Nuke power in the news again!

bravo said:
Once again, folks...Thomas displays the intellectual honesty that is a-typical of the die hard nuke power supporter....and

As the chronology of the posts shows, TC is owned, pwned, and boned..........................................................................again !
:lol:,,,,,,,.......... but keeps on :bdh:until we're all bored to death
Click to expand...

And as the chronology of the post shows, our intellectually impotent Bravo has done nothing but shoot blanks throughout this thread. I guess Bravo feels comforted in the knowledge that if any relation or family of his develops thyroid cancer and dies after living near a nuke plant "non-fatal" accident a few years earlier, Thomas will consider it a "non-significant" event. "Bravo" indeed. :palm:
 
Chicklet: ...documented evidence that points to the deadly and potentially deadly circumstances regarding our current nuclear power industry....
Click to expand...

I will ask you once again, how many people have died from nuclear power related accidents in America? I think you'll find the number very low, especially when compared with mining deaths, electric energy deaths, oil refinery deaths, etc. All of these are also "potentially" deadly, as I pointed out before, no form of energy production is without some risk.

Chicklet, I have to wonder about people like you... are you merely opposed to nuclear energy because liberals say it's how you should be, and you have to be true to the liberals? Is it because you have some secret agenda, like maybe an investment in green technology or something? Or is it because you are just plain stupid and can't comprehend how you are advocating a complete lunacy that will not work?
 
Taichiliberal said:
A for those who STILL want to hide from the reality in there own backyard:


It's too risky to keep Indian Point nuclear power plant open: Gov. Cuomo


http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/03/17/2011-03-17_gov_risky_indian_point_should_be_shut.html
Click to expand...

Indian Point provides around 30% of New York's electricity so how do you propose to replace that in the short to medium term? I assume you don't use candles or cook on an open fire at home or indeed go to work on a horse?

I checked on the seismic activity in that area and the last magnitude 5 earthquake, which is 10,000 times less than the Sendai earthquake, was in 1884. Indian Point has also been awarded top safety awards for the last few years although I must admit that didn't check for the possibility of a direct hit by an asteroid or an attack by Martians.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903110353
 
tom prendergast said:
China expects to have 20 AP1000 reactors by 2020, there are also 7 planned in the US. As you are so fond of wind turbines, are you aware that a typical 1 MW turbine actually only produces around 1/3 MW and you would need over 6000 to replace just one 2 GW nuclear power station? So in the UK, which has a baseload of around 60 GW, you would need nearly 200,000 to provide that output. In the USA, I imagine that the figure would well over 1 million. Wind power would make more sense if there was a national grid, as we have in the UK, so that electricity could sent to where its needed to try to balance out the variablity factor of wind power. This is not a cheap option however, even at a conservative estimate it will take over $100 billion and decades to achieve.

Finally, I doubt that you will listen but is it possible for you to post anything that doesn't refer to neocons, parrots or chronology? You just seem to have this emotion fuelled agitprop posting style that does you no favours.
Click to expand...

actually, we have a national grid, though I suppose a grid is more effective if your nation is only a couple hundred miles across, instead of 3000.....
 
Do libtards fight nuclear plants 6000 times harder then a wind turbine, or do they fight each of the 6000 wind turbines to equal their fight against 2GW of clean electricity?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, we have a national grid, though I suppose a grid is more effective if your nation is only a couple hundred miles across, instead of 3000.....
Click to expand...


It maybe only a couple of hundred miles across but it is nearly 1000 miles long from the Shetland Islands to the Channel Islands. Yes, you have a grid of sorts but it is incredibly antiquated and needs huge investment to meet the 21st century challenges.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2005Summer/investigations.html
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Chicklet (this is our Dixie Dunce's "hip" insult for me....so much more to pity our Dixie Dunce as it's the height of his debating skills): ...documented evidence that points to the deadly and potentially deadly circumstances regarding our current nuclear power industry....
Click to expand...
I will ask you once again, how many people have died from nuclear power related accidents in America? I think you'll find the number very low, especially when compared with mining deaths, electric energy deaths, oil refinery deaths, etc. All of these are also "potentially" deadly, as I pointed out before, no form of energy production is without some risk.

