NationStates Jolt Archive

"Sellafield 2 will produce 7,5 tons of plutonium every year
1,5 kilogram of plutonium make the nuclear bomb
Sellafield 2 will release the same amount of radioactivity
Into the environment as the Tschernobyl every 4,5 years
One of these radioactive substances
Krypton 85, will cause death and skin cancer"

*booing bump tschak*

sounds nifty, but what does it mean?

sounds nifty, but what does it mean?

Sellafield is a nuclear reprocessing plant in England.

sounds nifty, but what does it mean?

Sellafield is a nuclear reprocessing plant in England.

oh, ok. i live in america, so you know how that goes...

Sounds like fun.

First of all, where in the heck is this information coming from? Given that it didn't even spell "Chernobyl" correctly, I have some problem accepting some of the other stuff in this.

Secondly, yes, nuclear plants do produce plutonium (or at least some do), but that plutonium is in the form of nuclear waste that takes a $600 million facility to extract the plutonium and purify it before you can make a bomb. The idea that a nuclear power plant can just magically crap a working 40 megaton bomb is ridiculous.

The idea that a nuclear power plant can just magically crap a working 40 megaton bomb is ridiculous.

AHHAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol:

Yes, but the real question is can it cut through a tin can and then still slice this ripe tomato?

Given that it didn't even spell "Chernobyl" correctly, I have some problem accepting some of the other stuff in this.

Depends on the language. That's how it's spelled in at least German.

First of all, where in the heck is this information coming from? Given that it didn't even spell "Chernobyl" correctly, I have some problem accepting some of the other stuff in this.


Secondly, yes, nuclear plants do produce plutonium (or at least some do), but that plutonium is in the form of nuclear waste that takes a $600 million facility to extract the plutonium and purify it before you can make a bomb. The idea that a nuclear power plant can just magically crap a working 40 megaton bomb is ridiculous.

Chernobyl is often spelled Tschernobyl in Europe.

Nobody said anything about a nuclear processing plant making bombs...But they pollute (and in some cases: blow up).

We need sellafield, because the X-ray turnip and the three-legged trout are staples of the British diet, and cannot survive in the wild or in captivity, without those nourishing gamma rays!

Mmmm, three-legged trout on toast points.

We need sellafield, because the X-ray turnip and the three-legged trout are staples of the British diet, and cannot survive in the wild or in captivity, without those nourishing gamma rays!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

First of all, where in the heck is this information coming from? Given that it didn't even spell "Chernobyl" correctly, I have some problem accepting some of the other stuff in this.


Secondly, yes, nuclear plants do produce plutonium (or at least some do), but that plutonium is in the form of nuclear waste that takes a $600 million facility to extract the plutonium and purify it before you can make a bomb. The idea that a nuclear power plant can just magically crap a working 40 megaton bomb is ridiculous.

Chernobyl is often spelled Tschernobyl in Europe.

Nobody said anything about a nuclear processing plant making bombs...But they pollute (and in some cases: blow up).

you must understand that the U.S. has the best safety standards in the world for nuclear power plants

You damned EU guys are such pansies when it comes to nuker reactors. Here's a hint, Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe if you don't do stupid things with them. Like shutting off all the safety systems(Chernobyl), or building them with gauges which don't have proper ranges on them(Three Mile Island).

For most nuclear reactors, raditiation at the perimeter fence is not allowed to be more than 3 millisieverts differant than regional atmospheric norms. In calcutta they absorb something like 15 millisieverts, elsewhere the average is 3-5. It's not a big deal.

You damned EU guys are such pansies when it comes to nuker reactors. Here's a hint, Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe if you don't do stupid things with them. Like shutting off all the safety systems(Chernobyl), or building them with gauges which don't have proper ranges on them(Three Mile Island).

For most nuclear reactors, raditiation at the perimeter fence is not allowed to be more than 3 millisieverts differant than regional atmospheric norms. In calcutta they absorb something like 15 millisieverts, elsewhere the average is 3-5. It's not a big deal.

