on this browser"/>
Use the mathematical formula to find the volume of a cylinder. A penny is a cylinder, and you already have the dimensions you need.
Nuclear energy destroying the environment
Nuclear energy destroying the environment because when people produce nuclear power with uranium,many nuclear wast formed during producing. The nuclear wast destroy anything.
We shouldn't use nuclear energy
We shouldn't use nuclear energy because when finished using nuclear energy the depleted Uranium are very affect living things and environment. The depleted Uranium can still 4.5 billion years life in the air. The depleted Uranium can destroy cell and DNA. In Iraq, It affecting very badly to people.
I want to suggest who is using Nuclear weapon, the need to invented one chemical compound to destroy depleted Uranium after using. If not, next 100 year all people will die by depleted Uranium.
Actually, depleted uranium is only marginally more dangerous than lead, and the primary hazard is heavy metal poisoning. Many bullets, in fact, have heads composed of depleted uranium, as it's a fairly cheap, safe metal that serves this purpose well. You would pretty much have to wear a vest made of the stuff 24/7 to be affected by the emitted radiation.
Or so I hear…
I think we need to figure out things first. We can save a lot of money and produce a lot of energy at least ½ more but in the same time let's think about consequences. We've been taught to drain every resource out of this planet but what do we give back ? a [url=http://www.mesawasteservices.com/]portable potty[/url] that does not pollute the environment ? let's be serious about this. My vote is yes but i hate to think that we can change our future (in a bad way).
Honistly, there are more ways to reduce Carbon Dioxide emmisions than Nuclear Power. And what if a meltdown occured? That IS a real downfall of nuclear power.
A meltdown HAS occured. In Russia, and the only reason it wasn't safe was because they didn't have containment--luckily we're smarter and not as cheap about it.
Nuclear power, truly, isn't a horrible alternative.
Agreed chemical toxicity of uranium similar to lead.
More radioactivity by a long way emitted by coal-fired stations than nuclear stations, since all their waste is blown into the atmosphere.
Waste uranium in coal fly ash is left in heaps in the environment rather than contained.
Uranium is limited by "proven reserves" whose total is frequently dictated by commodity price, which until the last 2-3 years was in a 30 year depression.
There's lots more thorium in the ground, which can be used as fuel. You can breed new fuel in a breeder.
Depleted uranium is not the primary product of the nuclear fuel cycle.
The "half-life" of waste, while long, is not 4.5 billion years, since most of the activity is from other actinides.
A "meltdown" of a modern reactor is contained in a containment building designed to withstand the explosive force of the entire coolant and more flashing to steam. Regarding the likelihood of an accident: Modern safety stds require an accident scenario of better than 1 in 1 million years. Chernobyl had a graphite moderated core which could burn. Modern power reactors do not.
Summary: I'd rather live near a nuke plant than a coal plant or a chemical plant. Conservation will help, wind etc may help, but for baseload power, but global demand for power will grow and I think nuclear power will inevitably grow with it.
If no one ever knew that Uranium lasts for another 36000 years while the Sun will live for billions of years. Anyone get the picture?
Don't be dumb. Nuclear waste can't be contained because it's so volatile. however there is something called nuclear fusion. Not fission. Fusion uses more energy but gives no radiation because the elements that we use are so weak, such as helium and hydrogen.
WebElements: the periodic table on the WWW [http://www.webelements.com/]