The only issue with "if you can't explain it succinctly you don't deserve to be heard/understood" is that nuclear issues of all stripes can get pretty damn hard to explain succinctly. I'd be willing to bet that a significant proportion of people with only a high school education, even if they have the capacity to grasp all of the complexities, don't want to. It's just easier to formulate a simplistic view like 'nuclear things blow up and irradiate everyone' or 'there's no way in hell a nuclear power plant could ever cause problems,' not that anyone in this thread has opinions like these. They're just for illustration. (And, unfortunately, quite a lot of people IRL do have opinions like those. Especially the former, at least here in the good old United States of Amerka.)
edited 23rd Mar '11 9:20:49 AM by Chalkos
Blame the lack of basic courses in thermodynamics in schools. Which in turn you can blame on the late mathematics start.
Fight smart, not fair.I did actually learn the basics of how a nuclear power plant works in school. Judging by what knowledge I acquired over the course of the Fukushima crisis (mostly due to a raised awareness of and interest in the issue), however, I don't think my school knowledge was really enough to form a well-founded opinion. I guess, in the end, nuclear power is one of those issues people invented representative democracy for.
Love truth, but pardon error. - VoltaireArts are related, but not the specific cause. "Oh, some kids aren't learning math fast enough to keep up with the curriculum! SLOW DOWN THE CURRICULUM TO HELP THE SLOW KIDS!" is the problem.
Fight smart, not fair.I wouldn't advocate speeding up math until the math teachers stop sucking. Call me jaded after one of my teachers got called out by sixth graders for not knowing what squaring and exponents were, and then tried to fight it to save face instead of figuring it out and teaching it right.
edited 24th Mar '11 1:10:35 AM by Pykrete
Or just make the math teachers take the basic tests. If they can't pass them, cut their teaching license.
O WAIT! Nuclear power and stuff.
Fight smart, not fair.I love how Bananas are nuclear meme now. Should we ask for a lock? I don't think we're going to get much further.
Fight smart, not fair.Simple answer: they don't have/have lower radiation emission standards than nuclear plants because nobody understands the concept that things are radioactive if they don't glow in the dark. This combined with coals naturally high radiation levels means nobody who has power actually looks or is outvoted by people who want a profit.
Iamdisappoint.jpg
edited 24th Mar '11 2:37:48 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.Those won't employ nearly as many people due to higher levels of automation. Just one more way nuclear power is better.
Fight smart, not fair.Hmpf, by the time I've finished writing this, I've been thoroughly ninja'd.
Uranium mining:
Basically
, the relevant ore is extracted via open-pit mining and then, um, processed in some way to make "yellowcake" (a mixture of different uranium oxides, mainly U 3 O 8) which is the form usually sold on the market (to be later used to make fuel rods, for example).
The top 3 producers are Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan.
The main health issue (apart from breathing Uranium dust) is Radon-222 which is a natural decay product from Uranium and thus very prevalent in Uranium mines. It's a radioactive gas and, like other radioactive materials, can cause cancer, especially lung cancer when breathing it in large doses. Working in enclosed cabins, ventilation systems and large quantities of water (to get the dust out of the air) are the usual precautions taken.
Radioactivity in Coal:
Coal
(like most ores) contains low levels of Uranium, Thorium and other radioactive isotopes. Because a lot of coal is burned these small quantities add up to significant amounts of radioactive particles released into the atmosphere.
edited 24th Mar '11 2:44:31 PM by 0Emmanuel
Love truth, but pardon error. - Voltaire

@kurushio: thank you for that post. Normally I would take a similar position to attempt to calm a heated situation down, but my family's views and all the things I have heard in this thread/on the news stops me from taking people on the other side of this issue seriously when they make un-substantiated or out-dated claims. (the news proving how stupid people have been about this subject)
The thing about linking to articles I can partially agree with. I think the links are perfectly fine as source material, but if you are trying to make a point (and not just put it out there for people to see/comment on), you have to explain what the point is and where in the article it comes from.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!