• Question: @simonalbright @thomascocolios @danielroach @claranellist what is the danger of nuclear and will we run of the nuclear resources and how will the world end???

    Asked by to Becky, Clara, Daniel, Simon, Thomas on 12 Mar 2014. This question was also asked by .
    • Photo: Becky Martin

      Becky Martin answered on 12 Mar 2014:


      Nuclear energy and other forms of radioactivity are what is known as a managed risk.

      By this, I mean that we know that there is the potential for harm if nuclear materials are released into the environment, but we plan, prepare and have systems in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen frequently; and that if it does, that we take the best possible action to reduce the effects upon people and the environment.

      As far as nuclear resources are concerned – We have limited supplies of radioactive materials, because we mine uranium from the ground. It is a non-renewable resource, like fossil fuels. However, we have enough to power our nuclear power stations for at least another 200 years, at current rates of consumption. We also have the option of recycling some amounts of nuclear fuel, by reprocessing, which makes it an efficient way to generate energy.

      However, I’m afraid I left my magic 8-ball at home today, so I can’t tell you how the world will end! 😉

    • Photo: Simon Albright

      Simon Albright answered on 12 Mar 2014:


      Ionising radiation, some forms of which come from atomic nuclei, can damage our DNA. Too much damage and you can get cancer, that’s why sun burn is so dangerous, the UV from the sun is a type of ionising radiation which is why you should always wear sun screen. There is background radiation around us all the time, if you eat a banana you get more radiation than if you live a few miles from a nuclear power plant for example, what matters is how much you get.

      Nuclear resources, like everything, are finite. Nuclear power plants which use Uranium which eventually deplete the earth’s supply. We are also working on nuclear fusion which could provide power using the hydrogen in sea water, but even that is limited. The good thing is that it’ll be a very very long time before either of those is a concern and hopefully by then we’ll have a more efficient way to extract power from the sun, and that’s going to last for billions of years.

      And it’s the death of the sun which will end the world. Eventually the sun will burn up all it’s hydrogen, when that happens it will expand into a “red-giant” and probably engulf the earth. By this point we really need to be populating the planets around other stars because otherwise it’ll end all life as we know it. But there’s another few billions years to go before that happens, I wouldn’t let it keep you up at night!

    • Photo: Thomas Elias Cocolios

      Thomas Elias Cocolios answered on 12 Mar 2014:


      If we have learned one thing from the recent Fukushima event, it is that nuclear is not so dangerous. If you think of it without fear and a bit more objectively (OK, I am biased too!), you realise that in spite of the catastrophe that happened, 0 person died from the Fukushima incident, while countless people died in the tsunami, and then several more from the toxic fumes released by a burning chemical plant near Tokyo in the days after.

      For those who then bring up the rise in radioactivity from the Fukushima event, it turns out that it is but a small blip on the world’s background radioactivity ever since the air nuclear weapon tests in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Those radioactive fall out, we are still stuck with for centuries to come! And how are we doing as a planet? Not too bad, I believe.

      Now does that mean that nuclear is perfectly safe? Of course not. It is of the utmost importance that people like Becky keep the industry in check and ensure that safety prevails over profit in 100% of cases. Did you know that power plants and nuclear laboratories much closer to the tsunami than Fukushima got no problem? They had followed the instruction of the safety regulators. Tepco (in charge of the plant in Fukushima) did not.

    • Photo: Daniel Roach

      Daniel Roach answered on 14 Mar 2014:


      Nuclear power has it’s problems – it’s complicated technology, and it has it’s risks. But fossil fuels are way more harmful to the environment on a large scale – at least it’s not contributing to climate change, flooding and the kind of pollution that you see afflicting many big cities around the world (google the ‘beijing smog’ and see for yourself the effects of fossil fuel on the air quality alone).

      If the world ends for us, the human race, then it’s unlikely to be caused by nuclear reactors – much more worrying is that the air and water become polluted by hydrocarbons and the climate changes caused by CO2 from fossil fuels produce weird weather, floods and rising sea levels.

    • Photo: Clara Nellist

      Clara Nellist answered on 21 Mar 2014:


      Since the others have given such good answers, I’m going to ask instead, what could be dangerous for a nuclear power plant?

      The answer? Jellyfish! Seriously.

      Because nuclear power plants need a lot of water to cool them down, they are often built near to existing water supplies (like lakes or the ocean). And because of the increase of jellyfish populations, it’s becoming more common that they are clogging up the pipes, causing the nuclear power plants to be shut down for a while. Bizarre!

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/jellyfish-clog-swedish-nuclear-reactor-shutdown

Comments