such. Also for whatever technologies we have now, they don’t exist in the physical reality of what is projected by some, we cant really know for sure how that is going to work out until we get there, nuclear facilities as common as whatever other energy infrastructure is now. Also where do you place them, does earthquake prone California need to be covered with such facilities?

 

Once you get blasted by radiation there is no going back. IN case some readers might not know radiation poisoning, or an aspect of it is simply this. Little rays pass through your tissue, while doing this they cause damage. One aspect of this is that your DNA for lack of better words gets its bonds or structure broken, it happens to repair but in many cases severely distorted, so it turns you into a giant tumor. There is no way to fix this medically after the fact save for removing such tissue at best really, I think everyone exposed to unsafe levels of such die from such in time, usually from some form of cancer depending on conditions of the exposure.

 

Nuclear energy may be a safe bet if done absolutely right constantly, but can people really do that at the scale it will be required? All it takes is one accident to cause a tremendous amount of damage that can persist of long periods of time. Overall its surely something not to jump the gun on even in light of the gloom and doom that is fossil fuel use.

 

If I was going to invest in future energy production I would be looking at microbes, solar and hybrid car/mass transit technology.

[Mr Skeptic]

foodchain, how is this any different than the pollution caused by coal plants? Other than that the fears with nuclear are potential problems and the fears with coal are already realized?

[ydoaPs]

Once you get blasted by radiation there is no going back.

Really? I could have sworn that that's wrong. IIRC, there are four things that could happen once a cell has undergone an ionizing event due to radiation:

1)The cell repairs itself and divides normally.

2)The cell divides abnormally creating diseased daughter cells.

3)The cell divides abnormally creating dead daughter cells.

4)The cell dies.

 

IN case some readers might not know radiation poisoning, or an aspect of it is simply this. Little rays pass through your tissue, while doing this they cause damage.

The amount of radiation you need to receive to get radiation poisoning is laughably large. I just got done working at an older power plant. I worked there for 6 months and I got 6mrem due to occupational exposure. Do you know how much you got? Roughly 150mrem(it could be higher depending on if you fly a lot or if you live in a valley). Nuclear power is less likely to cause cancer than smoking.

 

One aspect of this is that your DNA for lack of better words gets its bonds or structure broken, it happens to repair but in many cases severely distorted, so it turns you into a giant tumor.

Like when you get a sunburn? In most cases, your cell repairs itself with no noticeable defect. Although cancer is a stochastic effect, it takes a quite ridiculously large acute dose to get radiation sickness. The reason chronic exposure WILL NOT cause radiation sickness is because your cells heal themselves so well.

 

There is no way to fix this medically after the fact save for removing such tissue at best really, I think everyone exposed to unsafe levels of such die from such in time, usually from some form of cancer depending on conditions of the exposure.

What do you define as unsafe levels of radiation?

 

Nuclear energy may be a safe bet if done absolutely right constantly, but can people really do that at the scale it will be required?

Yes. Not only do we have immense training, we design our reactors such that it is nearly impossible for a Chernobyl type incident to happen again. They had a positive void coefficient, so when their pressure continued to drop causing more steam generation, their core reactivity increased making the problem worse. Our reactors are inherently stable. We don't have steam in the primary, so we don't have a void coefficient, but we do have a negative coefficient of reactivity; when the reactor heats up, the reactivity of the core decreases.

[swansont]

 

Once you get blasted by radiation there is no going back. IN case some readers might not know radiation poisoning, or an aspect of it is simply this. Little rays pass through your tissue, while doing this they cause damage. One aspect of this is that your DNA for lack of better words gets its bonds or structure broken, it happens to repair but in many cases severely distorted, so it turns you into a giant tumor. There is no way to fix this medically after the fact save for removing such tissue at best really, I think everyone exposed to unsafe levels of such die from such in time, usually from some form of cancer depending on conditions of the exposure.

 

You do realize that human beings are inherently radioactive, right?

[thedarkshade]

You do realize that human beings are inherently radioactive, right?

And that I think is due to K-40 and C-14 mostly, isn't it?

[swansont]

And that I think is due to K-40 and C-14 mostly, isn't it?

 

Yes, unless your diet is rich in pitchblende.

[qwe)k]

Surely its implications are unethical? factors such as terrorism and radiation exposure to people around waste dumps can't be right.