Talk:Nuclear power

I have copied all of these articles from Encarta Encyclopedia. You guys will be sued for copying illegally from Encarta without its source. Ha, ha!

Except that the copy violation is yours, not Wikipedias. Your edits were reverted about the same time as you wrote this message.-gadfium 04:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emissions problems of fossil fuels

"emissions problems of fossil fuels" removed because it doesnt belong in a nuclear power article.

I re-added refrence to emissions based pollution as an advantage without refrencing fossil fules. I also removed the word 'directly' in refrence to not contributing to the greenhouse effect since I could not think of anythign less than a 3rd or 4th order effect that would be inherint to any use of electricity. Dalf | Talk 05:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear power greenhouse emissions

http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/

http://www.afeas.org/greenhouse_gases.html

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:gVNRnsSRKK8J:www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm%3FNewsID%3D2268+%22Nicholas+Kristof%27s+article+%22Nukes+are+Green%22+is+incorrect%22&hl=en

Various sources associated with info on the following link

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747^12332,00.html

nuclear power produces only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.

-In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.

You could use the same argument for solar enenrgy not being green energy: to make those solar panels from plastic and silicone required energy from some possibly coal power plant as well as water, and other resources. But this is going into a gray area. I think if we start counting all indirect relations the list could go on and on infinitely. --Berkut 06:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yea, the argumet that Nuclear power uses fossil power by proxy is a bit weak. If the power stations that powered the mines were Nuclear as well for example. Also the electricity created by the plant could be used to produce greenhouse gasses. However, neither of these thigns are intrensic to Nuclear power. That is they are not necessarry for it to work, and ideal could be eliminated. Dalf | Talk 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:Theo Pardilla has made some dubious changes so I put a tag on the article. Mirror Vax 06:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I tried to add what he took out back in in such a way that he could not object and start an edit war. In principal I would support reverting his changes, but perhaps reverting them then tinkering with the wording would be a better option. What does everyone else think?

Eeeeek I did not see the newer edits since I edited. This is nonsense that he is putting into the article. Just about every bit of it is disputable or exagerated or not true. I htink we should revert and invite a discussion here on the proposed changes. Dalf | Talk 07:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

These changes are intended to improve the quality of the article by including greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions across the full lifecycle of a nuclear power plant and not as an ideological, industry or environmentalist viewpoint. This full lifecycle treatment is equally applicable to other electricity generation methods and is quantifiable, it is not however infinitely regressive for the major components by "counting all indirect relations". Its equal applicability to other generation methods, such as solar, supports its inclusion on the basis of a comprehensive treatment of the subject and because net GHG emissions and net energy generation vary significantly between different generation technologies. This is intended to inventory and show actual GHG emissions rather than what some people imagine happens currently or wish was the case in the future. Perhaps a valid arguement could be made that at some time in the future nuclear power could be self sustaining in terms of energy flow and with minimal or no GHG emissions but in the forseeable future nuclear powers contribution to GHG emissions will, barring the development of some unforseen magical new technologies, remain. These articles are intended to reflect reality rather than POVs.

It is your POV that I am afraid is seeping into the articles. For starters by the logic that includes fossil fuel emmissions used to mine Nuclear fuel you coudl also track down every use of electricity that has the effect of green house emissions, say factories that run on power generated in a nuclear power plant and include them as well. Is it the case that every Unranium mine on earth is powered by fossil fuels? Is that a requirment? Is that how the French do it? The Russians? What percentage of them do it? What percentage of ours do it? My problem with the whole logic is that it is not REQUIRED for the process, it is not intrensic to the thing that is Nuclear power. Mentioning that "some fossil fuels may be burned in harvesting nuclear fuel" as a concideration would probbly be acceptable but I think you have gone a bit overboard. Second the CFC stuff is highly debatable, many enviornmental scientists (a majority now days I woudl say) feel that the ozon depletion idea has been thoughtly debunked. The probble is that lower ozone levels stimulates higher rates of ozone creation so it is self balancing. This is why no one has been making a big deal of it since the 1980's, furhter when people were making a big deal they mention thigns like 10% increse in UV radiation etc etc. Which is the same increase that you get moving a few hundred miles closer to the equator. Including CFC stuff as an enviornmental impact is dubious at best. The radioactive gasses produced in Nuclear reactors likewise have a very short half life and are not a serious enviornmental concern, the water released form nuclear power plants in the USA actually have radation loevels lower than natural water in streams in their area. And so on. Dalf | Talk 09:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

