Start A Petition

Three Mile Island and Nuclear Power: In-Depth Reports

Science & Tech  (tags: climate change, sustainable energy, clean energy, nuclear power, informative, studies )

- 3207 days ago -
The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island 30 years ago ended the first wave of building nuclear power plants, but are plans about to be revived?


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Mary Coleman (148)
Saturday September 11, 2010, 6:08 pm
There is a LOT of info and a lot of links on the page. I can totally understand if you can't read all at the moment, because neither could I, but it might be worth bookmarking and coming back to when you have your coffee and can't find the news paper :)

Judy C (91)
Saturday September 11, 2010, 6:45 pm
I just can't understand the apathy and denial of the public today. I remember how people reacted to 3 Mile Island. The people in this country today seem to have lost their common sense and their sense of self-preservation.

Kaye S (45)
Saturday September 11, 2010, 8:05 pm
Interesting, thanks.

Ancil S (175)
Saturday September 11, 2010, 11:14 pm
I was nearly 18 years old when TMI happened,and I remember being scared out of my skull. I can't imagine 31 years later and they want to build more nuke plants? there NUTS!!!!! There's got to be a better way to generate power.Solar,wind,hydropower,anything but this.Sure,it might have a low to none carbon footprint,but what if they have a "China syndrome" on their hands of worse,Chernobyl?

Mary Coleman (148)
Saturday September 11, 2010, 11:24 pm
exactly judy and ancil!!! I posted the story because it is one option to combat climate change, but as a viable option, I have my doubts. Primarily because it has the potential of being a LOT more damaging, at least in the areas where these nuclear plants exist. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but then again when you're working with people with NO BRAINS, I suppose one can totally understand why words like common and sense are no longer common.

wolfNoFwdsPls a (135)
Sunday September 12, 2010, 9:59 am
> the apathy and denial of the public today
" We are now products of [MORE THAN] $500 billion of advertizing each year." (D.Orr)
add all the other propaganda AND the growing * intimidation * ... to have (a good part of)it explained

wolfNoFwdsPls a (135)
Sunday September 12, 2010, 10:15 am
Germoney, where a shutdown of all nuclear plants (~by 2022) had been agreed upon, recently announced that the plants would stay in use for 8-14 years more (on average and with "shifting around ..." and with any down-times not counted ...) so that "nukes in Germany may be running until 2040 or even 2050" (stern)
ORFTEXT 5.9.010
Deutsche AKW bleiben länger am Netz
Die Meiler sollen je nach Alter in zwei
Gruppen unterteilt werden. Demnach
sollen 7 ältere Modelle noch 8 Jahre
länger als bisher geplant Strom
liefern, 10 neuere Reaktoren noch 14
Jahre länger...
-- >> Das könnte - je nach Produktion der Anlagen und Strommengenübertrag von stillgelegten Meilern - Atomkraft in Deutschland bis 2040 oder sogar 2050 bedeuten.


Fiona Ogilvie (562)
Sunday September 12, 2010, 3:40 pm
It is not that bad. My husband is a chemical physics professor. He has studied the plans. The plants will be much safer and they will not produce as much hazardous waste.

Mary Coleman (148)
Sunday September 12, 2010, 5:08 pm
That is an interesting point of view, and certainly I'd love to see some more information. Would you have something that you could post for us? I would be very interested to read it. The idea that ANY hazardous waste would be created is still a point of concern to me, but I'd absolutely love to see more info...if at all possible. Thank you very much bee hive lady!!!

Norm C (74)
Monday September 13, 2010, 12:46 am
The only way that nuclear power plants can be built is if the federal govt. subsidizes the projects by insuring them against liability in the event of an accident. Private companies will not insure them. That is one of the primary reason none have been built since TMI.

While the process of "burning" uranium to boil water to generate steam to turn a turbine to turn a generator to make electrons move does not release carbon, EVERYTHING else in the process releases tons of carbon. Mining the uranium releases tons of carbon. Refining the uranium releases tons of carbon. Transporting the uranium to the plants releases tons of carbon. Manufacturing the equipment for the plant releases tons of carbon. Transporting the equipment and installing it releases tons of carbon. Building the plant releases tons of carbon. Transporting wastes releases tons of carbon.

To say that nuclear fission reactors is clean electical power is complete hoax.

Mary Coleman (148)
Monday September 13, 2010, 8:25 am
Sending a Green Star is a simple way to say "Thank you"
You cannot currently send a star to Norm because you have done so within the last week.

Thank you for putting things into a clear and concise perspective, because I wondered about all of those things---that was part of why I posted the story, because I figured it would spark a discussion about the various angles of the issue, thank you SOOOOO much!!! :)
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Science & Tech

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.