Nuke power in the news again!

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true

http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/mile-isla...atory-commission-investigate/story?id=9152035

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/mile-isla...atory-commission-investigate/story?id=9152035

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.
Click to expand...

Those nuclear rectors are a fifty year old design, it's like trying to compare a model T Ford with a Toyota Prius when comparing them to modern designs. Even so there has been no breech of any of the pressure vessels, you would soon know if that had been the case as there would have been caesium and strontium isotopes being detected in the atmosphere by Russian and US monitoring stations. I had wondered how long it would be people would use this to try to ban nuclear energy altogether, it's one of the reasons why the Saudis have such a strangehold on energy supply in the West.

What is a legitimate question though is why they were built on the Pacific coast of Honshu facing the fault line rather than the Sea of Japan coast?
 
Last edited:
The pinheads just couldn't wait.....its the same as an oil spill or a natural gas explosion or a gun accident or a DUI death.....
Never let even a minor crisis go to waste when political point can be made or a pinhead issue advanced.....
 
bravo said:
The pinheads just couldn't wait.....its the same as an oil spill or a natural gas explosion or a gun accident or a DUI death.....
Never let even a minor crisis go to waste when political point can be made or a pinhead issue advanced.....
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true.

Just last week, I was saying that nukes should be considered if we're going to be energy independent.

I think you'd have to be kind of braindead not to at least have some pause after what has happened in Japan. Earthquakes & other natural disasters can happen anywhere.
 
Onceler said:
That's not necessarily true.

Just last week, I was saying that nukes should be considered if we're going to be energy independent.

I think you'd have to be kind of braindead not to at least have some pause after what has happened in Japan. Earthquakes & other natural disasters can happen anywhere.
Click to expand...

there is a difference between pausing to make sure you have thought out the pro's and con's and running around screaming ' no more drilling ever' or 'no more nuke power ever'.

You are doing the former, taichi the latter.
 
Has anyone seen how many nuclear power plants are located on (or VERY near) fault lines?

Who thought THAT was a good idea?
 
Onceler said:
That's not necessarily true.

Just last week, I was saying that nukes should be considered if we're going to be energy independent.

I think you'd have to be kind of braindead not to at least have some pause after what has happened in Japan. Earthquakes & other natural disasters can happen anywhere.
Click to expand...
Well, if I was referring only to you and your opinion, it wouldn't be necessarily true...but as a general RULE...it is true....everytime a child finds his daddys gun and gets hurt or hurts someone else, we get the call for gun control....and I can give other examples for hours that amount to the same thing...whether its fast food, salt, tobacco, autos, hot coffee, and just about anything else that comes to mind.

earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters will always be with a part of our lives....whats your point ?....

Hide under your bed for the rest of your life so you're as safe as you can be ....
Every time you get in your car or board a plane or train or cross the street you're at risk....all the things that made our lives better and easier come with a risk of some kind and a risk of some degree...thats life.....you can't eat your cake and expect to have it too....
 
bravo said:
earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters will always be with a part of our lives....whats your point ?....

Hide under your bed for the rest of your life so you're as safe as you can be ....
Every time you get in your car or board a plane or train or cross the street you're at risk....all the things that made our lives better come with a risk of some kind a risk of some degree...thats life.....
Click to expand...

Yes, we will always have floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other natural disastors.

But you don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines. You don't build coal burning plants in a flood zone. And you don't store toxic wastes in the gulf of mexico.
 
tom prendergast said:
Those nuclear rectors are a fifty year old design, it's like trying to compare a model T Ford with a Ford Prius when comparing them to modern designs. Even so there has been no breech of any of the pressure vessels, you would soon know if that had been the case as there would have been caesium and strontium isotopes being detected in the atmosphere by Russian and US monitoring stations. I had wondered how long it would be people would use this to try to ban nuclear energy altogether, it's one of the reasons why the Saudis have such a strangehold on energy supply in the West.

What is a legitimate question though is why they were built on the Pacific coast of Honshu facing the rather than the Sea of Japan coast?
Click to expand...

exactly. the reactionary fear mongers will always exist and will always use a crisis to further their political agenda....'never let a good crisis go to waste' rahm the mayor emanuel
 
WinterBorn said:
Originally Posted by bravo View Post
earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters will always be with a part of our lives....whats your point ?....

Hide under your bed for the rest of your life so you're as safe as you can be ....
Every time you get in your car or board a plane or train or cross the street you're at risk....all the things that made our lives better come with a risk of some kind a risk of some degree...thats life.....
Click to expand...

Yes, we will always have floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other natural disastors.

But you don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines. You don't build coal burning plants in a flood zone. And you don't store toxic wastes in the gulf of mexico.
Click to expand...

While all the things that make our lives better come with a risk of some kind, a risk of some degree, one does not take home any gal at the bar just because they don't want to go home alone. Toxic "waists", indeed!
 
bravo said:
Well, if I was referring only to you and your opinion, it wouldn't be necessarily true...but as a general RULE...it is true....everytime a child finds his daddys gun and gets hurt or hurts someone else, we get the call for gun control....and I can give other examples for hours that amount to the same thing...whether its fast food, salt, tobacco, autos, hot coffee, and just about anything else that comes to mind.

earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters will always be with a part of our lives....whats your point ?....

