Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 8

message: "Unlike other countries, U.S. policy forbids recycling of used fuel and it is all treated as waste."
:Why has the U.S. chosen this policy?  What are the benefits?
The US has chosen this policy because of fears that reactor plutonium might fall into the wrong hands in the process of being shipped around all over the place in a substantial frequency. So they've decided to just bury it all in a final storage at Yucca Mountain, NV .   --213.54.178.188 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recycling Nuclear Waste 

message: There are several meanings for "risk", so what is the source for "the risk of a nuclear accident in a nuclear reactor"? (SEWilco 02:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk 

message: In the current version of the article, fully one third of the 57 external links in the body of the article go to the World Nuclear Association. I can't help thinking that relying this heavily on what is hardly a neutral source is not a good thing. Rd232 14:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Nuclear Association 

message: Image  was deleted by someone - I will ask that it be restored. Simesa 11:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the interim, I inserted an image from Commons. Thus image, too, may have source problems. Simesa 14:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image deleted

message: The reference by user:62.47.136.241 was simply that of a model - no results were generated or reported.  I surmise that 62.47.136.241 simply ran the model him/herself. I therefore reverted based on original research. Simesa 11:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Added CANDU to the list of reactor types, and AECL to the list of Nuclear companies at the end.  Also corrected the myth of India/Pakistan having used CANDU or 'CANDU-like' reactors for their weapons programs - India used a (canadian-supplied) 40MW research reactor, and Pakistan has long had an enrichment program.  Finally, added sentence about South Africa being the only country to create their own nuclear weapons and then dismantle them to Proliferation section.  Maybe a good example for the rest of the Nuclear Weapons States....
Burtonpe 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good additions. Simesa 21:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CANDU & misc. 

message: The statement "Decommissioning cost must now be factored in to any plan for a new plant and often a Reclamation Bond needs to be posted guaranteeing that the site will be returned to Green Field status prior to a license being issued." was entered.  I am unaware of any such requirement anywhere - not even to a brownfield.  This needs a cite. Simesa 02:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting statement

message: My earlier edit was rv'd by User_talk:DV8_2XL.  Have reinstated it, reworded slightly, see below.  If proponents say plants are well protected, sure, add details.  But if opponents want to quote details of where material is stolen, or where the UN ask for plants to improve security, I can't see why it should be rv'd.  Needs both sides to have a NPOV.
They quote incidents as far back as 1999, where workers were found to have stolen radioactive material and attempted to sell it on. . The UN have since called upon world leaders to improve security , in order to prevent deadly radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists. 
::I see your entry has been re-edited to reflect a neutral point-of-view. DV8 2XL 14:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk of stolen material 

message: "with fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than fossil fuel."
Why not change this to no or zero emmisions? "with fewer" seems to imply that nuclear power plants do produce GHGs, merely in smaller amounts than in fossil fuels, when in fact they don't produce GHGs at all.
:The argument over this was that uranium mining and decommissioning require gasoline/diesel engines, and that uranium enrichment uses power from TVA which is largely coal-powered (although they have six nuclear units).  Nuclear units themselves of course only release GHGs on those rare occasions when the Emergency Diesel Generators are tested.  If you view TVA as using its nuclear units to power the enrichment facilities, then fossil fuel of course emits vastly more GHGs than the nuclear industry.  Simesa 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GHG emissions 

message: I just noticed that this stub of an article doesn't explain what a Health Physicist is.  Anyone want to address it?  Or I will when I have time. Simesa 03:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone started Certified Health Physicist. Simesa 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Health physics]]

message: Added a line to 'Current and planned use' section about Lithuania being technically the most nuclear-dependant nation in the world, by virtue of their single 1500MW RBMK-2....not really comparable to France's fuel cycle, but apparently by the percentages Lithuania has a higher proportion of nuclear.  I was recently talking to a former Lithiuanian nuclear official who made this claim and I found it interesting enough to look up.Burtonpe 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lithuania

message: **Note: I originally posted a similiar thing at talk:nuclear reactor, but think its just as fitting here and may get more people who can see and comment. 
Is there anyone else out there that thinks that there should be an article devoted to the "nuclear power controversy"?  This has been done with other aticles as well and really helps to clean them up by giving proponants and opponants a more appropraite soapbox to stand on.  I am proposing that we do this because currently, on many nuclear powerplant related articles the same arguments for and against nuclear power are listed over and over again.  Also, it reads poorly to have things like 
"Currently all commercial nuclear reactors are based on nuclear fission, and are considered problematic by some for their safety and health risks. Conversely, some consider nuclear power to be a safe and pollution-free"
The above quote was from nuclear reactor but nuclear power has the third paragraph which isn't needed to describe how nuclear power works and what it is.  The articles are supposed to be about nuclear power and nuclear technology, not the nuclear power controversy.  By inserting the controversy for every nuclear article, we lose conciseness.  I don't want to look like a nuclear proponent here (although I am), but take a look at evolution and how they introduce the controversy page.  
This "problem" happens way to frequently in the nuclear articles and is messing them up, I propose we move the controversy to its own page so the articles read like an encyclopedia entry and don't read like arguments.  This will also give people more of an option in adding for and against statements, and will allow for the validation of often used comments/studies.  Nuclear power is a technology, and as such, it should be defined like one, let the politics have there own page.  I'm not saying we ignore the nuclear opponents, this will actually give us a more standardized and, I think, fairer way of covering the arguments. Lcolson 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck - been proposed - even done before when this whole article (which really is a dispute in its entirety since all of the technology and particulars have already spun off their own pages - this really is the shell for political commentary) - was moved to the name you propose - which is now the subject in part of an Arbcom dispute - I would propose again that the name simply be changed - perhaps leaving here a shell with disambiguation; but there is little to say about nuclear without addressing Chernobyl, the risk of catastrophe, the plans for dealing with that, and the political implications - including the competitive effects on other safe, clean energies. My sense, is that there isn't much neutral ground. Are you trying to Bushify your opponents by sending them into the weeds, while encouraging an upbeat, or at best oblivious main page - with a never read sub page for others? - under the rubric of fairness? whose definition of fairness might that be? Benjamin Gatti 21:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Break nuclear power controversy into its own article

message: The section "Development" refers to further information on planned units, but this section does not seem to be anywhere.. Anyhow, I added specific information on the Finnish reactor to this place then. If you have better place, pleace put it there. Jaakko Hyvätti.
:This was blanked during vandalism on December 7 at 03:29 -- I restored the text from just before then. Simesa 00:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is "Current and Planned Use"?

message: I've added a section for current events - there's a great deal happening in this field, and I believe readers want current happenings to be organized for them. Benjamin Gatti 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not noteworthy additions. Lcolson 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not paper. Your opinion that they are not noteworthy seems unsupportable. Current events are encyclopedic, and they are but a few recent events directly associated with the subject. Certainly George W Bush encompasses current events. Benjamin Gatti 22:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever wondered Gatti, where all these people are, the ones that you claim want to read your BS? They don't seem to be breaking down the doors coming to your defence, do they? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they don't realy care about what you think, or have to say? 70.51.184.193 02:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maxim to live by - if you want everyone to agree with you - be a follower. When Rosa Parks sat on that bus - was there any body else on the bus to defend her? - Everyone else - black and white, stood up for the status quo. Yes - some of us equate support with the status quo, and are not persuaded. Benjamin Gatti 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section for current events