Quotes About Nuclear

Nobody has ever before asked the nuclear family to live all by itself in a box the way we do. With no relatives, no support, we've put it in an impossible situation.

The United States has the power to destroy the world, but not the power to save it alone.

A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.

Maybe the objective was to make sure we could all vaporize together. One last, wholesome, nuclear family activity.

You just activated a nuclear warhead, my friend.

A nuclear power plant is infinitely safer than eating, because 300 people choke to death on food every year.

You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.

All the while your brain is performing up to ten quadrillion calculations per second using only ten watts of power.5 A computer would require a gigawatt of power produced by a nuclear power plant to pull off the same performance.

At 1.24 am on 26 April 1986 Chernobyl's Unit 4 reactor exploded after staff disabled safety systems and performed an ill-advised experiment to check – ironically enough – the reactor's safety.

We cannot criticise global warming sceptics for denying the scientific consensus on climate when we ignore the same consensus on both the safety and the beneficial uses of nuclear power and genetic engineering.

Either way, nuclear power is the only means by which we can generate prodigious amounts of energy with only a tiny human footprint on the planetary biosphere.

But just as they were spectacularly successful in stopping the growth of nuclear power, they were spectacularly unsuccessful in promoting the use of solar as an alternative

With an Apollo Program scale-up of nuclear and other low-carbon power sources we still – just about – have time to avoid the worst of global warming.

In other words, not only have there been no fatalities resulting from Fukushima, but there have been no radiation-related injuries or medically-identifiable health effects either.

Even if you built your house right at the perimeter fence of your local nuclear plant, you would still receive many times less additional radiation than an airline crew member would consider entirely normal, for example.

Coal-fired power stations in fact release far more radiation into the environment than nuclear power stations, due to trace radionuclides being concentrated into coal ash and blown away in dust and smoke.

The only serious debate in numbers terms is whether the death toll from coal is five hundred times worse than nuclear, or many thousands of times worse.

This means that not only can fast reactors – deployed at scale – "solve" the nuclear waste "problem", but that they can also run entire countries for centuries on uranium which has already been mined and for which there is little other use.

even if all fossil fuel runs out (or we decide to leave it in the ground so as not to fry the planet), there is no conceivable shortage of nuclear fuel to burn in fast reactors.

There is no doubt that new designs available today are dramatically safer than those of the past, and that the potential for severe accidents in future vastly reduced.

Ten years after the Chernobyl accident, and am I the only one that's disappointed? Still no superheros.

I can think of a number of areas in New York where three acres of nuclear waste would make the neighborhood safer to walk around in than it is now, and better lit.

I suspect the soviets never did want to use those bombs. The most Stalinist of Soviet hard-liners - Stalin, for example - must have realized a nuclear war would be a hard thing to clean up after.

The Russians could have some (warheads) aimed at Japan, so if we act up they can destroy our economy.