Nuclear power issue

Taichiliberal said:
:palm: You are SO full of it it's amazing......this little tale you spin is A-typical of the fog machine used by low level bureaucrats to excuse actions of others.

Bottom line: YOUR little tale here is so self aggrandizing....YOU produce a product that will save the day and are attacked by people that don't understand it...so you have to explain it.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN POST #96, AND WHAT THAT INFORMATION WAS USED TO RESPOND TO.

DEAL WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND...THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED OF WHICH DIXIE HAS NO RATIONAL OR LOGICAL RESPONSE TO.
Click to expand...

LOL Just as I expected.

As I said earlier, I enjoy watching others destroy your scientific arguments here, as it would be much too easy a task for The Southern Man. Instead I will toy with you here and there in a task of more moderate difficulty- finding your true agenda. :)
 
Dixie said:
Well it doesn't matter WHY they died, the fact is they died. Nuclear industries are much more rigorously regulated and monitored for safety, and that was my point. In terms of safety, as well as risk versus benefit, nuclear energy beats everything else hands down. You can argue otherwise, but you will never see a news story about 25 people who died at a nuclear power plant because of lax safety measures.
Click to expand...


It's interesting that you should mention "risk versus benefit", when the only metrics to measure that I've seen presented here are "no one died!', or "it's the cleanest fuel"!"


I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I am equipped with excellent radar to detect keyboard arm chair experts, and arm-waving faux analysts.

The "no one died" argument is not a comprehensive risk-benefit evaluation of environmental risk. I doubt that anyone's died at a wind turbine farm, or a natural gas power plant either. There are all sorts of environmental risks, which may or may not directly result in a human death. And measuring the "cleanest" fuel is not simply limited to air emissions. Environmental risk, as measured by people who actually know what they're talking about, encompasses the whole range of risks from air quality, to water quality, to land resource impact, to impacts to wildlife, as well as human health.

A cursory review of USEPA's website indicates a broad host of environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants. From the mining of uranium, to water discharge issues, to land resource issues, to waste storage issues.

While I'm not going to proclaim with absolute, 100% certainty, the nuclear fuel is the cleanest, safest, and most environmenally-friendly (I'll leave that to the arm chair experts), I will hazard a guess that natural gas power plants, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and tide all have an aggregate environmental risk that is lower than a nuclear power plant. But, I could be wrong.
 
Cypress said:
It's interesting that you should mention "risk versus benefit", when the only metrics to measure that I've seen presented here are "no one died!', or "it's the cleanest fuel"!"
Click to expand...

0 Deaths vs. 50,000,000,000,000 kwh of electric production. Low risk/High benefit.... is that clear enough for you?

I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I am equipped with excellent radar to detect keyboard arm chair experts, and arm-waving faux analysts.
Click to expand...

Correct, you're not a nuclear engineer, and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.... also, your radar is broken.

The "no one died" argument is not a comprehensive risk-benefit evaluation of environmental risk. I doubt that anyone's died at a wind turbine farm, or a natural gas power plant either.
Click to expand...

I'll just about bet money someone has died at both. Hell, some enviro-pinhead probably walked right into a wind turbine trying to get a closer look! We lose a few pinheads everyday from stupidity, so this wouldn't surprise me one bit.

There are all sorts of environmental risks, which may or may not directly result in a human death. And measuring the "cleanest" fuel is not simply limited to air emissions. Environmental risk, as measured by people who actually know what they're talking about, encompasses the whole range of risks from air quality, to water quality, to land resource impact, to impacts to wildlife, as well as human health.

A cursory review of USEPA's website indicates a broad host of environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants. From the mining of uranium, to water discharge issues, to land resource issues, to waste storage issues.
Click to expand...

Any energy production has an environmental impact, including wind and solar. While wind and solar are relatively low, the actual production of actual power is also very low, and not sufficient to meet demand. Not to mention, very costly to maintain and initiate.

