ABC news calls nuclear power an alternative energy.

Dixie said:
WB, the thread is still there, you can go read it again if you need to refresh your memory, but I never went ballistic because you said nuke plants shouldn't be built on fault lines. In fact, I agree with you on that detail, I don't think we need to build them on fault lines like the Japanese. I carefully explained that to wanderingbear earlier in this thread. We have many places in America they could be built, far away from threat of earthquakes and tsunamis. The debate here is over the safety of nuclear power, and like I said, even with the tragedy in Japan, it remains the safest and cheapest form of energy production we've ever discovered.
Click to expand...

Yes, the thread is still there. I simply posted my amazement at the number of nuclear reactors built on or very near major faultlines. Someone countered that with a "there will always be natural disastors" kinda thing.

And I said 1. “Indeed they do. They live in all those places, and if an earthquake or flood happens they are screwed.

But if a nuclear reactor is located on a fault line, and an earthquake happens, it can screw far more people than just the locals.”


And you, dear Dixie, quoted me and replied "How many people have died in Japan, as a result of the nuclear disaster?

...Okay... I'll even let you throw in the number who died at 3-Mile Island!

I'll give you a hint, it's very close to Bfoon's IQ!"





So if you want to talk about who is distorting things, speak for yourself first. Then go back and actually read what was said, and what you said.
 
Nuclear is the way of the future. It is the only current alternative to fossil fuels. If we invest in this like France did, we can have our entire dirty infrastructure replaced much faster than anyone had imagined possible.
 
Most of the nuclear waste out there is produced and has been produced by older first and second generation nuclear power plants. Modern designs don't produce nearly as much waste.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, the thread is still there. I simply posted my amazement at the number of nuclear reactors built on or very near major faultlines. Someone countered that with a "there will always be natural disastors" kinda thing.

And I said 1. “Indeed they do. They live in all those places, and if an earthquake or flood happens they are screwed.

But if a nuclear reactor is located on a fault line, and an earthquake happens, it can screw far more people than just the locals.”


And you, dear Dixie, quoted me and replied "How many people have died in Japan, as a result of the nuclear disaster?

...Okay... I'll even let you throw in the number who died at 3-Mile Island!

I'll give you a hint, it's very close to Bfoon's IQ!"

So if you want to talk about who is distorting things, speak for yourself first. Then go back and actually read what was said, and what you said.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's talk about who is distorting things, no need to go back, you just posted what I said... now please show me where I disagreed with you, that nuclear power plants shouldn't be built on fault lines? I highlighted my response in red, I have gone over it several times, and I'm just not seeing that... maybe you would be so kind as to point it out, because what you claim I said, doesn't appear there from what I'm reading. I know it must be there somewhere, otherwise, it means you are distorting what I said, and you would never do such a thing, right? So, hop to it... show us all where Dixie disagreed with you in the comment above! I'll be waiting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top