|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: AIRDOG]
#14170548 - 03/23/11 02:42 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> you just have to make an initial investment in the equipmente...
Not to mention maintenance costs, replacement costs (as things wear out), operational costs, insurance costs, etc...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
#14171355 - 03/23/11 04:58 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Let's not forget the enormous environmental costs from heavy metal mining.
--------------------
|
Darwin23
INFJ



Registered: 10/08/10
Posts: 3,282
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 day, 5 hours
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: DJ_avocado]
#14173315 - 03/23/11 11:07 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DJ_avocado said: 1) How the hell do we dispose of nuclear waste? Actually....maybe the all the $ NASA used for research might come in handy when we simply launch it all into a black hole or the sun. Ideas?
Launching it out to space would be the best possible solution, however I don't know how practical that is. Who knows, if we could use the power generated from the plants maybe it could work. I'm no physics major though. As for what we do with waste. Currently there are over 100 different specially designed facilities that store waste (in the US.)
Quote:
DJ_avocado said: 2) who is going to work at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? Gauran-fuckin-tee they're not being built in the hills..
Nuclear energy on the grand scale is actually far safer than most other forms of energy. The thing is every time some plant has a meltdown (which is extremely rare) people freak out and think they're dangerous. I think a lot of people would work at one. I would as well if I couldn't find a job that had more satisfaction/better pay.
Quote:
DJ_avocado said: 3) The thought occured to me that energy could be marketed...or sold country to country. Even though we have no way to ship it or store it. It's making me sense another Cold war type nuclear power race, a race for power once again. Possible?
I don't think so. If we get rid of nuclear then it's possible, but it works well enough. Selling power on a global level is almost impossible. I heard this statistic that if we covered 3% of Arizona with solar panels, we would have enough power to give power to the entire nation. The problem is that the power used in actually getting it across the country would be so significant, it wouldn't even be worth it. So basically, if you could turn a poor country like Paraguay into a power whore, by the time its power reached New York or London, there would be little or no power left.
Quote:
DJ_avocado said: 4) We can't burn coal forever...What alternative power source would be best? By best, I mean safest in the long run. I don't know why the fuck we MIGHT be doing nuclear power. WE ALREADY KNOW RADIATION KILLS! It's shit like this that makes me think there's something wrong with the way I think, like my brain is just way too simple.
Well we can use, wind power, solar power, tidal power (all of which are infinite unless you're looking 2 billion years in the future haha) or geothermal power (basically infinite.) There are more actually, I sat here and started to list the pros and cons of each then just realized you can look it up on Google. Search "Comparing production of energy" it should eb the first one.
--------------------
Take a look at my journal
|
Microppose
Things Maker



Registered: 11/30/10
Posts: 849
Loc: Amongst you...
Last seen: 1 month, 17 days
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Darwin23]
#14173395 - 03/23/11 11:29 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Electricity FTW. We already have three great sources for electrical power. No byproducts that need to be disposed of, no harm to the earth, year around source in one way or another.
1)Solar Power 2)Wind Power 3)Water Power
Why do we need nuclear power? What could we gain from it that another source of energy couldn't provide? It all narrows down to the greed factor of our and other countries. Like oil for example, there are various technologies out there that would give us better means of transportation other than gas that wouldn't cause damage to our already dying planet. Hydrogen cars, electric cars, shit they even have near perpetual movement engines out right now that require little fill up, based off of solar power and mechanical energy. But where would the government get all of this extra money if we weren't paying for gas? The inflated price keeps our government in the green, outside of our debts to other countries, which I'm sure we have no intention of paying. Nuclear power can be transformed into something quite a bit more powerful and less innocent. I think Obama's nuclear power curiosity is based on something more devious, disguised as something more innocent.
IMO
Sure, electrical plants are responsible for more deaths, but that is from improper handling, electricity doesn't just go haywire when it is properly controlled and stored. In the long run, nuclear energy will be of a greater detriment to the earth and it's inhabitants.
|
Starter
Stranger


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Microppose]
#14173499 - 03/23/11 11:53 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The alternative energies you have cited do not offer base load.