Does this rant mean that the three-legged trout is going to go on the endangered species list? :cry:

The idea that a nuclear power plant can just magically crap a working 40 megaton bomb is ridiculous.

Especially since no one's ever built a 40 megaton bomb...let alone a 40 megaton fission bomb! :roll:

Tchernobyl... Harrisburg... Sellafield... Hiroshima...

It's in the air for you and me

I always wanted to glow in the dark.

you must understand that the U.S. has the best safety standards in the world for nuclear power plants
[Points at the holes that acid has cut in containment vessels at a couple of dozen plants.]

It's true that in the case of the reprocessing plants in Europe (Sellafield being among them) there's been problems with increased radioactivity. However, this is not a matter of reprocessing being a bad idea, just that the European nuclear programs aren't as good as the Japanese, where there is probably the largest nuclear reprocessing program but it lacks the local radioactivity. Better engineering is all we need, not to scrap a program that reduces nuclear waste (the purpose of reprocessing facilities).

As for Pu-239, what people don't seem to realize is that the reason it can be used in a nuclear bomb is because it's fissile. In other words, you could use Pu-239 to fuel a nuclear plant. This is the principle behind breeder reactors, reactors that create more fuel than they use. This is because most of uranium is U-238 but U-235 is what needs to be used as fuel. However, when U-238 is bombarded with neutrons (the thing that catalyzes a nuclear reaction) it becomes U-239 which is highly unstable and very quickly decays to Np-239, then Pu-239, all within a very short time. This produces more fissile material than the U-235 used. This tidbit of information isn't totally pertinent, but if you'd like I could give you my whole research and opinion on nuclear energy :) .

you must understand that the U.S. has the best safety standards in the world for nuclear power plants
[Points at the holes that acid has cut in containment vessels at a couple of dozen plants.]

Umm... where do you get that idea from? And beside that the best safety standards are not US, but Japanese.

[Points at the holes that acid has cut in containment vessels at a couple of dozen plants.]
Umm... where do you get that idea from? And beside that the best safety standards are not US, but Japanese.
News stories. One plant's containment vessel has a basketball-sized hole, with only a thin layer of steel remaining at the bottom, shielding the radioactive core.

nuke plants are still nuke plants, no mater how safe they are. Chernobyl was considered safe untill someone screwed up and took out too many coils.

[Points at the holes that acid has cut in containment vessels at a couple of dozen plants.]
Umm... where do you get that idea from? And beside that the best safety standards are not US, but Japanese.
News stories. One plant's containment vessel has a basketball-sized hole, with only a thin layer of steel remaining at the bottom, shielding the radioactive core.

I'm sure its lightly Shielded for a reason.

nuke plants are still nuke plants, no mater how safe they are. Chernobyl was considered safe untill someone screwed up and took out too many coils.

No way in hades is that true. First off, they didn't have nearly the safety standards required in the US, including the lack of concrete dome to keep radioactive gasses from escaping, something that would have helped them and did save Three Mile Island from massive radiation exposure. Beside that they pushed it past the "red line" for power production, which is obviously a bad idea, when it blew.

And nuke plants aren't necessarily dangerous. Experimental reactors have shut off all the safties and containment and cooled off on their own without any harmful effects.

[Points at the holes that acid has cut in containment vessels at a couple of dozen plants.]
Umm... where do you get that idea from? And beside that the best safety standards are not US, but Japanese.
News stories. One plant's containment vessel has a basketball-sized hole, with only a thin layer of steel remaining at the bottom, shielding the radioactive core.

I've put in some rather recent research and unless you can produce an article I've never run across anything to suggest what you're talking about and I certainly won't believe you. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing in the way of acid in the waste.

I'm gradually moving further away from Sellafield. I used to live in deapest rural Lancashire to Manchester to Liverpool.

Where to next?

Didn't Sellafield have a load of problems (in the 80s iirc), which is why it changed its name? Windscale :arrow: Sellafield.

Also I heard all of Japan reactors are within the blast of each other. So if one goes, they all go. Don't know if this is true, but it would encourage high safety standards.

I've put in some rather recent research and unless you can produce an article I've never run across anything to suggest what you're talking about and I certainly won't believe you. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing in the way of acid in the waste.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/029r2.html

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/7073056.htm?1c

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0507-01.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=790

http://www.ilgreenparty.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=226

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/581/5477.html

http://www.ems.org/nuclear/davis_besse.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-27-Wed-2002/news/18394183.html

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=888

Just a few pages I just searched up. If you want more, there is a whole lot more out there. Essentially, there is a bit of a serious design flaw which affects several US reactors.

Given that it didn't even spell "Chernobyl" correctly, I have some problem accepting some of the other stuff in this.

of course you realize that chernobyl is a ukrainian word and as such wouldn't properly even be written in our alphabet...

you can see the actual spelling here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl)

I feel like it so I'm going to express my nuclear views in a highly shortened version. I'm American so everything is from the US point of view, but the principles exist for any nation.

Nuclear energy is a highly efficient, very powerful source of energy. It takes literally thousandths of the amount of fuel that fossil fuels require. Plus uranium, the source fuel for nuclear energy is abundant in the US and allies of the US, Australia having probably the largest uranium mining industry in the world. This means that it is an alternative for electrical generation to fossil fuels that does not require us to deal with nations that are generally hostile and/or unstable, aka the Middle Eastern nations. Beside this the quantity of fuel is far greater, with supplies of U-235 sufficient to power the world for 500 years assuming the continued expansion of energy requirements at a similar rate to the current rate. Of course this is only a tiny portion of the nuclear fuel that is possible with reprocessing and breeder reactor systems, but I will treat that in greater detail later.

Nuclear energy does not emit pollutants as fossil fuels do. There are none of the emissions from a nuclear plant that are such a problem for fossil fuels.

In the case of automotive use, utilizing hydrogen fuel cells removes fossil fuels from use here. Of course to produce a hydrogen fuel cell one must perform water electrolosis (sp?), a chemical reaction that requires electrical energy from the power grid to run. This means that in the end fossil fuels still need to be burned to run a hydrogen fuel cell. Again, by having nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels to run the power grid one can remove the use of fossil fuels for automotive use, and with these uses one essentially removes the need to burn fossil fuels, allowing us to use our limited resource for other things such as plastics and medicines.

Nuclear energy is often seen to have two problems, safety and waste.

As for safety, there are two events that are generally cited to indicate that nuclear energy is dangerous: Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. However, at Three Mile Island almost no radiation escaped and health effects have not been detected after a continous study since the accident in 1979. This is far longer than the maximum period it takes cancer to develop in patients due to chemical or radioactive exposure. The other thing to note is that it wouldn't have happened today. It was essentially caused by computer and human error where the slow computers of the time were used to collect and summarize data. The computers were several hours behind and the operators were using this old and incorrect data to make decisions. With modern computing technology they would have known what was happening and been able to deal with it. Chernobyl is a problem of inadequate Soviet safety standards and dumb people at the top. Designs did not include many of the safties in US designs (including the concrete dome I alluded to in another post). Then they were ordered to push the plant too far, and this just isn't a smart thing, knowing that you can't do more and trying to. This sort of stupidity would cause a disaster at any kind of plant. Of course to make matters worse in Chernobyl the Soviet government tried to cover it up and didn't evacuate people.

