|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Please discuss about pros & cons of nuclear reactor formation.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
You would be better off taking advice from nuclear physicists and structural engineers than an SEO consultant.
by Hugh Williamson7 years ago
Nuclear energy is supposed to be part of the new U.S. energy strategy. We are assured that the new plants will be fail safe. How safe are they in the event of an unforeseen disaster, like the Japanese quake?From Yahoo...
by AnnCee7 years ago
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/0 … n.nuclear/
by wiserworld5 years ago
Are you a supporter of nuclear power plants?
by John Holden6 years ago
Germany at least sees sense;-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208
by Beata Stasak6 years ago
Are we ready to build safe and clean nuclear power plants?Providing the incentives to make clean enegy profitable alsoff means building a new generation of safe, clean, nuclear power plants. It also means to ask the...
by Phoebe Pike7 years ago
Should we research alternative energy resources, continue to use up the oil, revert back to horses and bovine animals for power, or something else entirely? What are your views on this matter and why?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.