19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + +
no edit summary
:Please help as you see fit! Discuss any major changes on the talk page first. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 16:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Please help as you see fit! Discuss any major changes on the talk page first. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 16:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:Alright well first I think the first sentence needs to be restated. Nuclear energy isn't a destruction of subatomic particles. It is created (at least in fission) from the splitting of the atom. In fact the entire introductory statement is too general and too vague. In the theory, there is no discussion of critical mass which is necessary for a sustained fissile reaction. Also it talks about how "the atom blasted apart then releases other neutrons which collide with other atoms. This keeps occurring until there are no atoms left to destroy." Thats not true at all. The atom is SPLIT into two different elements. These elements can actually undergo a fission reaction again if they are enriched. The part about nuclear power is almost laughable. While it is true that the reaction itself is "clean" in the sense that it has no carbon emissions, there is also radioactive waste. Theses by-products of fission are extremely hazardous and need special containment. What makes nuclear power so attractive as a new energy source is that the amount of energy per unit waste is so high. Also fusion is obtainable and is currently the most common reaction in the universe. All stars in the universe are fusion reactions. It is also worth stating that fusion is preferable to fission because it has no radioactive by products. The product of the deuterium reaction is inert helium. While to date all experiments with fusion have shown that the reaction requires more energy than it retrieved, current research is being done which is coming close to breaking even. Finally, the controversy section is just absurd. It is a remarkably biased statement that offers no sources for its claims. (providing sources about a house bill and the clean air act don't back up the claims made) If you are going to have a controversy section, it must be objective and not give a statement of what seems to be one person's thoughts on the subject. The goal of this page is to present useful information to people and mixing legitimate information with opinion isn't useful for a sight like this. [[USER:Swift|Swifty]]