McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

[Moonbeam]

Solar, not coal or nuclear.

We need neighborhoods to bid on nuclear. Let the people ask the government to build a nuclear plant in their neighborhood. We'll build millions that way.

The waste we have already made has never been stored properly. Lots of containers are leaking all over the place. Nobody will ever clean up the mess because there's no money to do it with. The real cost of nuclear is always passed to future generations with by lies.

People will welcome solar and fight nuclear to death.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Solar, not coal or nuclear.
We need neighborhoods to bid on nuclear. Let the people ask the government to build a nuclear plant in their neighborhood. We'll build millions that way.
The waste we have already made has never been stored properly. Lots of containers are leaking all over the place. Nobody will ever clean up the mess because there's no money to do it with. The real cost of nuclear is always passed to future generations with by lies.

Good job with completely ignoring the factual replies to your baseless rambling... :roll:

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"No country in the world has found a solution for this waste.

Let's see... there is Deep Geologic disposal, High-efficiency IFR reactors, Actinide Burning Fusion reactors, Isotope transmutation & recycling...

No solutions, hm?

I told you the nuclear folk are jokers. They have millions of answers and none of them ever see the light of day. Nuclear waste proposals are there and have always been there to allow the nuclear industry to build nuclear reactors lulling the public into the assumption the waste will be cleaned up while the real intention is always to have that clean up passed to the next generation. Swine only shit. They never wipe their asses. Clean up is costly and earns no profit.

Its not much different then the garbage you put by the road every week. Its not really "cleaned up" but it is properly stored.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"No country in the world has found a solution for this waste.

Let's see... there is Deep Geologic disposal, High-efficiency IFR reactors, Actinide Burning Fusion reactors, Isotope transmutation & recycling...

No solutions, hm?

I told you the nuclear folk are jokers. They have millions of answers and none of them ever see the light of day. Nuclear waste proposals are there and have always been there to allow the nuclear industry to build nuclear reactors lulling the public into the assumption the waste will be cleaned up while the real intention is always to have that clean up passed to the next generation. Swine only shit. They never wipe their asses. Clean up is costly and earns no profit.

Its not much different then the garbage you put by the road every week. Its not really "cleaned up" but it is properly stored.

Not me. I store all my garbage on site. Of course the neighbors have run me out of three towns but I've never paid a garbage bill.

Pigs never clean up their waste. We are pigs. It's not me who isn't dealing with reality. It's you nucular nuts in your phony human costumes who are confused. Maybe some drunken Indians can be persuaded to take your waste.

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"No country in the world has found a solution for this waste.

Let's see... there is Deep Geologic disposal, High-efficiency IFR reactors, Actinide Burning Fusion reactors, Isotope transmutation & recycling...

No solutions, hm?

I told you the nuclear folk are jokers. They have millions of answers and none of them ever see the light of day. Nuclear waste proposals are there and have always been there to allow the nuclear industry to build nuclear reactors lulling the public into the assumption the waste will be cleaned up while the real intention is always to have that clean up passed to the next generation. Swine only shit. They never wipe their asses. Clean up is costly and earns no profit.

Its not much different then the garbage you put by the road every week. Its not really "cleaned up" but it is properly stored.

Not me. I store all my garbage on site. Of course the neighbors have run me out of three towns but I've never paid a garbage bill.

Pigs never clean up their waste. We are pigs. It's not me who isn't dealing with reality. It's you nucular nuts in your phony human costumes who are confused. Maybe some drunken Indians can be persuaded to take your waste.

That was in the past now there are ways to turn nuclear waste in to reactor fuel so it does not need to be disposed of;

Nuclear waste could power Britain

A plan by the nuclear industry to build a £1bn fuel processing plant at Sellafield is being backed by the government's chief scientist. The plant would turn the UK's 60,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste into reactor fuel that will provide 60 per cent of this country's electricity until 2060, it is claimed.

'We can bury our reactor waste or we can treat it and then use it as free fuel for life,' said the cabinet's chief science adviser, Sir David King. 'It's a no-brainer.'