Chicklet, I have to wonder about people like you... are you merely opposed to nuclear energy because liberals say it's how you should be, and you have to be true to the liberals? Is it because you have some secret agenda, like maybe an investment in green technology or something? Or is it because you are just plain stupid and can't comprehend how you are advocating a complete lunacy that will not work?
Click to expand...

As I said before:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=787515&postcount=106

And here's more for the Dixie Dunce to spin on, folks:

Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)*
Rate of births under 5 ½ lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html


Now lets watch our willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn Dixie Dunce just repeat his BS ad nauseum.
 
Last edited:
Main article: Three Mile Island accident health effects

In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
Based on these emission figures, early scientific publications on the health effects of the fallout estimated one or two additional cancer deaths in the 10 mi (16 km) area around TMI. Disease rates in areas further than 10 miles from the plant were never examined. Local activism in the 1980s, based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects, led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Health_effects_and_epidemiology

Activists with an agenda will find what they want to find regardless of the truth.


I couldn't find anything on KOS or Huffington so I had to use Wiki...lol....
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
Indian Point provides around 30% of New York's electricity so how do you propose to replace that in the short to medium term? I assume you don't use candles or cook on an open fire at home or indeed go to work on a horse?

Once again, folks....Thomas IGNORES the information given in the article as to the myriad of mishaps at Indian Point over the years. As to his typical nuke power wonk question......how the hell does Thomas think that power was supplied BEFORE Indian Point? And has Thomas done his homework regarding the actual cost to the consumer from construction to present?

.


I checked on the seismic activity in that area and the last magnitude 5 earthquake, which is 10,000 times less than the Sendai earthquake, was in 1884. Indian Point has also been awarded top safety awards for the last few years although I must admit that didn't check for the possibility of a direct hit by an asteroid or an attack by Martians.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903110353
Click to expand...


:palm: Yeah, I wonder did the jokers who issued those "top safety awards" took the following into account:

- Radioactive material - including tritium levels 10 times higher than what the feds say is safe in drinking water - leaked from a nuclear-waste storage pool in 2005.

- The NRC ordered malfunctioning emergency sirens replaced by January 2007, but they remained out of service until August 2008. The NRC levied $780,000 in fines.

- A steam generator tube ruptured in 2000, spewing contaminated steam into the air and flooding the Hudson with radioactive water. The reactor shut down for 11 months.

Detailed plans for evacuation exist, but few believe they're realistic. A 2003 traffic study concluded it would take nine hours to evacuate a 10-mile radius around Indian Point in good weather; snow would boost that to 12 hours



And obviously, Thomas, YOU were not aware of the following (not surprising, as a New York resident like me would be)

Earthquakes May Endanger New York More Than Thought, Says Study
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Seen As Particular Risk
posted: 2008-08-21

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2235


Thomas, you're just a 2nd rate propagandist for the nuke industry.
 
bravo said:
Main article: Three Mile Island accident health effects

In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
Based on these emission figures, early scientific publications on the health effects of the fallout estimated one or two additional cancer deaths in the 10 mi (16 km) area around TMI. Disease rates in areas further than 10 miles from the plant were never examined. Local activism in the 1980s, based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects, led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Health_effects_and_epidemiology

Activists with an agenda will find what they want to find regardless of the truth.
Click to expand...

Wiki-pedia has been DOCUMENTED as an UNRELIABLE source of information, as ANY MORON can edit the information contained without accreditation.

Small wonder why a blithering buffoon like Bravo would latch onto Wiki-pedia like flea to a dog's ass, as it told him exactly what he wanted to hear.

Evidently, Bravo's link missed these little tidbit:

Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)*
Rate of births under 5 ½ lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html

And then there was this in 1997

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study022497.htm

Like I said earlier, mental midgets and intellectual cowards like Bravo and Dixie must feel real comforted that nuke power wonks like Thomas would consider their families developing cancers and/or dying after two years of being exposed to a 3 Mile Island accident as NOT significant.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Wiki-pedia has been DOCUMENTED as an UNRELIABLE source of information, as ANY MORON can edit the information contained without accreditation.

Small wonder why a blithering buffoon like Bravo would latch onto Wiki-pedia like flea to a dog's ass, as it told him exactly what he wanted to hear.

