Why is nuclear power such an emotive issue?

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

74% of tornadoes are F0-1, 25% are F2-3 and only 1% are F4-5 worldwide. And an average of 1000 per year in the USA alone.

The Fujita Scale is used to rate the intensity of a tornado by examining the damage caused by the tornado after it has passed over a man-made structure.

And don't forget the small factoid that the vast majority of all tornadoes worldwide are right here, in the good old USA.

Tornado frequency worldwide - Tornado alley Oklahoma -Kansas 40 Tornadoes per year and F2-F5 42%!

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

You guys need to stop feeding the troll; he's obviously too busy reading The National Inquirer to take off his tin foil hat.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

Some truly are stupid

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

You guys need to stop feeding the troll; he's obviously too busy reading The National Inquirer to take off his tin foil hat.

I just wanted to make sure I knew I was dealing with a truther. Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

Kind of reminds me of the TV movie Atomic Twister - another nuclear scare movie. The funniest scene had to be when there was a guy at the guard station outside of the nuclear power plant sitting there being lazy like the stereo-typical guard is supposed to be. He was apparently so lazy that he didn't notice the massive tornado quietly tip-toeing towards him until it was too late.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm more or less pro-nuclear power, (nuk-u-ler) but have concerns about storage of wastes, proper construction, operation, and maintenance of the plants, along with a host of other issues.
TMI came much closer to becoming a disaster than we were ever told at the time, and there was a minimal amount of radiation released...but of course, that was covered up...

http://www.tmia.com/accident/index.html
http://www.tmia.com/accident/whatswrong.html

Fortunately, things never gt as bad as they could have, but the truth was covered up by the government for years. (and much of it still is.)

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

 

[potato28]

:laugh: All you guys are doing is looking at France, not any other countries. Most of the power generated in Ontario comes from nuclear sites, Pickereing A and B, Darlington and the Bruce A and B. There's even another Darlington station in the planning process and should be completed by 2017. Waste storage is in giant water tanks, which reduces the half life and radioactivity. I do know for a fact too that dry dock storage is being built on site for these plants because they are running out of room in the pools for waste, and that some of that waste is over 20 years old. And yet... how much bad press has our reactor systems had? 1, and that was because Darlington ran way over budget. No nuclear accidents, nothing.

 

[NuclearNed]

People are largely uneducated about nuclear material/power/plants. Also, a lot of nuclear hysteria was fanned into flames in the 40's/50's/60's by the media and pop culture.

This is exactly the reason that we have extensive rad worker training for new hires where I work. We basically take a long time and debunk all the myths, demonstrate how people are exposed to radiation every day in all types of household products, and give some actual facts concerning radiation exposure.

It is a very eye opening class for most people, including myself.

 

[meltdown75]

it saddens me that the word emotive was used here.

carry on.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Codewiz


Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

No, I prefer my 911 shrouded in lies and deceit, like you do.

So I guess the Air Force was just struck dumb by all those commercial flights flying unscheduled zigzag courses all over the US even after one hit the WTC, huh? If they had bothered to scramble fighters after the first plane hit, chances are at least one WTC tower would still be standing.

Or here's a real stretch. Why not scramble fighters after they realize commercial planes are flying zigzags off course BEFORE they hit a building? Those fighters could have shot those planes down before they hit those buildings, if they scrambled them into the air after they realized 4 were off course.

And how about building 7 that just mysteriously collapsed after minimum fire damage? I guess they just don't build them like they used to. All that cheap illegal labor for construction has a higher price after all, huh?

Truth or not? Make up all the stupid excuses for it you want to, they are still whitewash stupid excuses.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

You guys need to stop feeding the troll; he's obviously too busy reading The National Inquirer to take off his tin foil hat.

I just wanted to make sure I knew I was dealing with a truther. Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

LOL, I just wanted to make sure I was dealing with a deaf, blind and stupid Republikrat.

Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

You guys need to stop feeding the troll; he's obviously too busy reading The National Inquirer to take off his tin foil hat.

I just wanted to make sure I knew I was dealing with a truther. Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

LOL, I just wanted to make sure I was dealing with a deaf, blind and stupid Republikrat.

Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. I am about as far from being a republican as I am from being a democrat. Sorry to break it to you.

As for your other nonsense. Like I said, you know NOTHING about the DoD in general. You should try to solve your problem of ignorance prior to discussing such matters. All of the 9/11 conspiracy crap is born out of ignorance.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
[ All of the 9/11 conspiracy crap is born out of ignorance.

No, it's born out of distrust for our government.

I don't buy into all the odd-ball conspiracy theories, but I DO think there's a lot more to the 9-11 events than we'll ever know.


I LOVE my country, but I FEAR my government.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

F2 is 113-157 mph and says "Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated."

I kinda doubt it was an F2 and the reactor and out buildings supporting it like the control room was untouched. Sounds more like an F1 hit it, if it was REALLY a direct hit as claimed. Remember these ratings are only speculative and made after the tornado has struck. It might have been an F2 prior to hitting the reactor, but had diminished in strength before it actually hit it. Or it could have increased in strength after it hit. Either way they would still call it an F2.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

As a matter of fact, Davis-Besse WAS hit by a tornado. In fact, it was a direct hit. The news made a huge deal out of it. You know what actually happened? The reactor shut down as it is designed to do and every safety feature performed exactly as designed resulting in absolutely zero issues. From the news reports though, you'd think it was a half-second from going Chernobyl.

ZV

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

You guys need to stop feeding the troll; he's obviously too busy reading The National Inquirer to take off his tin foil hat.

I just wanted to make sure I knew I was dealing with a truther. Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

LOL, I just wanted to make sure I was dealing with a deaf, blind and stupid Republikrat.

Then I know all logic and reason can be thrown out the window.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. I am about as far from being a republican as I am from being a democrat. Sorry to break it to you.

As for your other nonsense. Like I said, you know NOTHING about the DoD in general. You should try to solve your problem of ignorance prior to discussing such matters. All of the 9/11 conspiracy crap is born out of ignorance.

And you are some DoD expert instead killing free time trolling around ATOT, making stupid assumptions about posters, are you? Well, that certainly settles that then!

Talk about self important ignoramuses.

If you know you won't like the answer, don't be a self righteous pompous ass and ask the stupid question.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

F2 is 113-157 mph and says "Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated."

I kinda doubt it was an F2 and the reactor and out buildings supporting it like the control room was untouched. Sounds more like an F1 hit it, if it was REALLY a direct hit as claimed. Remember these ratings are only speculative and made after the tornado has struck. It might have been an F2 prior to hitting the reactor, but had diminished in strength before it actually hit it. Or it could have increased in strength after it hit. Either way they would still call it an F2.

Well, I guess since you doubt it, it mustn't be true. I suppose we could also just ignore the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing on 11/2/05 when the NRC Chairman spoke. I'll quote some for you so you needn't visit the link:

Over the years, U.S. nuclear power plants have experienced direct impacts of severe natural phenomena, and their robust design and construction have enabled them to successfully withstand such events. Some of the events experienced within the past 15 years include: Hurricane Andrew, a Category 4 hurricane, which passed directly over the Turkey Point nuclear power plant with sustained wind speeds of 145 miles per hour and gusts up to 175 miles per hour (August 1992); the Cooper Nuclear Station, which experienced flooding onsite from the Missouri River (July 1993); a Fujita Tornado Damage Scale F2 tornado, which directly hit the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, with winds of 113 to 157 miles per hour (June 1998); and, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which felt the shock from a Magnitude 6.5 San Simeon earthquake in Paso Robles, California (December 2003). In all these cases, the nuclear power plant functioned as they were designed, and adequate protection was maintained during and after the event.

Oh, I left some extra information in there about other issues at other plants. I guess though, since it was discussed in front of a US Senate committee and spoken by the NRC chairman, it's all bullshit and lies?

Text

 

[HardcoreRobot]

burning something, making heat and generating electricity is intuitive

nuclear fission is not... people don't understand the science and that scares them. couple that with bad press and FUD and you get a lot of resistance

 

[cheezy321]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Leak contaminates 100 in France - 4th nuclear accident in 2 weeks.

Yea, it's completely safe. It's perfectly normal to glow in the dark if you live in France.

The problem with nuclear power is all the little spills and mishaps each plant has on a yearly basis. And the vast majority of them you never hear about. You never hear about close calls or anything else regarding poor maintenance or mistakes, unless a major accident occurs in the US. It is all very closely guarded.

From the story:

a dose smaller than 1/40th of the regulation limit

Obviously France should scrap their reactor fleet immediately.

My point stands. You would most likely not hear about any of those accidents in the US. You hear about them in France because, well, it's socialist France. In the US it is far to politicized and the corporations just sweep little mishaps like these under the rug and hope you don't notice the fish in the river have 2 heads.

Of course. Because investigative reporters hate doing guaranteed ratings blockbusters like exposés on the nuclear power industry. I mean, there's no way a reporter could possibly make his name by blowing a story like that.

You've obviously not grown up near a nuclear plant. The local media has stories almost every other month about something or other happening at the plant I grew up near. And you know what? They're all FUD.

ZV

You can't run a story when you don't know it happened and the plant workers are fired for going public. And that only happens in major events.

The fact of the matter is there are even plants built over fault lines in California that are not earthquake proof. And how about a tornado striking a plant? Or some other natural disaster or calamity? If the control of the plant is interrupted for any reason, even a prolonged power failure, you have a major disaster that is going to be imminent.

Let me guess, you also believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Let me guess, you think the multi trillion dollar Air Force did a spectacular job protecting our skies and buildings during 911? Even though they couldn't even protect the Pentagon? Or didn't you notice that little fact?

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

No, I prefer my 911 shrouded in lies and deceit, like you do.

So I guess the Air Force was just struck dumb by all those commercial flights flying unscheduled zigzag courses all over the US even after one hit the WTC, huh? If they had bothered to scramble fighters after the first plane hit, chances are at least one WTC tower would still be standing.

Or here's a real stretch. Why not scramble fighters after they realize commercial planes are flying zigzags off course BEFORE they hit a building? Those fighters could have shot those planes down before they hit those buildings, if they scrambled them into the air after they realized 4 were off course.

And how about building 7 that just mysteriously collapsed after minimum fire damage? I guess they just don't build them like they used to. All that cheap illegal labor for construction has a higher price after all, huh?

Truth or not? Make up all the stupid excuses for it you want to, they are still whitewash stupid excuses.

This post brings the LULZ.

Hindsight is always 20/20 my friend. Maybe you should be in control of the Air force?

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
burning something, making heat and generating electricity is intuitive

nuclear fission is not... people don't understand the science and that scares them. couple that with bad press and FUD and you get a lot of resistance

Yup, along with "bad" press.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: potato28

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
burning something, making heat and generating electricity is intuitive

nuclear fission is not... people don't understand the science and that scares them. couple that with bad press and FUD and you get a lot of resistance

Yup, along with "bad" press.

And movies starring Jane Fonda...

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

F2 is 113-157 mph and says "Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated."

I kinda doubt it was an F2 and the reactor and out buildings supporting it like the control room was untouched. Sounds more like an F1 hit it, if it was REALLY a direct hit as claimed. Remember these ratings are only speculative and made after the tornado has struck. It might have been an F2 prior to hitting the reactor, but had diminished in strength before it actually hit it. Or it could have increased in strength after it hit. Either way they would still call it an F2.

Well, I guess since you doubt it, it mustn't be true. I suppose we could also just ignore the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing on 11/2/05 when the NRC Chairman spoke. I'll quote some for you so you needn't visit the link:

Over the years, U.S. nuclear power plants have experienced direct impacts of severe natural phenomena, and their robust design and construction have enabled them to successfully withstand such events. Some of the events experienced within the past 15 years include: Hurricane Andrew, a Category 4 hurricane, which passed directly over the Turkey Point nuclear power plant with sustained wind speeds of 145 miles per hour and gusts up to 175 miles per hour (August 1992); the Cooper Nuclear Station, which experienced flooding onsite from the Missouri River (July 1993); a Fujita Tornado Damage Scale F2 tornado, which directly hit the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, with winds of 113 to 157 miles per hour (June 1998); and, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which felt the shock from a Magnitude 6.5 San Simeon earthquake in Paso Robles, California (December 2003). In all these cases, the nuclear power plant functioned as they were designed, and adequate protection was maintained during and after the event.

Oh, I left some extra information in there about other issues at other plants. I guess though, since it was discussed in front of a US Senate committee and spoken by the NRC chairman, it's all bullshit and lies?

Text

I didn't say it was all bullshit and lies, now did I? And I'm somehow the troll for defending an opinion?

Thanks for playing forum nanny, though.

Every single nuclear plant is designed differently. Those designs take into account geographic situations, which is part of the reason for this modified design. Therefore, what might fail in one plant due to external forces, may not fail in another plant due to wind, storm or seismic damage.

That is not to say that those designs are completely foolproof, and obviously in TMI they were not. But there in lies the fact of the matter. All you need to do is add in a few fools who fail to maintain a system, or manually override it, and you don't even need a natural disaster to occur.

So far the USA has been extremely lucky as far as nuclear power goes. And your quote only emphasizes that fact, not diminishes it. And that is pretty much all there is to say about it, until a disaster happens.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Seeing as you obviously have NO idea about the DoD in general. I recommend the 9/11 commission report as a starter.

Our military has ALWAYS been outward looking when it comes to aerial threats. Our systems have been designed that way. The military never continuously monitored commercial flights. Especially not in the volume that fly everyday above our heads.

So yes, it was a complete failure of our defense system because we didn't believe that an attack from the air would ORIGINATE from our own airspace.

So why don't you answer the question. Are you a 9/11 truther?

No, I prefer my 911 shrouded in lies and deceit, like you do.

So I guess the Air Force was just struck dumb by all those commercial flights flying unscheduled zigzag courses all over the US even after one hit the WTC, huh? If they had bothered to scramble fighters after the first plane hit, chances are at least one WTC tower would still be standing.

Or here's a real stretch. Why not scramble fighters after they realize commercial planes are flying zigzags off course BEFORE they hit a building? Those fighters could have shot those planes down before they hit those buildings, if they scrambled them into the air after they realized 4 were off course.

And how about building 7 that just mysteriously collapsed after minimum fire damage? I guess they just don't build them like they used to. All that cheap illegal labor for construction has a higher price after all, huh?

Truth or not? Make up all the stupid excuses for it you want to, they are still whitewash stupid excuses.

This post brings the LULZ.

Hindsight is always 20/20 my friend. Maybe you should be in control of the Air force?

Maybe if someone who was properly qualified WAS in control of the A.F. on 911, that wouldn't have happened. How is that hindsight? WTF do you think we spent trillions of dollars on the A.F. for, "tag, your it!" games in the air?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: elmer92413
Because people are ignorant, not stupid, but ignorant.
And until we take the time to properly educate people we will always have this problem not just with this but in many things in life.

QFT most can't even wrap their heads around the fact that evolution doesn't preclude creation.

Unfortunately unlike the rest of the world the US wants to cater to it's morons as it's not their fault they are stupid.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

The size of the tornado would be the key there. A tornado of a small F1 scale might do little damage. But wait until an F2 or greater hits it.

It was an F2

F2 is 113-157 mph and says "Considerable damage. Roofs torn off frame houses; mobile homes demolished; boxcars pushed over; large trees snapped or uprooted; light object missiles generated."

I kinda doubt it was an F2 and the reactor and out buildings supporting it like the control room was untouched. Sounds more like an F1 hit it, if it was REALLY a direct hit as claimed. Remember these ratings are only speculative and made after the tornado has struck. It might have been an F2 prior to hitting the reactor, but had diminished in strength before it actually hit it. Or it could have increased in strength after it hit. Either way they would still call it an F2.

Well, I guess since you doubt it, it mustn't be true. I suppose we could also just ignore the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing on 11/2/05 when the NRC Chairman spoke. I'll quote some for you so you needn't visit the link:

Over the years, U.S. nuclear power plants have experienced direct impacts of severe natural phenomena, and their robust design and construction have enabled them to successfully withstand such events. Some of the events experienced within the past 15 years include: Hurricane Andrew, a Category 4 hurricane, which passed directly over the Turkey Point nuclear power plant with sustained wind speeds of 145 miles per hour and gusts up to 175 miles per hour (August 1992); the Cooper Nuclear Station, which experienced flooding onsite from the Missouri River (July 1993); a Fujita Tornado Damage Scale F2 tornado, which directly hit the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, with winds of 113 to 157 miles per hour (June 1998); and, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which felt the shock from a Magnitude 6.5 San Simeon earthquake in Paso Robles, California (December 2003). In all these cases, the nuclear power plant functioned as they were designed, and adequate protection was maintained during and after the event.

Oh, I left some extra information in there about other issues at other plants. I guess though, since it was discussed in front of a US Senate committee and spoken by the NRC chairman, it's all bullshit and lies?

Text

I didn't say it was all bullshit and lies, now did I? And I'm somehow the troll for defending an opinion?

Thanks for playing forum nanny, though.

Every single nuclear plant is designed differently. Those designs take into account geographic situations, which is part of the reason for this modified design. Therefore, what might fail in one plant due to external forces, may not fail in another plant due to wind, storm or seismic damage.

That is not to say that those designs are completely foolproof, and obviously in TMI they were not. But there in lies the fact of the matter. All you need to do is add in a few fools who fail to maintain a system, or manually override it, and you don't even need a natural disaster to occur.

So far the USA has been extremely lucky as far as nuclear power goes. And your quote only emphasizes that fact, not diminishes it. And that is pretty much all there is to say about it, until a disaster happens.

Defending an opinion with unbased facts/conjuncture does can indeed make you a troll. TMI is PROOF that the unexpected gets accounted for in safety precautions/procedures. TMI suffered a partial meltdown and all necessary safety precautions shut the plant down and prevented anything remotely serious. The leak was contained, and there were no people killed. It's interesting that you attribute the safety of the NPPs in this country to LUCK, instead of proper procedure. Arguing that NPPs are unsafe if you have "fools" working who fail to do their jobs is a fallacy. That's like arguing that cars might as well be outlawed because there are terrible drivers.