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Carmen813
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...wT2mrTLG8rTk84uYJsnwcF

Seems to me one of the best ways to reduce our influence on foreign oil will be to rapidly escalate production of these reactors. We realistically will not be able to free ourselves from the middle east until we regain energy independence.

Smart man.

:thumbsup:

 

[sportage]

Nuke reactors... Off shore drilling...
These are all typical knee jerk reactions by a failed system, failed leaders.
Failure failure failure...

WHY we are in this mess with gas and energy is that we have had "NO" energy policy
from THIS Bush admin or previous admins because the lobbyist wanted to keep those
gas hogs rolling off the assembly lines, and paid congress very well indeed to keep
things that way.

Hell, GW was against adopting new efficiency gas standards till just last week.

We do not need to be energy pigs with the mindset MORE MORE MORE.

We "should have" made cars that use and need less, invested in mass transit nation wide,
and taught conservation to a energy hungry spoiled nation.

So now... they want to build nuke reactors in your backyard, and drill for more oil
along the coastline.

No energy policy = national disaster. There is NO fast simple fix... Sorry John.

 

[manowar821]

It's nice to know our political leaders think that nuclear materials are as unlimited of a resource as oil reserves are. Just warms my fucking heart.

Edit: Oh, and what sportage said, too.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: sportage
Nuke reactors... Off shore drilling...
These are all typical knee jerk reactions by a failed system, failed leaders.
Failure failure failure...

WHY we are in this mess with gas and energy is that we have had "NO" energy policy
from THIS Bush admin or previous admins because the lobbyist wanted to keep those
gas hogs rolling off the assembly lines, and paid congress very well indeed to keep
things that way.

Hell, GW was against adopting new efficiency gas standards till just last week.

We do not need to be energy pigs with the mindset MORE MORE MORE.

We "should have" made cars that use and need less, invested in mass transit nation wide,
and taught conservation to a energy hungry spoiled nation.

So now... they want to build nuke reactors in your backyard, and drill for more oil
along the coastline.

No energy policy = national disaster. There is NO fast simple fix... Sorry John.

You haven't contributed one piece of meaningful comment, useful information, or practical suggestion in this thread. Instead you have only posted jumbled rantings and fallacy ridden rhetoric....you'll fit right in around here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, lots of nuclear solutions could work. They just never will and never will anybody safely manage the waste for the next one hundred thousand years. Gimmy my fix today and fuck the future.

When you do nuclear and you are serious about life you have all your waste solutions in place before you build the reactor and before you mine any ore. But that's not fun and there's no money to be made.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: sportage
Nuke reactors... Off shore drilling...
These are all typical knee jerk reactions by a failed system, failed leaders.
Failure failure failure...

WHY we are in this mess with gas and energy is that we have had "NO" energy policy
from THIS Bush admin or previous admins because the lobbyist wanted to keep those
gas hogs rolling off the assembly lines, and paid congress very well indeed to keep
things that way.

Hell, GW was against adopting new efficiency gas standards till just last week.

We do not need to be energy pigs with the mindset MORE MORE MORE.

We "should have" made cars that use and need less, invested in mass transit nation wide,
and taught conservation to a energy hungry spoiled nation.

So now... they want to build nuke reactors in your backyard, and drill for more oil
along the coastline.

No energy policy = national disaster. There is NO fast simple fix... Sorry John.

Did we ever get the contents of cheney's energy policy meetings in 2001 - before 9/11? I think there was an attempt to get it through the freedom of information act which failed for some reason.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

One thing we can be sure of. The people who built it were sure it was safe. Not to say we can't build infinitely better reactor now, not that anybody wants they even so, in their own back yard.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

I wonder why this is. There was one being built up river from cincinnati that was so bad that it was converted to coal. All sorts of corruption - from structural deficiencies to drugs and prostitution.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

One thing we can be sure of. The people who built it were sure it was safe. Not to say we can't build infinitely better reactor now, not that anybody wants they even so, in their own back yard.

Just like the makers of the o-rings on the challenger.

Certainly, we have better technology now. We put baby reactors in subs a few feet away from 100+ people. I haven't heard of these sailors having three eyed babies. But, when someone jokes about people being afraid of nuclear power plants as if they're stupid, they need some history. It just makes the joker look stupid and uninformed.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

I so wish you were kidding but know your not. We need new power sources that arent coal and aren't ng/oil, what else would you suggest?

