JR wrote:Ehh. There are almost 100 accidents at nuclear plants on the civilian side annually...
You have a source saying that? I did a super quick google/wiki and found these.
Civilian nuclear plant "accidents
Civilian nuclear plant "incidents"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_incidents
If you include accidents plus incidents they total 39 ranging from the '50s to present.
JR wrote:...and at least Russians have lost nuclear subs at sea. ... Militaries don't speak of this so maybe some sort of concrete dome has been dumped on the sub and maybe divers have removed the weapons but it is pretty poor leadership if you ask me to keep the people guessing am i gonna wake up to having died of a deadly dose of radiation on the level of three countries being hit large scale. ...
Russia aren't the only one to have lost nuclear subs at sea and experts aren't worried about them. They aren't hush hush about it either. Heck, Russia takes old nuclear subs up to the Arctic and scuttles them just to get ride of them. Everybody knows about it.http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html
JR wrote:... Then there's the small matter of broken nuclear power plants in Ukraine, the US and Japan radiating large areas. Harrisburg? ...
OK, let's talk about Harrisburg radiating large areas. The average dose of radiation to the 2 million people in the area was 1/6 of what you get from a chest x-ray (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). The maximum does of radiation to people working at the site was less than 100 millirem. So Harrisburg really didn't cost us anything in deaths or health risk and set up America for much tighter nuclear power regulations making it a safer power source in the future.http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
JR wrote:...How about lost nuclear weapons? ...
Apples and oranges. This is about nuclear as a power source, not a weapon. The fissile content of the two are completely different ball games.
JR wrote:...There was an experimental aircraft powered by a nuclear reactor. Good idea experimental aircraft never fall. And a lot of service aircraft patrolling airborne as a nuclear war deterrent threatening a counter strike sounds like a perfect way to log air hours for nuclear reactors in planes. Since regular planes fell too somebody had the bright idea to pull the plug on that program at least.
Hey you guys want to talk pollution. You know how much JP5/JP7 a military jets burns in one minute? Or how much emissions it puts out in that minute? One F-15 burns 240 gallons (908 liters) of jet fuel in one minute. One F-16 on a standard training mission burns about 900 gallons (3,400 liters) of jet fuel, that's almost twice what an average car burns in a year.
As for your nuclear airplane, well... it never got off the ground (making it awfully hard to crash).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
But if it had worked and we could have converted aircraft to nuclear power then our air quality around the world would be much cleaner. But, they scrapped it because it wasn't safety feasible to use nuclear power for aircraft.
What's the point of all this? I think it's ridiculous for you to tell other people to check their facts.