Then there's the problem of waste. Uranium is generally 2%-3% enriched for civilian use. We'll use 3% for easy math. At 3% enrichment the fuel is often left until about 2/3 of the U-235 has reacted. This leaves 1% U-235, 2% fission fragments (elements that exist from a fission). These have atomic numbers in about the 40 or 50 range and are not generally radioactive, but are in a very unstable high-energy state after the fission. This causes them to decay, but the decay stops within seconds of the reaction because in this highly unstable state they decay very quickly. At the same time neutrons from the U-235 fissions come into contact with U-238, causing the U-238 to absorb the neutrons, making unstable U-239 which quickly decays to Pu-239 (plutonium). Thus there is about 95% U-238, 2% Pu-239, 1% U-235, and 2% fission fragments. This is the waste, and the radioactive waste is Pu and U and their decay series.

The goal of reprocessing is to use the high-level waste, Pu and U, disposing of it by getting more use out of it. Reprocessing reclaims U-235 and Pu-239 from the waste, the fissile (capable of being used in fission immediately) materials in the waste. Reprocessing fulfills its goal of reducing waste and raising the fuel supply, disposing only of U-238, the least harmful of the three because with its extreme decay life it emits so little radiation that it is not harmful to life, and in fact if you'll recall it is mined, and is all over the place in the natural world, and in fact scientists theorize that uranium is the reason that the interior of the earth is warm. The problem with reprocessing is that European reprocessing plants have irradiated the immediate area. However, the Japanese programs have not done the same, working at greater efficiency in reprocessing without the environmental hazards associated with reprocessing in Sellafield.

There is an even better option than reprocessing, however. Breeder reactors are reactors that convert U-238 to Pu-239, making it fissile, and use the plutonium to sustain the reaction. It is possible in a breeder reactor to get far more energy from the same mass of uranium than in normal reactors because they do not throw away the U-238 that makes up around 99% of natural uranium. Plus once efficiency drops to unacceptable levels it is possible to reprocess this for all uranium and plutonium, removing only fission fragments. This removes all high level waste from the waste problem, simply putting it back into energy production. Thus I advocate breeder reactors. Unfortunately no nuclear program has thus far made a great effort to commit to this technology, though experiments have been conducted with great benefits and promising results by several countries including the US.

I hope that this has been helpful to all readers (assuming you have the patience to read it).

I'm gradually moving further away from Sellafield. I used to live in deapest rural Lancashire to Manchester to Liverpool.

Where to next?

Didn't Sellafield have a load of problems (in the 80s iirc), which is why it changed its name? Windscale :arrow: Sellafield.

Also I heard all of Japan reactors are within the blast of each other. So if one goes, they all go. Don't know if this is true, but it would encourage high safety standards.

I doubt it because it is highly inefficient to build all power generation in one place. Plus you have to realize that no nuclear reactor has ever exploded, a meltdown is completely different. You aren't going to have an explosion like Hiroshima out of a nuclear plant, it's just not set up right, so there's really no such thing as being in the blast of a nuclear plant.

I've put in some rather recent research and unless you can produce an article I've never run across anything to suggest what you're talking about and I certainly won't believe you. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing in the way of acid in the waste.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0933/sec3/029r2.html

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/7073056.htm?1c

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0507-01.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=790

http://www.ilgreenparty.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=226

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/581/5477.html

http://www.ems.org/nuclear/davis_besse.html

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-27-Wed-2002/news/18394183.html

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=888

Just a few pages I just searched up. If you want more, there is a whole lot more out there. Essentially, there is a bit of a serious design flaw which affects several US reactors.

I see, thank you. I stand corrected. This does, however, only intensify the need for reprocessing/breeder technology because that's the only way you're going to avoid these long-term storage problems (I mean that if it's a problem in a reactor over a relatively short period it'll be twice as bad for long term storage). Plus better designs, especially Japanese since they haven't had these problems in reactors.

Since most of my points have already been addressed, I'll only say a few things.
First off, nuclear plants cannot "blow up" like a nuclear bomb, it's physically impossible.

Secondly, that quote in the opening post is utter bullshit, the most efficient fission devices typically use something like 5 to 6 kilograms of Plutonium-239.