Base load is required to keep the grid operational 24/0. You can't store electricity in a practical manner in the scale required for a city. This means sources of energy must be ongoing, such as coal, gas-fired, nuclear, or hyroelectrical and geothermal. The latter two sources only occur discretely.
Before folks shill the wonders of alternative energy they must understand their limitations. Alternative energy will, at best, replace just 15% of the base load, otherwise the grid will be unreliable.
By all means set up your own home off the grid. The only thing presenting a hurdle is the cost. This is why we still burn coal. Alternative energy is not cheap energy and that means a lower economic standard of living.
Edited by Starter (03/23/11 11:54 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Microppose]
#14180645 - 03/25/11 06:48 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Azurascender said: there are various technologies out there that would give us better means of transportation other than gas that wouldn't cause damage to our already dying planet. Hydrogen cars, electric cars, shit they even have near perpetual movement engines out right now that require little fill up, based off of solar power and mechanical energy.
Please demonstrate your claims'' validity. If greed is the reason for oil and there are equal, let alone better as you say, technologies to produce energy for our needs, what are they?
Hydrogen is mentioned, but you might as well say "giants pushing cars". Where do you get the hydrogen from? They don't sell it at the supermarket and every hydrogen scheme I've seen is basically just an energy carrier rather than energy source.
You mention electric cars. Again, where do you get the electricity? This is the same as the Hydrogen example: you aren't even providing energy sources, meerly carriers. If we had electricity to replace fossil fuels with we wouldn't have this problem.
What is this near-perpetual motor based off solar and mechanical energy? Why would we want a motor based off that anyways- we want to output mechanical energy, not use it as the energy source (unless you were thinking of having giants push the car like I mentioned).
Quote:
But where would the government get all of this extra money if we weren't paying for gas?
Huh? What does gas have to do with government making money?
Quote:
The inflated price keeps our government in the green, outside of our debts to other countries, which I'm sure we have no intention of paying.
What debts to other countries aren't we paying? I'm unaware of any loans the US is the debtor on that don't require pretty clear repayment terms that are met. Name one.
Quote:
Nuclear power can be transformed into something quite a bit more powerful and less innocent. I think Obama's nuclear power curiosity is based on something more devious, disguised as something more innocent.
such as....?
Quote:
Sure, electrical plants are responsible for more deaths, but that is from improper handling, electricity doesn't just go haywire when it is properly controlled and stored. In the long run, nuclear energy will be of a greater detriment to the earth and it's inhabitants.
Nothing goes haywire when it is "properly" controlled and stored.
Also, how are you distinguishing between "electrical plants" and "nuclear"?
You've made pretty sweeping claims: that the only reason oil is used is because of government corruption and that technologies equalling it exist for replacement. So far as I've seen, you haven't explained this at all, and most of the energy sources you refer to aren't even that: they're storage and transportation mechanisms (hydrogen, electricity, mechanical, et cet)
|
JT


Registered: 02/28/07
Posts: 7,027
Loc: athens
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Microppose]
#14182064 - 03/25/11 01:07 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Azurascender said: Electricity FTW. We already have three great sources for electrical power. No byproducts that need to be disposed of, no harm to the earth, year around source in one way or another.
1)Solar Power 2)Wind Power 3)Water Power
Why do we need nuclear power? What could we gain from it that another source of energy couldn't provide? It all narrows down to the greed factor of our and other countries. Like oil for example, there are various technologies out there that would give us better means of transportation other than gas that wouldn't cause damage to our already dying planet. Hydrogen cars, electric cars, shit they even have near perpetual movement engines out right now that require little fill up, based off of solar power and mechanical energy. But where would the government get all of this extra money if we weren't paying for gas? The inflated price keeps our government in the green, outside of our debts to other countries, which I'm sure we have no intention of paying. Nuclear power can be transformed into something quite a bit more powerful and less innocent. I think Obama's nuclear power curiosity is based on something more devious, disguised as something more innocent.
IMO
Sure, electrical plants are responsible for more deaths, but that is from improper handling, electricity doesn't just go haywire when it is properly controlled and stored. In the long run, nuclear energy will be of a greater detriment to the earth and it's inhabitants.
if only we lived in this dream world.
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
#14191026 - 03/27/11 08:20 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pwoove it, pwoove it, pwoove it... 
How pathetic.