It would be interesting to know what percentage of our power usages and other products come from what source. There have been many statements of dubious 'fact' thrown around this thread.

No one has mentioned bio-fuels. Interesting. My take on them is that they're misguided profiteering at the expense of the world's food supply and inevitably are putting off the basic, blue sky research that needs to happen to discover the next, best thing. I have no clue what this will be and assume it will be something previously unimagined and chock full of wow, wow and more wow. I also predict that the republicans and fundies will be against it initially.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

Have you ever seen a documentary on it? It was a long series of atypical events to even get to the point that it did, and it was contained a lot of things were learned from it. And how many people died? 0. Contrast that with the hundreds of millions of deaths over history from carcinogenic compounds released into the air by coal-fire plants, natural gas explosions and leaks, oil combustion, resource wars, impoverishment from energy shortage and foodstuff increases, and I think you'll see how stupid the anti-nuclear position is. And Chernobyl was a shitty state-run reactor in the USSR. That the environmentalist movement used this as a pretext for fearmongering and blocking nuclear for thirty years is in my opinion a crime against humanity. Now we're a bunch of ignorant NIMBY whiners who have once again narrowed their political selections down to stupidity and deceit and revel on message boards bickering about who is better. Congratu-fucking-lations.

I'm sorry you see a country like France who is 79% emission-free nuclear without a single accident and the largest net exporter of energy in Europe, easily recycling and storing the waste, and somehow conclude that they made the wrong call all these years. You can't possibly believe that the thousands who died in a shitty USSR explosion should scare us into choosing something about 100x worse which you can't see in your short-sighted stupidity. And I'm just waiting to hear your pie-in-the-sky recommendation that we cover the entire country with windmills and replace jet fuel with solar panels. You probably think that electric cars are going to help, too, but

a. OH SHIT, WHERE IS THAT ELECTRICITY COMING FROM? Better change the infrastructure so we don't need oil there
b. Oh shit, it takes five years of hoop-jumping just to get the necessary government permits for nuclear plants, and then a few more years to build it
c. Oh shit, our savings rate is negative and oil keeps climbing relative to the dollar, so where the fuck is the capital going to come from for this stuff when foreigners FINALLY bail out of our bond market?

Nothing like waiting until your face is smashed in to dodge the punch.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

Chernobyl was tragic, but so many things went wrong for it to occur, including the operators shutting down the safety systems intended to prevent catastrophic meltdown.

Modern reactors are extremely well designed, and there is much more oversight when it comes to safety procedures. Generation III designs use many passive safety systems in addition to active safety systems, meaning that even without a person or computer to intervene, meltdown should be avoided. And in the rare event that meltdown does occur, nuclear facilities are designed to contain the radiation. People should be much more worried about what we're going to do with spent fuel than meltdown, because events like Chernobyl just could not happen with modern designs and safety regulations.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Interesting article on safety. NRC requires a <0.01% chance of meltdown, but most designs far exceed this. Some of the safest plants running today have only a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of meltdown occurring.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

Have you ever seen a documentary on it? It was a long series of atypical events to even get to the point that it did, and it was contained a lot of things were learned from it. And how many people died? 0. Contrast that with the hundreds of millions of deaths over history from carcinogenic compounds released into the air by coal-fire plants, natural gas explosions and leaks, oil combustion, resource wars, impoverishment from energy shortage and foodstuff increases, and I think you'll see how stupid the anti-nuclear position is. And Chernobyl was a shitty state-run reactor in the USSR. That the environmentalist movement used this as a pretext for fearmongering and blocking nuclear for thirty years is in my opinion a crime against humanity. Now we're a bunch of ignorant NIMBY whiners who have once again narrowed their political selections down to stupidity and deceit and revel on message boards bickering about who is better. Congratu-fucking-lations.

I'm sorry you see a country like France who is 79% emission-free nuclear without a single accident and the largest net exporter of energy in Europe, easily recycling and storing the waste, and somehow conclude that they made the wrong call all these years. You can't possibly believe that the thousands who died in a shitty USSR explosion should scare us into choosing something about 100x worse which you can't see in your short-sighted stupidity. And I'm just waiting to hear your pie-in-the-sky recommendation that we cover the entire country with windmills and replace jet fuel with solar panels. You probably think that electric cars are going to help, too, but

a. OH SHIT, WHERE IS THAT ELECTRICITY COMING FROM? Better change the infrastructure so we don't need oil there
b. Oh shit, it takes five years of hoop-jumping just to get the necessary government permits for nuclear plants, and then a few more years to build it
c. Oh shit, our savings rate is negative and oil keeps climbing relative to the dollar, so where the fuck is the capital going to come from for this stuff when foreigners FINALLY bail out of our bond market?

Nothing like waiting until your face is smashed in to dodge the punch.

:laugh:
Seems like a big hot button got pressed here. I never said I was against nuclear power. This post was to explain why some may be against nuclear power plants. There were some mistakes made in the early years of nuclear power plants just like any new technology. The only difference was the possible magnitude of the results of the mistake. I would be the first to agree that there has been a lot of misinformation spewed about nuclear energy - from both sides. It's kinda like the old saw that republicans are the fiscally responsible party and democrats just tax and spend. I think, after the last eight years, we can see what a fallacy that is.

The chernobyl incident occured in 1986. And, yes, I still believe nuclear power plants can be very dangerous but a danger that can be risk justified with enough monitoring. What I don't know is how many plants would have to be commissioned to make a dent in our energy appetite. I don't claim to know about the waste and difficulty disposing of it. And just because the french seem to have taken care of the waste problem is not a reason to agree or disagree for me. You know the french will sometimes put on more cologne instead of taking a bath. I do know that if a good solution isn't found that people will find out and be against nuclear power.

I guess your message board comment applies to everyone except you. Not every story about a business screwing up is false - yes, the nuclear industry is just a business for profit. Do you believe that the asbestos problem is a fabrication of enviro-freaks?

Most of your assumptions about me are wrong but I do agree with a. in that some think that electric/hybrid cars are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and "save the environment". The owners of these vehicles are possibly just adding another layer between them and the oil or gas used to generate the electricity. This fact isn't brought up in the marketing. And we'll just ignore the cost of production and the possibly hazardous chemicals that will eventually need to be disposed. If we really want to save the environment, we'll stop having so many kids. Solar cells are a great idea but current technology isn't going to do it. We are in desparate need of a new form of energy - one that no one has considered. These other forms - solar, wind, nuclear, bio, etc. - are just obsfucating stopgaps.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

Chernobyl was tragic, but so many things went wrong for it to occur, including the operators shutting down the safety systems intended to prevent catastrophic meltdown.

Modern reactors are extremely well designed, and there is much more oversight when it comes to safety procedures. Generation III designs use many passive safety systems in addition to active safety systems, meaning that even without a person or computer to intervene, meltdown should be avoided. And in the rare event that meltdown does occur, nuclear facilities are designed to contain the radiation. People should be much more worried about what we're going to do with spent fuel than meltdown, because events like Chernobyl just could not happen with modern designs and safety regulations.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Interesting article on safety. NRC requires a <0.01% chance of meltdown, but most designs far exceed this. Some of the safest plants running today have only a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of meltdown occurring.

Great. Probably won't read the background info. but I believe you. If the nuclear power industry hadn't developed better controls, it wouldn't still be around.

Like you, I'll reserve judgement until there is a long term, viable solution to the waste problem. And shipping it to mars doesn't seem very smart. On a much smaller scale, it's like burying old tires. The previous owners of some property I own used to run a tire store in town. There were over 1000 tires here that the fuckers hid after taking the tire disposal money from customers. Many neighbors suggested digging a hole with a bulldozer and burying them. I didn't like this and found out later that tires "float to the surface" after many years and have to be dealt with anyhow. So, I just set them all on fire - j/k.

 

[Bitek]

While I think Nuke reactors will be part of an energy policy, I don't think we can just plan on building enough of them to dig us out of the hole. Its ignoring all the cons of nuke plants.

As said, the supply of ore isn't unlimited, and 2nd of all, we haven't figured out what to do w/ the waste. That's a pretty big F'ing deal. Nevada will have to be drugged before they open the repository, and even then the issue of collection and transport isn't anywhere near solved. Also, people don't want plants near them, rational fear or not. Building at least 1 per state =huge lawsuits and delays.

Also, power from nukes is expensive. Elect prices will go up vs other types of plants. Lastly, don't forget about terrorism. Again, is everybody going to be ready to build tens of terror rich targets all over the country? More protests and lawsuits.


What I think needs to happen is that we really need to switch away from a oil-hog transportation system. Get all those trucks/cars off the road wasting fuel. Even coal and oil plants can make much cheaper and cleaner energy to drive those w/ electricity. Much more effective pollution controls and an overall much more efficient process.

Pushing more coal plants here can keep coal miners working here rather than Saudi oilfield workers. The $ stays home. These areas are in great need of jobs and $ into their areas. Environmental regulalions will needto change, but its workable. Even what oil is imported would be used more efficiently, so for same E consumption, less pollution is emitted.

Also, we need to develop better rail networks. I'm not just talking commuter, but transnational rail to move cargo. We could build high speed rail along the interstate corridors (like I-70, I-80, I-15, etc) and move nonstop @ 200mph, rather than hordes of slow diesel burning trucks w/ dodgy pollution controls clogging up highways and causing traffic deaths.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.

Yes, it got lots of airplay. People love to hear about death and destruction. But the specific comment I made about the nuclear cloud being mentioned but then not followed up is how I remember it. Maybe it turns out that nuclear fallout isn't really dangerous after all. And I haven't thought or heard of chernobyl for years before I started reading this thread yesterday.

Again, my post was in response to the comment that nuclear power plants aren't dangerous. I don't know how anybody can state this with a straight face. This doesn't mean that the danger can't be managed but there is danger.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.

Agreed. Chernobyl RBMK was designed and constructed with a minimum of safety features in mind (instead of an external reinforced concrete containment, only a concrete "lid" was used to cover the top of the reactor).

No commercial reactor in the United States is designed anything like the RBMK reactor:

1. A reactor which is unstable against a loss of water could not be licensed in the United States.
2. A reactor which is unstable against a temperature increase could not be licensed here.
3. A large power reactor without a containment structure could not be licensed here.

The absence of a containment structure is especially important ... "Post-accident analyses indicate that if there had been a U.S.-style containment, none of the radioactivity would have escaped, and there would have been no injuries or deaths."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...eadings/chernobyl.html

If history has taught us anything, its that safety and efficiency comes through years of experience and continual improvement - not by burying our heads in the sand and choosing not to support an entire field of technology because some errors were made in the past.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.

And of course the worst yet - chernobyl. I don't think this was just a video game. It was real and people died and some that wished they had and there is desolation for miles around it. The nuclear cloud blew around the world but for some reason didn't get much airplay. Nuclear information handlers must have been very busy with that one.

TMI and Chernobyl really aren't comparable. TMI resulted in a negligible release to the environment though the reactor iteslf was destroyed. The containment building (mandated for every reactor in the US) worked quite well despite the operator errors and control problems that damaged the unit.

Chernobyl got and still gets a lot of airplay. I don't know where you've been. There are also the minor details that the US operates no reactors of the Chernobyl type (RBMK), that the reactor operators didn't have a good understanding of their plant, that the same operators violated every safety rule they had, and the total lack of a containment structure which would have kept the core from blowing itself into the Ukrainian night sky.

Yes, it got lots of airplay. People love to hear about death and destruction. But the specific comment I made about the nuclear cloud being mentioned but then not followed up is how I remember it. Maybe it turns out that nuclear fallout isn't really dangerous after all. And I haven't thought or heard of chernobyl for years before I started reading this thread yesterday.

Again, my post was in response to the comment that nuclear power plants aren't dangerous. I don't know how anybody can state this with a straight face. This doesn't mean that the danger can't be managed but there is danger.

There is danger in me crossing the street or taking a sip of water out of the cup on my desk. On a relative basis western civilian nuclear power plants are very safe.