Power Nuclear plants After years of debate about the consequences of CO2 Moving on to the counter accounts, come discuss t Natural Disaster For example how about if an earthquake have striked the world trade center in Dubai, taking in knowledge that this building holds 30,000 humans, unfortunately this building would instantaneously collapse and would cause the death of thousands of victims, does this mean that there is something wrong with the world trade center and we should no more build building out of stones? Certainly not. Natural disaseters are 2e7taml to happen in any building in any planet of the time, its basically gods will. Moving on to the safety part. I would just like to grab your attention that ( SELA7 THOW 7ADEN) humans could misuse any invention in evil or in the good of human deeds, one can use a gun to kill an innocent life, and could use the same gun to defend an innocent life. One can use drugs to heal a human and the same human could use the same drug to destroy human's health . Basically my point is the fact that Nuclear power plants can be converted into a devastating tool doesn't make Nuclear power plants dangerous its human minds that is a destructive tool. Once a human being is willin to cmit evil he will succed even if you leav him bare handed he will always invent a new harmfull tool. Human beings are creatve creatures, what I believe what we should do if we're threatened that some countries would edvelo these reactos into nuclear weapons we should instead raise awareness of the harms of having a nuclear reactor. Dynamite was created inorder to blast stones in mountains, but it is human greed that turned this mosharef invention into a killing blaster. Some claim that Arb countries in specifi should not be greanted nuclear factoris as they're terrorist countries. Well I would like someoem to define me terrorism. Isn't bombing helpless children White Phosphorus bombs that burns flesh to the bones, is considered as terrorism -Irgun and Stern Gang is terrorism -What they did in Hiroshima is terrorism -When Jews kick out Palestinians and take their land (not terrorism) -When Serbs rape 60000 Muslim women in Kosovo/Bosnia (not terrorism) -when Russians kill 200,000 Chechen in bombings (not terrorism) Aren't all these points considered as terrorism ? My point is tht terrorism does not have neither a specific religion, colour of skin, nationality or even race. Its either we from all human species or we allow it for all nations. Moreover is it more cheaper and faster to
start building chemcical atomic boms than to wait to creater a nuclear bomb,chemical weaposn are even more devastating.
Introduction
After years of debate about the consequences of CO2 emissions, scientists have finally reached a general consensus CO2 emissions are perhaps the greatest threat to mankind we now face and emissions must be drastically and urgently cut. Scientists have tried to find a NEW way to reduce the emission of CO2 gases, finding what the\y call nuclear reactors. Simply nuclear reactors convert the thermal energy released from nuclear fission Suddenly several scientists came out and screamed of the Claiming that Nuclear reactors causes harms more than CO2 emissions and we should stop using them putting stronger holds on
The general public puts great store in wind power, biofuel and energy saving building design etc, but scientists generally advocate Nuclear Power. Of course, some scientists are opposed to Nuclear Power, indeed some Scientists even argue CO2 emissions are unimportant, but it's the general consensus that is important. For example: "The Royal Society" (the preeminent learned society for science in the UK, founded in 1660 and claimed to be the oldest such society still in existence) has frequently advocated the building of new power stations (eg their 2003 press release "Government must show political courage over nuclear power"). However, for the general public, the considered advice of learned institutions such as the Royal Society often carries little import. It's well known that the odds of winning the UK lottery are pointlessly small, yet 70% of the UK population still play. Nuclear Power remains unpopular with the general public, and therefore even the few elected politicians who have supported it, such as Tony Blair, have failed to build any new power stations. Even Tony Blair just talked about Nuclear as 'part of the mix' rather than the key technology. Almost all new Nuclear Power stations are being built by authoritarian
governments, and even in these cases the motivation is often the cost of Oil and Gas rather that climate change. For an intelligent rational person, living in a democracy can be a depressing state of affairs, nevertheless, all one can do is repeatedly argue the case and hope that a majority will eventually see the light. In that spirit I will again outline the case for Nuclear Power, and hope it will convince a few readers...