Thirdly, there are problems associated with nuclear reactors, but they're far less than those associated with fossil fuels. Would you rather release into the atmosphere thousands of tonnes of carcinogenic pollutants and then breathe it in, or would you rather deal with a few kilograms of waste (most of which can be reused)?

The biggest industrial accidents in history have NOT been caused by nuclear power, they have been caused by supposedly more benign industry such as petrochemicals. Hell, that one train accident in North Korea a few weeks ago killed more people than nuclear power many times over.

Exactly THREE people in the USA have died because of nuclear power. That's a phenomenal safety rate.

Since most of my points have already been addressed, I'll only say a few things.
First off, nuclear plants cannot "blow up" like a nuclear bomb, it's physically impossible.

Secondly, that quote in the opening post is utter bullshit, the most efficient fission devices typically use something like 5 to 6 kilograms of Plutonium-239.

Thirdly, there are problems associated with nuclear reactors, but they're far less than those associated with fossil fuels. Would you rather release into the atmosphere thousands of tonnes of carcinogenic pollutants and then breathe it in, or would you rather deal with a few kilograms of waste (most of which can be reused)?

The biggest industrial accidents in history have NOT been caused by nuclear power, they have been caused by supposedly more benign industry such as petrochemicals. Hell, that one train accident in North Korea a few weeks ago killed more people than nuclear power many times over.

Exactly THREE people in the USA have died because of nuclear power. That's a phenomenal safety rate.

Well, a much more obnoxious way of saying it, but yeah, pretty much. Although I'd venture to say once again that the main danger of nuclear pollution, high level waste can be eliminated. That leaves low level waste, which only stays radioactive for a very short time (5-10 years at the most) and can then be removed from storage and recycled.

EDIT: Well, maybe method is just as obnoxious just because of the really long post, sorry.

How many people have been affected by radiation?

Those three people dont count beause A nuclear powerplant fell on them.

I'd like to say something more about Pu-239. That is, a big fear is that with lots of plutonium floating around it would be possible for terrorists to come in, grab the plutonium, and run away. Of course that doesn't take into account that it would be easy to get uranium from the ground for a nuke, and though that'd be tough just for the sake of enriching it sufficiently, it's easier than it would be to get Pu-239 even if we didn't have extensive security.

Of course there's an even easier method. Smoke detectors use Americium, an element that, while not quite as efficient, can be used to build a nuclear bomb. So if you want a nuke you don't have to go after Pu-239, there's much easier ways to get it.

And the reason why Pu-239 is so tough to use is because it is extremely dangerous to handle. The safety equipment required to not die within a minute of picking up a chunk of plutonium because of its chemical properties is quite extensive and it would be a simple matter to keep people from getting plutonium just because they can't get it without falling over dead. And it's not that it's inherently dangerous to everyone around because the dangerous chemical reactions don't put out a lot of heat. It's just that if you handle it without special equipment you will die.

Since most of my points have already been addressed, I'll only say a few things.
First off, nuclear plants cannot "blow up" like a nuclear bomb, it's physically impossible.

Secondly, that quote in the opening post is utter bullshit, the most efficient fission devices typically use something like 5 to 6 kilograms of Plutonium-239.

Thirdly, there are problems associated with nuclear reactors, but they're far less than those associated with fossil fuels. Would you rather release into the atmosphere thousands of tonnes of carcinogenic pollutants and then breathe it in, or would you rather deal with a few kilograms of waste (most of which can be reused)?

The biggest industrial accidents in history have NOT been caused by nuclear power, they have been caused by supposedly more benign industry such as petrochemicals. Hell, that one train accident in North Korea a few weeks ago killed more people than nuclear power many times over.

Exactly THREE people in the USA have died because of nuclear power. That's a phenomenal safety rate.

Well, a much more obnoxious way of saying it, but yeah, pretty much. Although I'd venture to say once again that the main danger of nuclear pollution, high level waste can be eliminated. That leaves low level waste, which only stays radioactive for a very short time (5-10 years at the most) and can then be removed from storage and recycled.

