Apparently the 1987 referendum in which the Italians (I was not born yet) we decided not to use nuclear energy to produce is served by little. Why? Why after 21 years was simply decided that nuclear power is the next field in which Italy will have to specialize. Of course, this decision was taken without even consulting the citizens.
Personally I am against nuclear power at 100% and if there will be no need to make another referendum will be definitely in the forefront, as I hope they are many Italians even those who had said no the first time.
You will say: why resist? What are the reasons? To explain my choice must start with the basics, that is how you get nuclear power.
The only way at present to get it is from the fission of a uranium atom or, more precisely, of its nucleus.
The process is not complicated: it is lashed to a large neutron speed on the tablet of uranium, for series, hits the nucleus of any atom of uranium (heavy metals because they are used in addition to being radioactive, has a larger core , consisting of several particles, neutrons and protons). Energy production occurs at this point, the nucleus breaks releasing more neutrons to create a ripple effect on
other nuclei and, moreover, it loses mass by creating lighter materials. The energy is developed from the minimum loss of mass that is transformed entirely into light energy and calories. It is used to heat water which is used to drive steam turbines.
Here the whole process. But throughout this process there is a small problem: the production of waste.
slag are nothing more than waste products of the whole process, including tablets of uranium already in use. They are highly polluting and produce deadly radiation, able to poison the food and the environment change the human genome, creating malformations and many cancers.
slag also, and not cheap, are not disposed of, can only be stored in tanks before being closed in packaging of the underground bunkers ... .. nice solution! To forget there is a way to delete them, just to spend a few thousand years, and their radioactivity will decrease until it becomes normal, THANKS TO THE CABBAGE!!
Many people think that nuclear is a solution because of the low level of CO2 carbon dioxide in the air. Now I would like to reflect on what is true the plant does not produce carbon dioxide in large quantities and waste by dropping the speech say the uranium but where they take it? This element is very rare in nature and do not know how much carbon dioxide gas and the worst are issued to remove it from the rocks. Now
uranium mines are low, whereas before there were mines where the presence of this element was only 1% of hours have been from mines where you can get only 0.1%.
Simply put to get a gram of uranium you have to work a pound of rock with the appropriate types of extraction. Air pollution to do all that is unbelievable size!
Another reason to say no to nuclear power is the cost and time. To build a plant
novo, I mean usually 10 to 15 years not to mention that to meet the needs we should build at least 10 Italian stations at a cost ranging from 30 to 50 billion € not to mention the production facilities of the fuel (uranium) and deposits the waste. Furthermore, spending would fall only after 15 -20 years after coming into
function. This certainly would take away funds for any attempt to develop energy from renewable sources.
Personally I am against nuclear power at 100% and if there will be no need to make another referendum will be definitely in the forefront, as I hope they are many Italians even those who had said no the first time.
You will say: why resist? What are the reasons? To explain my choice must start with the basics, that is how you get nuclear power.
The only way at present to get it is from the fission of a uranium atom or, more precisely, of its nucleus.
The process is not complicated: it is lashed to a large neutron speed on the tablet of uranium, for series, hits the nucleus of any atom of uranium (heavy metals because they are used in addition to being radioactive, has a larger core , consisting of several particles, neutrons and protons). Energy production occurs at this point, the nucleus breaks releasing more neutrons to create a ripple effect on
other nuclei and, moreover, it loses mass by creating lighter materials. The energy is developed from the minimum loss of mass that is transformed entirely into light energy and calories. It is used to heat water which is used to drive steam turbines. Here the whole process. But throughout this process there is a small problem: the production of waste.
slag are nothing more than waste products of the whole process, including tablets of uranium already in use. They are highly polluting and produce deadly radiation, able to poison the food and the environment change the human genome, creating malformations and many cancers.
slag also, and not cheap, are not disposed of, can only be stored in tanks before being closed in packaging of the underground bunkers ... .. nice solution! To forget there is a way to delete them, just to spend a few thousand years, and their radioactivity will decrease until it becomes normal, THANKS TO THE CABBAGE!!
Many people think that nuclear is a solution because of the low level of CO2 carbon dioxide in the air. Now I would like to reflect on what is true the plant does not produce carbon dioxide in large quantities and waste by dropping the speech say the uranium but where they take it? This element is very rare in nature and do not know how much carbon dioxide gas and the worst are issued to remove it from the rocks. Now
uranium mines are low, whereas before there were mines where the presence of this element was only 1% of hours have been from mines where you can get only 0.1%.
Simply put to get a gram of uranium you have to work a pound of rock with the appropriate types of extraction. Air pollution to do all that is unbelievable size!
Another reason to say no to nuclear power is the cost and time. To build a plant
novo, I mean usually 10 to 15 years not to mention that to meet the needs we should build at least 10 Italian stations at a cost ranging from 30 to 50 billion € not to mention the production facilities of the fuel (uranium) and deposits the waste. Furthermore, spending would fall only after 15 -20 years after coming into
function. This certainly would take away funds for any attempt to develop energy from renewable sources. A 'final point, let us remember also the risks!
So I hope I have expressed my disappointment and argued, what do you think?
If there is something we will need are also ready to take to the streets! We must stop
of being for or against something because of left or right we must protect our citizens and our rights !!!!!!!!!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment