Talk:Nuclear Energy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page needs heavy revision

Please help as you see fit! Discuss any major changes on the talk page first. --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. Swifty
I revised the first sentence of the article.Conservative (talk)

The energy released from a nuclear fission device is given by the equation E=mc².

But that theory is liberal claptrap. This needs to be revised. MattyD 16:48, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Further Call For Revision

I’d like to concur with Swifty in saying this article needs major revision. Like Swifty mentions, the first sentence needs to be revised. The idea of atomic particles being destroyed violates basic physics. I’m inclined not to do anything here unless I have written permission to make changes. After reading the E=MC2 article, it would be foolish to even think of doing so. Sort of blows my mind that someone knows a basic formula of relativity theory is liberal claptrap.--GinnyS (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

I revised the first sentence of the article.Conservative (talk)
How about this, it seems more to the point and has a reference? 'Nuclear energy is the energy released by atomic nuclei, as in nuclear fission or fusion.' [1]--GinnyS (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
Go ahead and make the change. I certainly don't object to factually correct changes which are more concise.Conservative (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2017 (EDT)

I have restored the "claptrap" garbage. That stuff needs to be part of the record, and I'm about to reply to it specifically. We should not remove material from talk pages unless it is libelous or seriously detrimental.

I've seen many "relativity sycophants" over the years, and MattyD is a typical case. He was blocked long ago for being a parodist. To be clear, anyone who says that that equation is "liberal claptrap", and whose name is not Andrew L. Schlafly, is a parodist, a troll, and a sycophant. Of course I need to keep an open mind about this, but it would take an awful lot of evidence to convince me that physics over the last 112 years is all wrong.

I have created a list, on my user page, for people to study before engaging in this.

Getting back on topic, please edit the article as you see fit. Make the scientific explanation as clear and correct as you can. For the "controversy" material, cover the pros and cons as best you can. The issues are complex. Nuclear waste and fossil fuel waste (mostly CO2) do their harm in very different ways. Nuclear waste simply needs to be very carefully and securely sequestered, but attempts to work that out have not really been successful. CO2 remediation is a much more complex topic. SamHB (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2017 (EDT)