EDIT: Well, maybe method is just as obnoxious just because of the really long post, sorry.
I need to be obnoxious to get through to the self-annointed environmentalist saviors that think there's some panacea for our energy problems. Not withstanding that these people have caused more environmental problems than anyone else. People don't really read, nor do they adhere to logic when facing long-engrained beliefs. Problems such as this need to be explained bluntly as to knock them on their asses.

I think the main problem isn't really nuclear power, but rather the belief by many that they can simply have their cake and eat it too regarding energy. They oppose the construction of new power plants and refineries and then complain about the cost of electricity and gasoline. Then they further complain about the environmental cost of using fossil fuels. They then advocate incredibly expensive and inefficient solar and wind power plants which will never be able to supply considerable energy to an industrial civilization, and bemoan the government and industry's lack of investment in such, while at the same time bitching about every manner of infrastructure development. Oh, yeah, by the way, they complain about the industries that create solar panels and wind generators, too. Wonderful, isn't it? I can't stand these self-righteous fools. Why can't they understand that nothing can serve as a cure all?

Thats all well and good. But truthfully how many Environmentalist do you know that complain about the cost Electricity and Gas?

Thats all well and good. But truthfully how many Environmentalist do you know that complain about the cost Electricity and Gas?

not this one. jack those suckas up!

me too. The point of an enviromentalist is that he feels that Sacrifices need to be made for the sake of the environment. Anyone who says different is spouting pithy rhetoric.

I need to be obnoxious to get through to the self-annointed environmentalist saviors that think there's some panacea for our energy problems. Not withstanding that these people have caused more environmental problems than anyone else. People don't really read, nor do they adhere to logic when facing long-engrained beliefs. Problems such as this need to be explained bluntly as to knock them on their asses.

I think the main problem isn't really nuclear power, but rather the belief by many that they can simply have their cake and eat it too regarding energy. They oppose the construction of new power plants and refineries and then complain about the cost of electricity and gasoline. Then they further complain about the environmental cost of using fossil fuels. They then advocate incredibly expensive and inefficient solar and wind power plants which will never be able to supply considerable energy to an industrial civilization, and bemoan the government and industry's lack of investment in such, while at the same time bitching about every manner of infrastructure development. Oh, yeah, by the way, they complain about the industries that create solar panels and wind generators, too. Wonderful, isn't it? I can't stand these self-righteous fools. Why can't they understand that nothing can serve as a cure all?

Yeah, I can see what you're saying, and it seems like every bit of logic that I've used in any argument is ignored, but I try to stick to it. A few reasonable and intelligent people will listen if use logic, but I don't think anyone's going to listen if I'm deliberately obnoxious. Actually I have a method of knowing a lot of the time when someone's beyond all hope of listening to anything on the issue. Whenever a person refutes my conclusion without even considering my logic I know that their argument is basically because I'm not going to change they're mind, they're stubborn. If that's the case shouting won't help either.

I also think that whenever someone shows me I'm wrong I should admit it right away. And you should praise people if they do admit they're wrong because it's so rare on this forum.

me too. The point of an enviromentalist is that he feels that Sacrifices need to be made for the sake of the environment. Anyone who says different is spouting pithy rhetoric.

Surely what you're saying is true, and I'd like to think that the environment is one of the more important points in my considerations. But please don't judge a particular sort of energy until you understand it. My main point is essentially that nuclear energy doesn't have the pollution problems of fossil fuels but it is capable of meeting energy needs. Please read what I've said thus far or better yet do your own research before saying something about nuclear because it's got a whole lot less in the way of environmental problems than most people realize. And probably more importantly it is safe (after all, the enironment wouldn't exactly benefit if it wasn't).

I need to be obnoxious to get through to the self-annointed environmentalist saviors that think there's some panacea for our energy problems. Not withstanding that these people have caused more environmental problems than anyone else. People don't really read, nor do they adhere to logic when facing long-engrained beliefs. Problems such as this need to be explained bluntly as to knock them on their asses.

