ext_245465 ([identity profile] derivatizing.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] grazie 2010-01-28 07:29 am (UTC)

Regardless of the fact Chernobyl was built as a failure, the radiation problem still stands. And okay, so we fixed Three Mile Island right away, but the radiation stays in the environment for hundreds of years. So congratulations we saved it from being that much worse, but can we afford to have little leaks here and there? It's fine to have wounds to our planet that will last hundreds of years?

You bring up my attitude stopping the idea of decontamination, but how is that any different than your attitude towards non-nuclear sources?

Tidal and wind technologies can be employed in the ocean. Solar panels and wind turbines can be put in deserts, not just places people would want to not be taken up. It works just fine in Southern California as is already.

I'm not suggesting we should stay around using oil and coal, in fact, I am all for fixing the problem with our energy I just don't think we should do irreversible damage that would hurt the planet for thousands of years while we play around with the technology. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years. Thorium on the other hand, 232Th with a half-life of 14.05 billion years, 230Th with a half-life of 75,380 years, 229Th with a half-life of 7340 years, and 228Th with a half-life of 1.92 years. While the final isotope is a short half life It is the by product of Uranium Decay. Which means Uranium would have to be used to get it, rather defeating the point.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting