Comments on: The Nuclear Option

By: Dealing with Sexism and Trolls on the Internet | Sara Ost

Dealing with Sexism and Trolls on the Internet | Sara Ost — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:14:27 +0000

[…] my lady-brain almost didn’t catch it, a follower on Twitter labeled our recent article aboutnuclear energy as stupid and ignorant. He then admonished us both there and on Facebook to be […]

By: The Insider’s Guide to Life: Experts Only, Girls « The Insider's Guide to Life

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:17:05 +0000

[…] my lady-brain almost didn’t catch it, a follower on Twitter labeled our recent article aboutnuclear energy as stupid and ignorant. He then admonished us both there and on Facebook to be […]

By: Cfff

Cfff — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:50:00 +0000

Seriously?? The largest earthquake EVER recorded has hit Japan and now nuclear energy is dangerous? Jesus Solar panels take up way to much space, everybody complains that wind turbines are ugly, fossil is dirty. Maybe seeing as nothing is acceptable to you, you should just get one of the bike generators and power your house that way.

By: fikester3@yahoo.com

fikester3@yahoo.com — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:48:00 +0000

When is the last time you drove a car? You accept safety risks every day, even though you read that article about your neighbor’s kid getting killed in a DUI accident. It’s all about probability, which people are woefully deficient at relating to their normal life.

By: x10

x10 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:48:00 +0000

ya know, your car is supposed to be safe too… but you take that risk every day because the pros outweigh the cons, because the probability of catastrophe is small.

The safety standards are weighed against cost and provided up to an acceptable level. This is no different. What happened here had a probability of less than 1 in a million. Plants are not designed for earthquakes or floods with probabilities less than that because they would cost too much to be beneficial. For the same reason, we don’t drive around tanks.

By: Virtualguy92107

Virtualguy92107 — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:29:00 +0000

Nuclear powerplants are our best option for safe disposal of about 30,000 warheads we have in the world.

By: Arazu

Arazu — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:24:00 +0000

One cannot write an accurate article on the pros/cons of nuclear energy without covering the comparative energy output and waste of both fossil and nuclear solutions; the author did not touch on this, instead she focused on the nuclear waste and disasters. Very one sided.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:24:00 +0000

I would like to see your beloved child, pregnant wife, mother, and yourself living right next door, next to the dump when something like this happens. Maybe I come and visit your sick grandkids and great grandkids and replay your words back. I’m sure they like to hear it.

By: Randy Addison

Randy Addison — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:57:00 +0000

Algae fuel technology is already ongoing and should just be focused on to thrive. The said fuel source should be given more priority for us to be able to get a cleaner and safer source of power.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:48:00 +0000

How would an oil refinery have done hit by a similar event? How about the damage from coal mining to the environment? Even natural gas has garnered a bad reputation because of fracking. The safety & environmental records of all of these industries (especially coal) is abysmal compared to nuclear power generation.

I believe that for the foreseeable future, nuclear energy is the best option available. Of course there can be tremendous leaps forward in renewable energy sources and that is great and should be pursued. But for probably the next several centuries, the best alternative to coal and oil is nuclear.