While I'm not going to proclaim with absolute, 100% certainty, the nuclear fuel is the cleanest, safest, and most environmenally-friendly (I'll leave that to the arm chair experts), I will hazard a guess that natural gas power plants, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and tide all have an aggregate environmental risk that is lower than a nuclear power plant. But, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, blowing a pinwheel has less environmental impact than any of your examples, but it's not sufficient to meet the demands. Something has to be found that meets the demands, is relatively low cost, has little environmental impact, and is relatively safe... nuclear power meets all the criteria.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: You can't refute or disprove the facts I linked, so what you "recognize" is only what appeases your ideology and beliefs...NOT ALL THE FACTS. Case in point, your statement requiring nuke clean-up...here's just ONE example http://www.tmia.com/nuclearbailout

Now, do your own research regarding the number of nuke plants that are operating well past their design specs longevity....scary stuff.

As I was pointing out to Mott with my links....the "minor" stuff that happens at nuke plants results in cancers and genetic anomolies in the eco-system.....but then you run into the delay game by the accused.

At yes, Long Island was a bone head move for a nuke plant....but the Indian Point power plant is thought to be in an "ideal" location...and it's operating record is abysmal regarding leaks and such.

Thing is, if you look at the maps, a good deal of our nuke plants are located close enough or in populated areas to render any emergency evacuation plans a joke. Personally, I don't like playing the " so far, so good" game with this stuff.
Click to expand...

The new generation of nuclear power stations produce only a fraction of the waste of previous ones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/18/post98
 
Not to mention the waste products will be re-used in future types of reactors to generate even more power. That's why sites like Yucca Mountain aren't really dumps but long-term storage facilities, and will eventually be empty except for low level wastes like broom heads and rubber gloves.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You are SO full of it it's amazing......this little tale you spin is A-typical of the fog machine used by low level bureaucrats to excuse actions of others.

Bottom line: YOUR little tale here is so self aggrandizing....YOU produce a product that will save the day and are attacked by people that don't understand it...so you have to explain it.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN POST #96, AND WHAT THAT INFORMATION WAS USED TO RESPOND TO.

DEAL WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND...THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED OF WHICH DIXIE HAS NO RATIONAL OR LOGICAL RESPONSE TO.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
LOL Just as I expected.

As I said earlier, I enjoy watching others destroy your scientific arguments here, as it would be much too easy a task for The Southern Man. Instead I will toy with you here and there in a task of more moderate difficulty- finding your true agenda. :)
Click to expand...

When this asshole starts referring to himself in the third person, folks, YOU KNOW he doesn't have a logical or factual leg to stand on.

Bottom line: He, like his intellectually bankrupt pal Dixie, REFUSE to address the information I provided in response to Dixie's ill informed assertions. These jokers will dance all around the core issue, BUT NOT HONESTLY ADDRESS INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR ASSERTIONS.

The discussion is about nuke power plants and the affects of radiation levels surrounding said plants, as well as the affects of accidents, long term exposure to leaks, etc. Southie's little tale about sewage treatment is NOT about nuke plants and radioactive waste....for all his proclaimed expertise, someone should have clued in the dumb bastard about the difference.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
When this asshole starts referring to himself in the third person, folks, YOU KNOW he doesn't have a logical or factual leg to stand on.

Bottom line: He, like his intellectually bankrupt pal Dixie, REFUSE to address the information I provided in response to Dixie's ill informed assertions. These jokers will dance all around the core issue, BUT NOT HONESTLY ADDRESS INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR ASSERTIONS.

The discussion is about nuke power plants and the affects of radiation levels surrounding said plants, as well as the affects of accidents, long term exposure to leaks, etc. Southie's little tale about sewage treatment is NOT about nuke plants and radioactive waste....for all his proclaimed expertise, someone should have clued in the dumb bastard about the difference.
Click to expand...

It is a fact that the new generation of reactors tend to produce more radiation than previous types.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-will-produce-far-more-radiation-1604051.html
 
Cypress said:
It's interesting that you should mention "risk versus benefit", when the only metrics to measure that I've seen presented here are "no one died!', or "it's the cleanest fuel"!"