Hide under your bed for the rest of your life so you're as safe as you can be ....
Every time you get in your car or board a plane or train or cross the street you're at risk....all the things that made our lives better and easier come with a risk of some kind and a risk of some degree...thats life.....you can't eat your cake and expect to have it too....
Click to expand...

There is a lot in our life where we have to way risk vs. benefit.

Yes, we take some risk every time we get in a plane. But we look at the stats & safety measures, and decide the benefit far outweighs the risk. We might feel differently if the plane we were getting in had only one engine working, or hadn't been inspected in 2 decades, or if the pilot was drunk.

Likewise, if the whole idea of nuclear power is that these plants need constant monitoring, and that natural disasters can potentially lead to the release of radiation - these are things that need to be considered as we move forward w/ an energy plan for the decades ahead...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true http://pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/a/tmi.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/mile-isla...atory-commission-investigate/story?id=9152035

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.
Click to expand...

No form of energy production is without risk! Even your beloved windmills... some pinhead inadvertently tries to get closer look and *swack!* off goes the old pinhead! That being said, nuclear power, even WITH a disaster like Japan, is still the safest and most efficient form of energy production known to mankind....nothing else even comes remotely close, in terms of raw cost.

Not to 'downplay' the crisis in Japan, but here is an island nation with several nuclear facilities in crisis mode because of an earthquake MANY times greater than the nuclear facilities were designed and engineered to handle... no one has died, most have been evacuated from the area, and long-term problems are very unlikely, in fact, a total meltdown is unlikely. The redundant systems built into the facility are working, and newer facilities have even MORE redundant safety layers, especially in the over-EPA-regulated United States.
 
Onceler said:
There is a lot in our life where we have to way WEIGH risk vs. benefit.

Yes, we take some risk every time we get in a plane. But we look at the stats & safety measures, and decide the benefit far outweighs the risk. We might feel differently if the plane we were getting in had only one engine working, or hadn't been inspected in 2 decades, or if the pilot was drunk.

Likewise, if the whole idea of nuclear power is that these plants need constant monitoring, and that natural disasters can potentially lead to the release of radiation - these are things that need to be considered as we move forward w/ an energy plan for the decades ahead...
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right....we weigh the risk against the benefit and make an informed decision....in a democratic way....and if you don't like the outcome....well, as they say, tough titty....

I guess with nuclear power we'll compare Kilowatts produced, homes heated, respirators powered, and tv hours watched to # of deaths....?

whatever.....

Fact is..the benefits outweigh the risks enormously for normal people.
 
Dixie said:
No form of energy production is without risk! Even your beloved windmills... some pinhead inadvertently tries to get closer look and *swack!* off goes the old pinhead! That being said, nuclear power, even WITH a disaster like Japan, is still the safest and most efficient form of energy production known to mankind....nothing else even comes remotely close, in terms of raw cost.

Not to 'downplay' the crisis in Japan, but here is an island nation with several nuclear facilities in crisis mode because of an earthquake MANY times greater than the nuclear facilities were designed and engineered to handle... no one has died, most have been evacuated from the area, and long-term problems are very unlikely, in fact, a total meltdown is unlikely. The redundant systems built into the facility are working, and newer facilities have even MORE redundant safety layers, especially in the over-EPA-regulated United States.
Click to expand...

Today it has been reported that the earthquake per se is not what has caused the problem, but the consequent flooding. Too these ar old facilities and much can be learned from what has happened to safeguard future issues with newer technologies.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, we will always have floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other natural disastors.

But you don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines. You don't build coal burning plants in a flood zone. And you don't store toxic wastes in the gulf of mexico.
Click to expand...

Millions of people live on fault lines, in floor plains, on hills that have mud slides, near volcanoes, and in forests the occasionally burn.......Calif. IS a fault line
The reactor in Calif. is built very near the St. Andreas Fault line...
they're choice....
New Orleans is still below sea level and pinheads keep setting up their families there....we seem to thrive on risk....

apple0154 said:
While all the things that make our lives better come with a risk of some kind, a risk of some degree, one does not take home any gal at the bar just because they don't want to go home alone. Toxic "waists", indeed!
Click to expand...
Ah well....thats not your decision to make for others is it...
 
Dixie said:
That being said, nuclear power, even WITH a disaster like Japan, is still the safest and most efficient form of energy production known to mankind....nothing else even comes remotely close, in terms of raw cost.
Click to expand...

QFT

It is the safest form of mass energy production delivered per kilowatt hour.

The left always forgets this, and then they cry when it costs $4.00 to fill up their Chinese built mopeds because the demand for oil is inflated due to their own smug sense of being well meaning and enlightened.
 
WinterBorn said:
Yes, we will always have floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other natural disastors.

But you don't build nuclear reactors on fault lines. You don't build coal burning plants in a flood zone. And you don't store toxic wastes in the gulf of mexico.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, it's really hard to plan on 15 foot tsunamis.
 
bravo said:
Millions of people live on fault lines, in floor plains, on hills that have mud slides, near volcanoes, and in forests the occasionally burn.......Calif. IS a fault line
The reactor in Calif. is built very near the St. Andreas Fault line...
they're choice....
New Orleans is still below sea level and pinheads keep setting up their families there....we seem to thrive on risk....


Ah well....thats not your decision to make for others is it...
Click to expand...

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.
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top