Politicians and Election, Vote in Freedom, Actively Participate in Democracy, Vote for Change, Online referendum
left right close

Nuclear Energy

> global > Events > Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Energy is ready for your opinion, support and vote. Vote online NOW!
Positive
 
Negative
photo Atomic Energy - FOR

Atomic Energy - FOR

Click, if you support the atomic energy and its use. Say WHY?!
Atomic Energy - AGAINST

Atomic Energy - AGAINST

Click, if you do not support the atomic energy and its use. Say WHY?!

Online election results for "Atomic Energy - FOR" in graph.

graph
Graph online : Nuclear Energy
Full functionality only if Javascript and Flash is enabled
ENG: Atomic energy is energy produced by atoms. Nuclear energy, the energy resulting of potential difference of the nuclear force. Nuclear reaction, a process in which two nuclei or nuclear particles collide, to produce different products than the initial products; see also nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear power, the use of nuclear reactions to produce electricity in nuclear reactors.Radioactive decay, the set of various processes by which unstable atomic nuclei (nuclides) emit subatomic particles. The energy of inter-atomic or chemical bonds, which holds atoms together in compounds. The term originated in 1903 when Ernest Rutherford began to speak of the possibility of atomic energy. The term was popularized by H. G. Wells in the phrase, "splitting the atom", ...
for33against   I clearly support the atomic energy (nuclear power). No reason to hesitate. For instance, because it... (if I wanted to write why, I wrote it here), positive
for1against   I think we need the atomic energy, there´s no reason to hasitate., barby
for33against   I am strongly opposed the atomic energy (nuclear power). I do not support it. For instance, because it... (if I wanted to write why, I wrote it here), negative
Current preference ratio
for Atomic Energy - FOR

Unsure about nuclear power? Here's the five questions ...


... you must answer to decide Twenty five years on from Chernobyl, the heated debate on nuclear power remains resistant to cold facts: simply too few are known. But making your own judgements on five key questions will lead to your answer Containing the elemental forces that rage inside a nuclear reactor is one of the great achievements of science, but losing control, as happened 25 years ago on Tuesday at Chernobyl, is one of its greatest failures. So what to think of nuclear power? People often ask me if I support or oppose the building of new nuclear power stations, presuming I ...


International Atomic Energy Agency Briefing on Fukushima ...


... Nuclear Accident On Monday, 18 April 2011, the IAEA provided the following information on the current status of nuclear safety in Japan: 1. Current Situation Overall, the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains very serious but there are early signs of recovery in some functions, such as electrical power and instrumentation. On 17th April, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) announced that TEPCO had issued a "Roadmap towards Restoration from the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station". The roadmap outlines 63 measures to be ...


Say no to nuclear power: Nobel Laureates


Nobel Peace Laureates today asked all countries, including India and China, to invest in safer forms of renewable energy instead of nuclear energy in the backdrop of recent atomic disaster in Japan. "It is time to recognize that nuclear power is not a clean, safe or affordable source of energy," said the letter written by nine laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Jose Ramos Horta. The women laureates are Betty Williams, Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchu Tum, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi and Wangari Maathai. Read more: indian express.com (Apr 21 2011)


[TOP 4]

> Nuclear Energy > News

Fennovoima applies for VVER reactor
Fennovoima has asked for permission from the Finnish government to construct a Russian AES-2006 nuclear plant at its Hanhikivi site, near Pyhäjoki.The company, which was formed in 2007 by the Voimaosakeyhtiö group of Finnish industrial and energy companies, was awarded a decision-in-principle in 2010 to construct a new nuclear plant of 1500-2500 MWe capacity. At the time, Fennovoima had been considering Areva's EPR and SWR-1000 along with Toshiba's ABWR as possible reactor designs. Now that it has decided to construct Rosatom's AES-2006 plant, which uses a 1200 MWe-class reactor, Fennovoima has had to submit an application to amend the 2010 decision-in-principle to include the smaller overall plant capacity and different design.Fennovoima's submission of supplementary information follows a recent ruling by the country's Chancellor of Justice that the original 2010 decision-in-principle remains valid despite the changes to the project. Finland's Green League - a member of the six-part
Popular Mechanics Calls Joe Mangano's Research, "Junk Science"
For years, we've been telling you about freelance anti-nuclear activist Joe Mangano and how he leverages flawed research to stoke fears about nuclear energy. Now, another serious science writer has taken a closer look at Mangano's studies and says it's part of a larger trend of agenda-driven science being peddled to the press.On newsstands now is the April 2014 issue of Popular Mechanics. There you'll find a feature (yet to be published online) titled, "Junk Science." In it, Science Editor Sarah Fecht investigates a claim that Mangano and Janette Sherman made in 2012 that 14,000 American deaths could be linked to fallout from Fukushima Daiichi.Interviewed for the piece is Dr. Robert Emery of the University of Texas at Houston:"I read the thing and was taken aback," says Emery, who has a doctorate in public health and is a licensed health physicist. The study implied fallout from Fukushima caused 484 deaths in Houston. If there had been radiation-related deaths in Texas,
A Pilgrims Progress Away from Nuclear Misinformation
A bunch of Massachusetts papers are buzzing with this news: Residents who live in Plymouth or other towns near the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station run an increased risk of developing cancer, according to an epidemiologist called as an expert witness for the defense Wednesday during the trespassing trial of 12 Cape activists in Plymouth District Court. Richard Clapp, a retired professor from the Boston University School of Public Health, said the continued operation of the Plymouth plant was "a risk and an unacceptable risk in my view." Dr. Clapp is certainly a respectable figure, but he does not like nuclear energy even a little. Interestingly, in an editorial he wrote against including nuclear in a climate change bill back in 2008, he included a laundry list of objections – cost, risk, threats, etc – with only a bit devoted to health issues as he saw them. Health: The nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers and communities to radiation from mining, milling, fuel fabrication,
Smolensk II site unveiled to visitors
Senior Russian nuclear power plant engineers and journalists have visited a site near the village of Pyatidvorka Roslaviskoye that has been earmarked for the second Smolensk nuclear power plant.Three potential sites have been under consideration for Smolensk II, but engineering surveys have shown Pyatidvorka to be the preferred option, Smolensk NPP chief engineer Alexander Vassiliev told journalists. The site is 6km from the existing three-unit Smolensk I nuclear power plant. Vassiliev said that "preparations" for construction had already begun.Smolensk II will be home to four VVER units under a regional planning scheme approved by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in November 2013. Licensing activities are already under way, and first concrete is planned for unit 1 in 2017, with the unit becoming operational in 2022. The second Smolensk II unit is expected to start operation in 2024.Smolensk I's three RBMK reactors should remain in operation until the new plant starts to come online unde



 
nuclear energy examples, энергия связи ядра, Atomic energy, ATOMIC ENERGY and more...
load menu