I'm going to be bold and revert this back to the May 4th version. All of the recent additions have messed up the introduction quite badly, and belong in the 'Benefits and Disadvantages' section. At the moment it's reading like 'Nuclear power is bad, mmkay?' which isn't what a NPOV encyclopedia should be aiming for. Djbrianuk 00:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

I just reverted the last edit by 203.51.156.215 to the last version by the same user. I think including those sentances in the introduction give a decent overview of the article. Additionally I think having a single sentence composed of a single clause followed by the TOC looks really bad. If anyone feels strongly that the sentences in the introduction do not belong there then go ahead and move them but perhaps we can replace them with something that you feel is more approprate, instaed of just leaving it mostly blank? Dalf | Talk 00:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the opening paragraph. Looking around wikipedia (and reference sources in general) this sort of meta comment is not a proper introduction. The only articles that begin with meta comments are disambiguation pages and Lists and such. The opening paragraph should actually have content in it. When I look up a term on wikipedia I will frequently read the first paragraph only, this is usually enough for me to understand what the article says even if I do not get the details. I liked how it was since it did just that. It covered highlights of the article without going into details. Am I wrong in my thinking that the paragraph above the TOC should be an abstract of the article? I wont revert it again in any event unless people agree with me.Dalf | Talk 02:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually strike that, Its probbly fine. Dalf | Talk 04:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Used the meta comment format from Wind Power --Theo 10:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Some observations about article

Some observations about article:

Viewpoints

I quickly counted the occurences of pro and con opinions as prefixed:

11 instances Proponents Argue, Also Claim, Maintain, Argue, They Argue, Also claim, contend, contend, point out, point out, point out 3 instances Critics assert, point out, Opponents claim Yes this is clearly unbalanced but thats not the point. This article should be about facts rather than stakeholders opinion for or against.

Maybe we could create a new article titled 'Nuclear Power Proponents and Opponents Points of View'. This would make it clear to contributors that the focus of that article was about peoples opinions rather than the topic itself and then people could knock themselves out in that virtual space in an opininated ideological edit war free from the constraints of reason and scientific concensus.

This trojan practice of dressing up ones opinions in the guise of 'proponents / opponents argue, claim, assert etc' is doubly damaging to the quality of the article because it changes the focus of the article away from fact to opinion and because it allows the creation of a special class of text that is less subject to challenge; one cannot argue that someones opinion is not theirs. If however their opinion is rephrased as a fact by the removal of 'proponents / opponents argue, claim, assert etc' then it becomes open to challenge. Also both 'sides' could improve the depth and quality of the article by taking a neutral approach and by contributing rather than deleting other peoples work without notification, explanation, debate or concensus.--Theo Pardilla 13:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Due to all these 'proponents argue/claim' instances, have marked the article as disputed. --Sgkay 17:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Risks of Leukemia from proximity to nuclear power plants

My contribution in the 'Risks' section, where I highlighted the confirmed risk of Leukemia by living near to a nuclear power station (see Wikipedia note at Leukemia#Radiation), has been removed by user Ultramarine and replaced with links to World Nuclear Association [1] and an outdated (and since retracted) conclusion from scientist Richard Doll [2]

Faced with growing evidence of the scientific untenability of his virtual dismissal of causes of cancer other than smoking and lifestyle, coupled with damaging revelations of conflicts of interest, Doll has suddenly retracted his long-standing dismissal of environmental causes of cancer. [3]

I'm all for informed debate, but let's not just present a single point of view here, and let's avoid outdated research. --Sgkay 16:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, virus is an environmental cause of cancer. Ultramarine 16:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is a summary of studies [4] Ultramarine 16:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute?

Why this claim? Those opposing nuclear power are free to add their studies and research. An article should not be labeled simply because those opposing the content has no arguments. I will remove the tag unless factual inaccuracy can be shown. Ultramarine 17:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the wrong tag, have updated to use the neutrality pov tag instead. --Sgkay 19:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Those opposing nuclear power usually base their views on TOTAL LIES! The only way to meet Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to have the article to be in support of nuclear energy. Anti-nuclear views are non-NPOV. Andros 1337 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? NPOV means presenting all sides not presenting just the pro nuclear industry side. I caveatted the intro a few days ago to try to make it clear the nuclear industry was who is claiming all that (to avoid confusion with some of that stuff being read as being undisputed fact), but now that I think about it the intro and the article are a bit too pro nuclear industry sanitized. This is more a dispute over whether the pro nuclear industry forces can get away with excluding facts (their apparent mission). In my estimation, random joe wikipedia user would not care about nuclear power to the extent some wikipedia users and anon accounts seem to. Whoever you are please be honest about your POV. zen master T 00:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)