It does lead to plutonium
-
-
-
Yes but the wrong isotope mix of plutonium
-
Ive read a few books on Manhattan and the history of nuclear physics, but i dont remember reading that. Twitter can be a good thing after all

-
I believe it depends on the reactor design; for example, Chernobyl was a type that produced power *and* weapons material
-
Exactly. That reactor was designed overwhelmingly for weapons production. It allowed for easy “toasting” for weapons Pu but also made it an extremely unsafe power reactor, as the accident has shown.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sure, it just leads to human rights abuses, massive health crises (ask the Navajo) bureaucratic bloat and corruption, environmental drestruction, and the occasional Fukushima. But hey, the world's getting better, so why worry, right Steve?
-
Navajo case was caused largely bc because of the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, not for nuclear power generation.
-
This is a common dodge used by nuclear power advocates. The two are inextricable. First rush of uranium prospecting was ostensibly for power generation, but was caught up in WWII arms race, then cold war.
-
Uranium is just mining. The popular alternatives to nuclear power will require even more mining for resources like copper and lithium.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Doesn’t seem to address terrorist acquisition of materials for dirty bombs, intentional targeted attacks on nuke systems, or internal sabotage of a reactor. Gotta add that into the mix of considerations too.
-
Bigger issue though still to me though is a growth in nuclear power (as currently known) will also have a predictable risk in accidents. And Chernobyl & Fukushima illustrate that both human nature and mother nature will find the gap in safety our planning.
-
Yes, but both accidents have still been relatively small in human casualties, especially Fukushima. Not enough to freak out, at the very least.
-
Soldiers who sacrificed in Chernobyl would tell you different, & long term health still uncertain for those near Fukushima. But even if there had been no deaths, look how many more dead cities on avg do you run risk of creating around the world as you ratchet up more plants?
-
Im in Houston w/ tons of chemical plants. When they have an accident we recover & hopefully create new protections for ppl. If we had a nuke plant where Arkema had an uncontrolled explosion after hurricane Harvey, half of 4th largest US city would be closed now - for generations.
-
While the nuclear plant just outside Houston, just kept plugging away during Harvey. How about some credit for *not* "blowing-up" (which btw is not how controlled fission works).https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-30/as-harvey-raged-workers-slept-on-cots-to-keep-nuclear-power-on …
-
The South Texas nuke plant serves Houston, (as well as San Antonio, Austin, etc.) on the statewide grid, but is 2 hours outside of Houston. It’s not a comparable comparison to chem plants and refineries im taking about that are in city limits, or Arkema which is in a suburb.
-
Also South Texas was so rife with problems, delays and concerns about its original plans, it underscores all the cost issues with nuclear. Particularly in developed nations. Much of that would likely be ignored in developing nations but more disasters will likely follow.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
We have one future...nuclear energy....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But nuclear energy leads to nuclear accidents, 100% sure with enough time. A bad accident every 30 years..
-
And how bad the accidents have been in comparison to fossil fuels?
-
Very bad.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.