I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I am equipped with excellent radar to detect keyboard arm chair experts, and arm-waving faux analysts.

The "no one died" argument is not a comprehensive risk-benefit evaluation of environmental risk. I doubt that anyone's died at a wind turbine farm, or a natural gas power plant either. There are all sorts of environmental risks, which may or may not directly result in a human death. And measuring the "cleanest" fuel is not simply limited to air emissions. Environmental risk, as measured by people who actually know what they're talking about, encompasses the whole range of risks from air quality, to water quality, to land resource impact, to impacts to wildlife, as well as human health.

A cursory review of USEPA's website indicates a broad host of environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants. From the mining of uranium, to water discharge issues, to land resource issues, to waste storage issues.

While I'm not going to proclaim with absolute, 100% certainty, the nuclear fuel is the cleanest, safest, and most environmenally-friendly (I'll leave that to the arm chair experts), I will hazard a guess that natural gas power plants, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and tide all have an aggregate environmental risk that is lower than a nuclear power plant. But, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing....I've given several links that document accidents and spikes in cancers, and affects on wild life among the surrounding populace/area of nuke plants....but it seems that the attitude among the pro-nuke plant is that unless there's a Chernobyl catastrophe, the forementioned is acceptable...."the price of progess/business" or "collateral damage" seems to be the mindset.

Tutu Blabba declares that she's been living near a nuke plant for years without ill effects.....good for her...but as research shows, many others have not been as fortunate.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You can't refute or disprove the facts I linked, so what you "recognize" is only what appeases your ideology and beliefs...NOT ALL THE FACTS. Case in point, your statement requiring nuke clean-up...here's just ONE example http://www.tmia.com/nuclearbailout

Now, do your own research regarding the number of nuke plants that are operating well past their design specs longevity....scary stuff.

As I was pointing out to Mott with my links....the "minor" stuff that happens at nuke plants results in cancers and genetic anomolies in the eco-system.....but then you run into the delay game by the accused.

At yes, Long Island was a bone head move for a nuke plant....but the Indian Point power plant is thought to be in an "ideal" location...and it's operating record is abysmal regarding leaks and such.

Thing is, if you look at the maps, a good deal of our nuke plants are located close enough or in populated areas to render any emergency evacuation plans a joke. Personally, I don't like playing the " so far, so good" game with this stuff.
Click to expand...

tom prendergast said:
The new generation of nuclear power stations produce only a fraction of the waste of previous ones.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/18/post98
Click to expand...

Tom, that "fraction" is just as deadly....and remember, it adds onto the already LARGE stockpile of nuke waste...which WILL OUTLIVE IT'S CONTAINERS WITH REGARDS TO DEADLY POTENTCY.
 
Cypress said:
It's interesting that you should mention "risk versus benefit", when the only metrics to measure that I've seen presented here are "no one died!', or "it's the cleanest fuel"!"


I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I am equipped with excellent radar to detect keyboard arm chair experts, and arm-waving faux analysts.

The "no one died" argument is not a comprehensive risk-benefit evaluation of environmental risk. I doubt that anyone's died at a wind turbine farm, or a natural gas power plant either. There are all sorts of environmental risks, which may or may not directly result in a human death. And measuring the "cleanest" fuel is not simply limited to air emissions. Environmental risk, as measured by people who actually know what they're talking about, encompasses the whole range of risks from air quality, to water quality, to land resource impact, to impacts to wildlife, as well as human health.

A cursory review of USEPA's website indicates a broad host of environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants. From the mining of uranium, to water discharge issues, to land resource issues, to waste storage issues.

