why does the media do it?

[john21031]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Totally understand your argument. I didn't mean to suggest there is no danger in nuclear energy. It would be foolish to suggest that.

Still. the worst nuclear disaster in history, Chernobyl, killed 30 people. A shame, but not at all catastrophic.

"The initial explosion resulted in the death of two workers. 28 of the firemen and emergency clean-up workers died in the first three months after the explosion from Acute Radiation Sickness and one of cardiac arrest."

And Chernobyl didn't have nearly the safe guards that today's plants have. It didn't have a containment system and deaths were still minimal.

Of course, lingering radiation created some health issues and cancers but wasn't considered extreme.

In contrast, 115 people die each day in car accidents in the US alone (and we have the most stringent safety standards).


The thing is, is that creating energy will always have some type of drawback. No matter how clean or safe they are considered to be. If we are not prepared to take those small risks, we may as well revert back to being cave men. Forget even just flipping that light switch.

The tragedy of Chernobyl is not the people who died as a direct result of the explosion. It's the mutation and birth defects in the thousand and millions of people who were affected. It's the cancer rate... the child's leukemia, those things are the real consequences of radiation leaks.

You sound like you completely underestimate the dangers of nuclear incidents. Next time you hear of cancer - think of this thread. It's that serious.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by Shroomster

Hey kal-el you're a nice internet person so I'll be nice, please don't quote wikipedia when trying to make a valid argument about ANYTHING.

I know a lot of people like to put down Wikipedia but they are accurate most of the time. More so than general internet searches. Look up anything that you know a lot about (factually) and see if it is accurate, I'm certain it will be. Either way, I did confirm the numbers with other large sources. I do with any research.

Originally Posted by john21031

The tragedy of Chernobyl is not the people who died as a direct result of the explosion. It's the mutation and birth defects in the thousand and millions of people who were affected. It's the cancer rate... the child's leukemia, those things are the real consequences of radiation leaks.

You sound like you completely underestimate the dangers of nuclear incidents. Next time you hear of cancer - think of this thread. It's that serious.

I did site and talk about the lingering effects, which are horrible. I'm not naive enough to dismiss it.

I don't want to sound like I love nuclear at any cost. That's not the case.
I just think it's a relatively safe and very effective energy source. There's been a few accidents throughout history which have been horrible, but overall nuclear has a very good track record.

It just seems that people are against gas, against nuclear, against coal, against batteries, ect. I'm simply trying to figure out what people honestly think we are going to switch over to completely for our energy. We can't do it with just wind and solar. I do, however think we really need to ramp up natural gas use. It's hugely abundant in the US.

[frownonfun]

Originally Posted by PK198105

Natural gas is good but have you ever driven a gas operated vehicle?I did and it sucks (back couple of years a lot of courier trucks were propane operated).

Yeah I don't think anyone is suggesting we run vehicles off natural gas. Just for the production of electricity for energy grids. It really is an underused resource in that regard.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by frownonfun

Yeah I don't think anyone is suggesting we run vehicles off natural gas. Just for the production of electricity for energy grids. It really is an underused resource in that regard.

Why not?

The "greenest" car for 8 years straight is the Civic GX (100% CNG).

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/



Reviews suggest that the driver can't tell the difference from the natural gas Civic to how a regular gas Civic operates. It gets up to 240 miles on a tank and it costs a good amount less than regular gas. Refilling takes the same amount of time as a regular gas station. The current problem is the available refilling stations but that could and should be fixed.

Not quite sure why CNG cars haven't taken off more than just the Civic offering which started production way back in '98.

[frownonfun]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Why not?

The "greenest" car for 8 years straight is the Civic GX (100% CNG).

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/



Reviews suggest that the driver can't tell the difference from the natural gas Civic to how a regular gas Civic operates. It gets up to 240 miles on a tank and it costs a good amount less than regular gas. Refilling takes the same amount of time as a regular gas station. The current problem is the available refilling stations but that could and should be fixed.

Not quite sure why CNG cars haven't taken off more than just the Civic offering which started production way back in '98.

i didn't even know they made a car that ran on natural gas. that's cool. but i wasn't saying that we shouldn't. have at it. i certainly have no problem with it. i was just saying i don't think that's what most people are suggesting when they say to increase the use of natural gas for conversion into energy consumption. plus i feel like when it comes to cars, if it's not good ol fashioned gasoline then americans are going to look down on it. the only thing i've ever run off natural gas is a forklift so i couldn't comment much on how much difference there is between the two. but i'm open to it.

[tk1971]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Why not?

<snip>

Not quite sure why CNG cars haven't taken off more than just the Civic offering which started production way back in '98.

Maybe because of this?





As seen here:

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/gener...otos-7555.html

Some Quotes:

"A picture of the trunk lid. This was blown approximately 75 feet from the car. That little blue CNG sticker on the back is the only warning that fire fighters have to tell that the car is powered by NCG."

"Where the CNG tank landed. ~110-120 feet away."

Safety-wise, it was almost there, but then something like this happens and then everyone does a double-take. I'm sure these tanks are more integral now as a result of this fire. But people get squeamish and the resulting back and forth delays progress.