Evidently, Bravo's link missed these little tidbit:

Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)*
Rate of births under 5 ½ lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html

And then there was this in 1997

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/study022497.htm

Like I said earlier, mental midgets and intellectual cowards like Bravo and Dixie must feel real comforted that nuke power wonks like Thomas would consider their families developing cancers and/or dying after two years of being exposed to a 3 Mile Island accident as NOT significant.
Click to expand...


It is not so easy to dismiss the New Scientist though, which is probably why you've chosen to ignore it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2997
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
As I said before:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=787515&postcount=106

And here's more for the Dixie Dunce to spin on, folks:

Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)*
Rate of births under 5 ½ lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)

http://www.radiation.org/press/tmi1105.html


Now lets watch our willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn Dixie Dunce just repeat his BS ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Speaking of willfully ignorant, insipidly stupid assholes that repeat the same bullshit over and over, ad nauseum...

THIS is same shit you posted in post 120, 130 and 133....
get over it already ... you're obviously the asshole you describe so well....
So you give us a lot of crap statistics and not once even claiim its the fault of TM Island, let alone offer say actual proof....

Statistics don't prove a cause for the data....
what are the statistics for other areas near Three Mile Island ?
or the statistics for areas in Pa. not near Three Mile Island ?
or the statistics for areas outside of Pa. ?

There could be a thousand reasons for these stats , assuming I accept them as fact.....
The data is 7 years old and no one seems to give a rats ass about it....no one took it seriously in those 7 years...?
No one has actually proved a relationship between the data and radiation?

No, its nothing be conjecture until you build an airtight case with proof....

so quit repeating the same bullshit over and over like that ass you so perfectly describe....yourself.
Just add this little guy to your next and hopefully last post....>>>>:igive:
 
For me, there is nothing that is absolutely conclusive about the effects of radiation; but that should worry everyone.

In many ways, we're in over our heads w/ nukes. I don't think knee-jerk responses of the kind that bravo & Dixie are offering on this thread are reassuring for anyone.
 
Onceler said:
For me, there is nothing that is absolutely conclusive about the effects of radiation; but that should worry everyone.

In many ways, we're in over our heads w/ nukes. I don't think knee-jerk responses of the kind that bravo & Dixie are offering on this thread are reassuring for anyone.
Click to expand...
Knee-jerk ?

More crap....

Heres a list airplane accidents and deaths JUST IN 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2010

33000 auto deaths in 2010...over 400,000 dead in the last 10 years...US only

Do we still use air travel
Do we still use autos...

How many deaths from nuclear power generation ?

Does it compare in the slightest?
 
bravo said:
Knee-jerk ?

More crap....

Heres a list airplane accidents and deaths JUST IN 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#2010

33000 auto deaths in 2010...over 400,000 dead in the last 10 years...US only

Do we still use air travel
Do we still use autos...

How many deaths from nuclear power generation ?

Does it compare in the slightest?
Click to expand...

Deaths, illnesses, birth defects - there is no accurate assessment of what the real effects are. It might not be much, but it might be more than you think; the only thing you're making clear here is your complete unwillingness to even consider the possibility that it's worse than we think or know.

We make collective judgments about these things. Clearly, there is risk inherent in driving a car, but most of the population has determined that it's worth it to them to take that risk. We'll see how many people want a nuke reactor near their homes after this one...
 
Onceler said:
Deaths, illnesses, birth defects - there is no accurate assessment of what the real effects are. It might not be much, but it might be more than you think; the only thing you're making clear here is your complete unwillingness to even consider the possibility that it's worse than we think or know.

We make collective judgments about these things. Clearly, there is risk inherent in driving a car, but most of the population has determined that it's worth it to them to take that risk. We'll see how many people want a nuke reactor near their homes after this one...
Click to expand...
But we do know the dangers of the atom.. its practically common knowledge.....how ignorant do you think the humans are? Its you that doesn't know much....

400,000+ deaths by auto in the last 10 years, we live with, and have been for over 100 years....and just to bring you up to date, pinhead....the electricity generated by whatever means we can muster is a hell of a lot more of a necessity that your car....or air travel.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top