Comments:Experts raise serious questions over safety of U.S. oil industry and warn another spill may be 'unavoidable'

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Isn't It Obvious.316:23, 15 May 2011
Comments from feedback form - "Left, left and more left."020:13, 18 April 2011
Comments from feedback form - "Who wrote this lopsided articl..."120:27, 17 April 2011

Isn't It Obvious.

As with nuclear power, the main problem is industry's rush to get the oil out of the ground, get it to a refinery, and start making a profit on it. Yet another reason to get over oil and find other ways to power our vehicles and devices.

Scarabrae (talk)16:03, 17 April 2011

That's true about the oil industry, but what's the connection with the nuclear industry?

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk)21:19, 18 April 2011

I'm assuming the poster is referring to the fact that nuclear power, as an potentially extremely dangerous power source, cannot be utilized safely without numerous safety measures. Numerous, costly, safety measures. That's just not profitable when hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to keep a plant from going meltdown. Skim here, cut a corner here, and it becomes profitable, and a recipe for disaster. This is also exactly the problem with oil. It's just not a good return on investment when that investment is being "eaten up" by keeping the environment and human resources safe and healthy. Oil is even worse however, in that it isn't as renewable as nuclear power.

I advocate nuclear power in that it is a decent alternative to oil. It's not particularly safe, but "power" holds no connotations of easily controlled substances (even solar, hydroelectric, and wind, which just aren't reliable enough to profitable yet, though all are safer than nuclear). If we had a little foresight we would be able to utilize nuclear power safely and effectively, and it can be done. I've never heard of a meltdown in France, which gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power (www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html).

131.15.48.21 (talk)17:44, 21 April 2011
 

Sorry, I'm new to this. I had just read an article about the nuclear industry and people's fears that it is unsafe. I forgot that readers of my comment wouldn't know what I just read. I'll get better at this,

Scarabrae (talk)16:23, 15 May 2011
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "Left, left and more left."

Left, left and more left.

12.139.6.210 (talk)20:13, 18 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "Who wrote this lopsided articl..."

Who wrote this lopsided article?

131.243.99.230 (talk)18:46, 17 April 2011

I did. Would you care to expand?

wackywace20:27, 17 April 2011