Taking lesson from Japan should be more nuclear reactor constructed?

1. 0

   bhaveshpatel03posted 13 years ago

   Please discuss about pros & cons of nuclear reactor formation.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      CollBposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      No definitely not.  If another earthquake of the same force as that which destroyed a number of cities in Japan struck again, other nuclear plants may have exploded and caused more damage on a scale, larger than we've seen.  A number of journalists from the States and elsewhere were sent to Japan but fortunately escaped injuries or a worse fate.
      
      On the other hand (but I still think it's a definite no), having nuclear plants seem to level out the balance of power between countries and thus apparently prevent a WW III from taking place but this is debatable.
      
      Definitely no to more nuclear plants being built.  The casualties in Japan is enormous and it's lives that matters.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      melporposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The world will continue to build nuclear power plants because they are simply the most efficient and cleanest way to produce large quantities electricity at the moment. There is nothing more efficient than nuclear power to produce electricity. It will be the energy source of the future. Nuclear power plants are safe until natural phenomena such as a tsunami or an earthquake hits them. The ones in Japan survived the earthquake but did not survive the tsunami. This double disaster was a rare occurrence despite the fact Japan has earthquakes quite frequently.  The only way to protect anything from a tsunami is to build it on higher ground. Do you remember the equation E=mc squared?  Where do you think the sun is producing of all that energy from? It is nuclear power.

      replyreport
2. 44

   Mikeydoesposted 13 years ago

   The lessons we should take are very clear. Take all precautions in the planning of, and building of the many nuclear plants in the future. Also placement of nuclear reactors is obviously a very important element.
   
   Nuclear energy is the future.

   replyreport
3. 81

   manlypoetrymanposted 13 years ago

   In all fairness...I don't think anyone should build a nuclear power plant in an area prone to earthquakes and then put it by the coast where it is also vulnerable to a tsumani. I do not mean to sound insensitive to the suffering that is taking place with our neighboring country of Japan. I think that this incident demonstrates that multiple disasters can and will happen...no matter what the forecasted statistics say are probable. No one wants to be around in the middle of 2 huge crisis to deal with yet another third crisis. It is impossible. Kudos and praise for the gallant efforts goes to them that have sacrificed during this Crisis. Let's not do this ever again! Please!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      chamiljposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think Japan should stop nuclear power program and go for safe option.

      replyreport
4. 52

   johncimbleposted 13 years ago

   Nuclear power is usually safe. In my opinion it is the best form over power as it is much cleaner than other options and produces a hell of a lot of power. However there is nuclear waste from the plant's but this is not as bad as pumping coal smoke etc into the atmosphere.
   
   But like Mikeydoes says, all precautions should be taken when constructing a plant.

   replyreport
5. 65

   Gypsy Willowposted 12 years ago

   No definately not!

   replyreport
6. 69

   thisisoliposted 12 years ago

   I think nuclear power is the most viable and environmentally friendly energy source fo the future, however, they should not be built on known fault lines, and I think they do need as much security as possible to prevent the problems discovered in Japan, IE. Each reactor should have a backup power generator and coolant source, as well as a main reserve coolant and generator.
   
   There should also be a backup layor of shielding.  Most of the radiation leaks could have been prevented or at least severely reduced if there was an overall dome, or each reactor had a seperate dome incase of explosions.
   
   *Disclaimer*
   You would be better off taking advice from nuclear physicists and structural engineers than an SEO consultant.

   replyreport
7. 80

   earnestshubposted 12 years ago

   Thorium.

   replyreport