I think the main problem isn't really nuclear power, but rather the belief by many that they can simply have their cake and eat it too regarding energy. They oppose the construction of new power plants and refineries and then complain about the cost of electricity and gasoline. Then they further complain about the environmental cost of using fossil fuels. They then advocate incredibly expensive and inefficient solar and wind power plants which will never be able to supply considerable energy to an industrial civilization, and bemoan the government and industry's lack of investment in such, while at the same time bitching about every manner of infrastructure development. Oh, yeah, by the way, they complain about the industries that create solar panels and wind generators, too. Wonderful, isn't it? I can't stand these self-righteous fools. Why can't they understand that nothing can serve as a cure all?

Yeah, I can see what you're saying, and it seems like every bit of logic that I've used in any argument is ignored, but I try to stick to it. A few reasonable and intelligent people will listen if use logic, but I don't think anyone's going to listen if I'm deliberately obnoxious. Actually I have a method of knowing a lot of the time when someone's beyond all hope of listening to anything on the issue. Whenever a person refutes my conclusion without even considering my logic I know that their argument is basically because I'm not going to change they're mind, they're stubborn. If that's the case shouting won't help either.

I also think that whenever someone shows me I'm wrong I should admit it right away. And you should praise people if they do admit they're wrong because it's so rare on this forum.

I wasn't being deliberately obnoxious, actually, just blunt. By all means, be logical, but put it as succinctly as possible. Long, technical arguments are more of a liability than a tool when they fail to crush the opposition in the initial blow, as the enemy will then use a standard appeal-to-emotion tactic to sway the audience in their favor, the majority of whom stopped listening long ago. Your arguments are excellent, but when you're facing a notion as deeply situated as "ALL NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY IS EVIL!!!ONEONE", you must in some ways modify the delivery of your points. Try to appeal to the human aspect as well as the more abstract. For example, many people consider radioactivity to be some evil force. Explain to them its effects on THEIR bodies, and that the same things happen in relation to chemicals, with which we have far more contact. Cite overwhelmingly large examples of chemical spills and their horrible effects, as well as their ubiquity, use examples with which people have much familiarity. If you're going to use facts and figures, be sure to do it in conjunction with concrete, non-numerical examples. Succintly put, just try to explain a bit more what certain things MEAN to John and Sue Public. Don't let them reach their own conclusions, as they will almost certainly go for their preconceived notions instead of your opinion. One method of doing this is to construct your sentences in such a way as to make dissent seem idiotic in the face of your plainly correct reasoning. I sometimes overdo that, but I'm trying to increase my subtlety. Just experiment with different styles, you might be surprised at what you find.

Tchernobyl... Harrisburg... Sellafield... Hiroshima...

It's in the air for you and me

Discovered by Madame Curie :wink:

The idea that a nuclear power plant can just magically crap a working 40 megaton bomb is ridiculous.

Especially since no one's ever built a 40 megaton bomb...let alone a 40 megaton fission bomb! :roll:

No-one's ever built a 40 megaton fission bomb, no, but...

"The world's most powerful hydrogen bomb was detonated on the 30th of October 1961 [over Novaya Zemlya]. The bomb had an explosive force of 58 megatons"

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MuhammadKaleem.shtml

So ha.

I for one am a strong supporter of non-proliferation and alternative power to nuclear plants.

I for one am a strong supporter of non-proliferation and alternative power to nuclear plants.
What, wind and solar power? That costs like 500x as much as nuclear power, and is incredibly unreliable. Hydroelectric power in the West has already been pretty fully exploited. America's capacity for economically expanding hydroelectric power is probably close to 0%.

Tchernobyl... Harrisburg... Sellafield... Hiroshima...

It's in the air for you and me

Discovered by Madame Curie :wink:

And then her and her husband got super-sized and went on a rampage! That's the Simpsons for you ;)