Nuclear Fuel Sent back from Japan

[kj]

Do you agree with Greenpeace confronting the tankers comming back into Irish waters after being told to bring back spent nuclear fuel which the Japanese deemed unsafe due to forged safety documents? Or do you think Greenpeace should not risk the safety operation that is protecting the fuel from terrorists. I personally dont know what side to take, but i wanna know what you lot think. Its been in the news all week so lets have your views on the matter. Are you for or against the transport of nuclear fuel that could potentially damage the environment...

[njw]

well i dont know much about this, but what i heard this morning is that green peace are getting together a fleet of ships/boats to block the fuel as a protest? am I right???

[AlanG]

It makes a change from it being buried in Scotland. Having said that who here is actually in favour of Nuclear energy? Considering how cheap solar, wind and hydro are becoming now.

The main argument against wind is that it looks horrible covering a hill, but whats more horrible, a few polls in a hill, or radioactive waste buried underground that will take hundreds of thousands of years to become remotely safe. Remembering that there are many uninhabited areas on the west coast of scotland that have lots of wind, there would be no spoilt views this way?

[Red_Baron]

Shock Horror, I'm gonna agree with Alan. Nuclear power is not what we need to be using. It should have been stopped after Chernobl. While it is unlikely to happen again more money should be spent on cleaner fuels. I do think though that greenpeace are targeting the wrong people. The guys on the cargo ships are only doing their job. And they need to do it without the added risk of a blockade. I think someone needs to be investigated here though as someone's tried to pull a swift one on the Japanese and if it were us we'd send it back. I say we make all the really bad criminals run around in a wheel all day long to make energy.

[AlanG]

damn i cant remember which is which.

theres nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, one is the type that was in the chernobyl reactor, the other is the new alleged super duper method, apparently very clean and whatnot, must go search later. i remember some physicist was whinging about how people assume all nuclear energy is the same and very dirty etc, must try and find details.

[Red_Baron]

The clean one is very hard to produce. it invloves generating energy by joining two atoms or something. They've been trying it for years but it's not easy, if it is cracked then we won't need any other forms of generation as it's more efficient than the rough method we use at the mo (I think it's fision we use and fusion is clean). The did manage a minor fusion in one of those underground particle accelerators but it wasn't controlled enough. I'm still for the human mice.

[kj]

I think the whole idea of nuclear energy and waste is pretty scary. I mean, after what the terrorists proved was possible on sept 11, surely we are not as safe as we were before. FBI reports and investigations uncovered video tapes with Osama bin Ladin telling his people not to attack nuclear facilities YET, but in the future. That doesnt make me feel very safe at all.

And as someone suggested earlier on, i think the alternatives are more reliable and cost worthy, although obviously the energy output wouldnt be as much, but who needs a nuclear power plant when Scotland has a smaller population that London. Incedently, how many nuclear reactors are there in Scotland?