While I'm not going to proclaim with absolute, 100% certainty, the nuclear fuel is the cleanest, safest, and most environmenally-friendly (I'll leave that to the arm chair experts), I will hazard a guess that natural gas power plants, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and tide all have an aggregate environmental risk that is lower than a nuclear power plant. But, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

You can't have every way, you say that CO2 and CH4 emissions need to reduced, so explain to me how that's going to happen without nuclear power?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's the thing....I've given several links that document accidents and spikes in cancers, and affects on wild life among the surrounding populace/area of nuke plants....but it seems that the attitude among the pro-nuke plant is that unless there's a Chernobyl catastrophe, the forementioned is acceptable...."the price of progess/business" or "collateral damage" seems to be the mindset.

Tutu Blabba declares that she's been living near a nuke plant for years without ill effects.....good for her...but as research shows, many others have not been as fortunate.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree. The "But no one died!" argument is pretty laughable. Nobody who actually knows what they're taking about with regard to environmental risk assessment would take that argument seriously. It would be laughed out of the room. It's only an argument an arm-waving, keyboard faux pseudo-expert would make.

Now, I do think the nuclear power plant industry has a very good human safety record (if you ignore Chernobyl). But human deaths is only one measure of environmental performance, and it's pretty painful to watch faux-experts hold this out as the one and only metric of performance.


I think we probably need a mix of technologies to bridge us to a green energy grid. Probably including some nuclear. But risk assessment is a little more complicated than getting on a message board, waving your arms, and hollering that "no one died!".......so cheers to you for having a little more sophisticated view of it,
 
Southern Man said:
Not to mention the waste products will be re-used in future types of reactors to generate even more power. That's why sites like Yucca Mountain aren't really dumps but long-term storage facilities, and will eventually be empty except for low level wastes like broom heads and rubber gloves.
Click to expand...

Really? And when is this "recycling" technology due to go on-line? What's the proposal for recycling YEARS of deadly nuke waste product that has been sitting in underground storage dumps?
 
Taichiliberal said:
When this asshole starts referring to himself in the third person, folks, YOU KNOW he doesn't have a logical or factual leg to stand on.

Bottom line: He, like his intellectually bankrupt pal Dixie, REFUSE to address the information I provided in response to Dixie's ill informed assertions. These jokers will dance all around the core issue, BUT NOT HONESTLY ADDRESS INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR ASSERTIONS.

The discussion is about nuke power plants and the affects of radiation levels surrounding said plants, as well as the affects of accidents, long term exposure to leaks, etc. Southie's little tale about sewage treatment is NOT about nuke plants and radioactive waste....for all his proclaimed expertise, someone should have clued in the dumb bastard about the difference.
Click to expand...

Waste is waste, Libby. I've dealt with lots of different types, and the public reaction is always the same. Those two guys left in the room with their arms crossed either have a personal problem or a hidden agenda, because the scientists and engineers know their stuff.

What's your educational background, Libbie?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Really? And when is this "recycling" technology due to go on-line? What's the proposal for recycling YEARS of deadly nuke waste product that has been sitting in underground storage dumps?
Click to expand...
A few decades maybe. Since the storage containers are designed to last much longer, and can of course be overpacked then if necessary, it really doesn't matter when the technology comes on line. Frankly I simply look at is as a more preferable plan B.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Waste is waste, Libby. I've dealt with lots of different types, and the public reaction is always the same. Those two guys left in the room with their arms crossed either have a personal problem or a hidden agenda, because the scientists and engineers know their stuff.

What's your educational background, Libbie?
Click to expand...

and then there is this
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Really? And when is this "recycling" technology due to go on-line? What's the proposal for recycling YEARS of deadly nuke waste product that has been sitting in underground storage dumps?
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
A few decades maybe. Since the storage containers are designed to last much longer, and can of course be overpacked then if necessary, it really doesn't matter when the technology comes on line. rankly I simply look at is as a more preferable plan B.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought....you don't know....you've got a lot of hear say and third person anecdotes, but NO concrete facts from reputable sources.

And you FORGET that we've had 30 years of waste already stockpiled....so those containers are already 30 years into their expiration dates. So your flippant attitude of "it really doesn't matter" is a combination of low information, supposition and conjecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top