If you are worried about the effects of nuclear power on human health, please google "excess deaths air pollution" (without quotes) and get back to
me.

How is this even a debate? Nuclear > Coal.

yea but you can't put nuclear rods in the stockings of bad children for that reason Coal > Nuclear.

That's facetious.

Last one out turn off Mr. Coffee

LMAO

Rep

Dumbass, who thinks of Italy?...
:spock:

This vid does an excellent job of explaining the situation in poo terms.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5sakN2hSVxA?rel=0&amp;hd=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm pretty sure that's the only terms you can explain it in...

RECA says otherwise. Coal mining results in deaths. Uranium mining results in deaths.

There is a real chance that I'll never spend 4 minutes of my life more effectively again.

That. Was. Awesome.

...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CAXRcebhcY...e-poster-0.jpg

eh, wha....? You're saying that there aren't constant, very low and usually safe levels of radiation all around us all the time?

I have a fascinating report from a well known investment bank that I can't post due to copyright issues, but I can quickly summarize.

1. The phrase "spent" fuel rods is potentially misleading, because the term spent doesn't mean inert/inactive. It means their usefulness is spent because they have accumulated additional neutrons from the fissioning process adn thus become MORE unpredictable and MORE radioactive. Spent rods have more radioactive particles than in the operating reactors.

2. A Brookhaven National Laboratory study using OLDER spent fuel than at Fukushima estimated that all water would boil away after 40 hours, a much shorter time than what has otherwise been posted on this thread.

3. The Fukushima spent fuel pools are near the top of the plant, which makes them harder to deal with, and a generally more dangerous situation. It's also not entirely clear what happens when you pour water on spent fuel rods if the zirconium casing has been compromised.

4. According to the newsletter, and something I haven't seen elsewhere, it's possible that all the power problems stem from having the fuel storage tanks for the backup generators sitting OUT IN THE OPEN ON THE FRICKING BEACH, with aerial photos suggesting the tsunami completely took them out to sea. If they had just had the fuel protected (underground or within sturdy structures), maybe none of this would be happening, comparing the situation at Daiichi to Daini, only 10 miles away, where the situation is stable (and where the fuel for the backup generators was not compromised).

No, I'm saying such an observation is facetious. It's a pointless exercise in semantics.