Edit- REALLY? It stars out the first 3 letters of my reference to the F * U * K * ushima power plant? You know, that big nuclear facility in japan that is STILL leaking radiation into the Pacific ocean with no good guess when it will stop that's killing sea life as well as things that live NEAR the sea (like sea birds?).:52: Well, we best not whisper about that large amount of oil from the ***pwater ***izon that "magically disappeared" (not).
I studied F u k ushima and Chernobyl in my spare time and while I do believe that they definitely are undercutting their work with the former and there's some serious irresponsibility going on, the latter did release more radioactive material into the environment. The latter spread much more radioactive material across an area with a much faster immediate effect - to put it kindly, the nearby town of Pripyat received 1/4th the typical fatal dose of radiation in a day after the incident. However, I cannot even begin to elaborate how dangerous other alternatives are to the environment.
While nuclear power is definitely not the final answer (I like the idea of solar roadways but I don't think the technology is quite there yet) it is MUCH safer to both humans and the environment than any current alternative, outside of solar and wind power, which can't be used everywhere yet. To compare, 33 incidents have occurred in nuclear power plants. In every incident besides F u k ushima and Chernobyl, the radiation was contained within the facility and nearby areas did not have notable increases in radiation levels.
The very basics of how nuclear power works is that a fission reaction, which "splits" Uranium or Plutonium atoms into smaller atoms, releases energy, which turns into heat. The heat heats up water in a closed pipe. In another pipe that may connect to a reservoir of some sort, the closed pipe is used to warm up this water, which is used to move turbines. The water from the pipe that gets into contact with the nuclear process is not exposed to the outside. The most severe current risk (outside of a severe nuclear incident which has only happened twice, one by archaic design and the other due to a combination of unpredictable disaster and lack of maintenance) is both uranium mining and the heated water possibly affecting marine environments, but this absolutely pales in comparison to what our current alternatives are.
We have coal. Coal is what provides energy for most power plants today. Coal emits large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere - this which current laws do not provide enough protection in the atmosphere for. Coal also requires large quarries to obtain, destroys nearby ecosystems and water quality nearby, and uses gasoline for transport.
Gasoline is primarily used in vehicles. I hope we change to electric some time fully in the future. Gasoline also releases carbon emissions into the atmosphere, which contribute further to global warming. Drilling for oil can cause tremendous damage on nearby communities with their drinking water, the toll on wildlife is probably much greater.
Natural gas is different. It loads methane into the atmosphere, some people consider it worse than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in terms of contributing to global warming - although research is still not clear on this (some claim that methane breaks up faster thus making it less harmful). I don't know a ton about natural gas mining techniques but I am positive they likely have negative effects. Also, the cows that you brought up also contribute greatly to the amount of methane in the atmosphere, contributing further to climate change.
The difference between nuclear fuel's mining and these minings though is that nuclear fuel goes much further for the amount. Plutonium is produced in nuclear reactors which can further be used to create energy.
I honestly project that as solar power and wind power catch on with both better technologies and placed in areas that can support it, nuclear fuel is the best option until we can better harness the power of the sun in areas that may have less sun or snowfall covered areas, like the north of the US/Canada. Out of all things, Nuclear power is the safest on both the environment and people outside of solar/wind... but responsibility is required. A lot of Chernobyl's problems were caused by poor design choices and poor decisions on that fateful night. F u k ushima can be attributed to the dangerous area and not keeping up with standards. We absolutely must be responsible with this kind of energy, but if we are, we can use it to replace current energies, which, while seemingly convenient, are extremely destructive on everything around us. Hopefully by that point we will be able to have a nuclear fusion reactor (combining atoms) that will have no harmful bi-products and is self sustaining. But we're not there yet.
...as long as people stop denying it.
Although, about the whole vegan part, that's gonna be rough for me; the only meat i don't eat is pork. I try to find meat that isn't produced in meat mills. Farmers market meat and dairy products is what i do.
Edit: I live on the gulf coast of Florida and am witness to the impact of the BP oil spill. just rereading that article you posted is getting me very emotional. I, and many of my friends, were devastated when we first saw this happen and we still are.
And I was GOING to put that I wasn't trying to drudge up controversy over meat eaters VS non meat eaters
. It was just an informative article I more hope inspires people to think about what impact their food is having not to become a vegan
Actually, veganism is very difficult and has great potential to make you feel like crap if done improperly. I've been a vegetarian for over 15 years, but I do still eat some organic eggs, honey, products with yeast, fermented products and dairy (none of which are considered vegan). There are also many other things people can do if they still want to eat meat. They could be totally vegan one day a week, they could cut back on the amount of meat/dairy in general, they could eliminate one or two types of meat from their daily diet and only eat it on special occasions, they could hunt/raise their own meat or buy ethically raised meat from small-scale, low environmental impact farms.... Lots of options
But to make a choice, you first have to be informed! And just cutting out pork is a big step in the right direction so good job on that!
I can imagine if you had to be in the midst of the gulf disaster, you understand how negatively it impacted the region and ocean. That oil did not ALL magically get "eaten by bacteria so please don't worry about it anymore" like the news said :20: I hope your family or friends families were not horribly impacted by this preventable disaster.
I have to give you credit for being very respectful of other people's eating habits. Let's just say that on my travels on the internet vegans/vegetarians have not been so kind...
I don't necessarily think that eating meat is horrible in of itself, but in its current state, oh hell yes it is. Having the overstocked factory farms is gravely contributing both to lower quality meat, spread of disease and especially the methane that I mentioned earlier. Not to mention the elephant in the room - ANIMAL WELFARE. I always hold myself to this tenant - as long as it was treated with respect, then I don't have a problem with it. I honestly wouldn't mind having to pay more for meat if it was taken care of, and that's coming from someone who's on a budget!
Is it just me or does taking good care of your animals make their eggs and meat taste 10 million times better? My brother raises chickens and takes very good care of them and the eggs from them are absolutely delicious! He even built a special pen for the one hen that kept getting bullied by other chickens. They're a happy (if not very strange) lot.
)
At least, not to the extent that I'd hoped it would.
