According to this chart, there have been 2,422 nuclear explosions since 1945, including above ground, under ground, and in the sea. I'm somewhat amazed that this isn't having more of permanent negative effect. Does spreading out all the nuclear activity allow our ecosystem to absorb the radiation in reasonable intervals? Chernobyl has been a wasteland since the reactor meltdown. Was it simply that much more radioactive than actually testing bombs?
posted on Apr 24, 2008 - 47 answers

I'm taking a road trip through the southwest, and I'd like to see places with an interesting backstory or that show you "behind the scenes." I'm interested in places with political, economic, environmental, or industrial significance. Can you recommend some? [more inside]
posted on Sep 30, 2007 - 9 answers

Lets just say that the U.S. decided to stop burning hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas) completely for environmental reasons. Lets say that everything went electric. Cars, Power Plants, factories, everything. How many nuclear plants (using current technology) would we need to produce? Would there be one in every moderate sized town? Also, how long would the raw materials last before another energy crisis was imminent (peak uranium, I guess)?
posted on Jun 6, 2007 - 52 answers

Physicists and Environmentalists : what's the downside to this? Is there one (other than the disposal of depleted pebbles)? Seems pretty hope-making to me, layman that I am.
posted on Sep 16, 2004 - 16 answers