Quote:
We aren't talking about "something" in general, we are talking about "something" very specific. Don't try to generalize your way out of the hole you have dug.
So in other words, you were wrong.
Quote:
And speaking of uncertainty, that is exactly what I claimed... the numbers you are providing are meaningless because of their uncertainty.
Almost any measurement that is made has uncertainty. This is a basic fact of all science and you once again demonstrate your lack of knowledge. The question is if the uncertainty is acceptable. There is no way the uncertainty in those numbers is enough to account for the deaths caused between coal and nuclear which are orders of magnitude different.
Quote:
As an example, with the risks associate with nuclear power, it is unfair to ignore the events that have occurred since the mid-1940s that have increased the levels of radiation across the planet.
What radiation increase? You mean the 0.4% increase. Oh yeah, that's significant . And contrary to your outlandish claims, yes, medical experts actually do know the effects of radiation.
Quote:
How do you quantify the risk this increase in radiation has created? Not only with respect to death, but also birth defects, genetic mutations, cancer, a lower standard of living due to increases in medical costs, etc. It is impossible.
Uh, by conducting a longitudinal study, as I told you about in the last post.
Quote:
You are playing with numbers as if they are an absolute, yet claiming that they are valid because of their uncertainty. Again, the numbers are BS, and so is your long winded claim to the contrary.
And surprise, surprise, you don't give a source because you don't think you need one. Well then give us all your credentials, Seuss, to be making such claims. I don't believe that the uncertainty of those numbers can account for orders of magnitude, so prove it, dude. You won't because you can't... because you're wrong.
Moving on to the rest of your illogical claims...
Quote:
As an example, people are up in arms about how mining coal destroys the environment, but nobody even things about uranium mines. Most people that support nuclear power never even thing about where the nuclear fuel comes from
Wow, is all I can say. I think people are more concerned about the pollution from coal mining due to the huge difference in the amount of it you need. A 1000 MWe coal power plant requires 18,000,000 lbs of coal a day. A 1000 MWe nuclear powered station requires 6.6 lbs of U-235 a day. Perhaps it's the uncertainty in the numbers, right? http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf
Quote:
The nuclear plants have done an excellent job of hiding the nuclear waste produced during fission. They have pools filled with years and years worth of spent fuel rods waiting for a long term storage solution. The waste has to be transported, processed (a very dirty job that produces even more waste), transported again, and then stored for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years before it is safe.
They store it safely on sight and monitor it closely. As opposed to blowing millions of tons of radioactive fly ash into the atmosphere. The waste is not transported anywhere in the US.
Quote:
The final nail in the coffin is the limited age that a nuclear reactor can operate. After fifty years, plus or minus a decade, the reactor can no longer be operated. Great, so the nuclear waste can be stored forever, theoretically, in some safe location, but how do we safely store an entire nuclear reactor, the size of a large building?
The crutch of a nuclear power facility is the reactor pressure vessel, which can only be used safely for so many years. The reason the power plant is shut down is because it is not economically feasible to anneal such a huge component. So the facility is decommissioned and disassembled. Big whoop. What's your point?
Quote:
f people want nuclear power, then so bit it... but they should be told the entire truth so that they can make an informed decision. Instead, you have idiots parroting how safe nuclear power is compared to coal or hydro, pointing to meaningless numbers as if they have significance, while pretending that they are experts in the field. Before switching to electrical engineering, I was in the nuclear engineering program. I'm no expert, but once I saw the reality of the industry and what is being hidden, I switched majors. I've actually operated an experimental nuclear reactor (under supervision), something I doubt the "expert" proponents of nuclear power that have been arguing against me have done.
I would think that someone who is so quick to ban someone for something as trivial as calling another poster a liar would more carefully choose their words when referring to somebody on here. Nuclear power is safe compared to coal. I clearly demonstrated my case. Your 'experience' sitting in a control room for a research reactor in no way qualifies you to be making claims, without sources, on the safety of nuclear power or the nuclear power fuel cycle.
Quote:
I pretty much oppose all civilian use of nuclear power. I also oppose nuclear weapon production, though I support continued research (computer simulations) to maintain a lead in the field. I do not oppose the use of nuclear power for ship propulsion by the military. (These reactors use highly enriched uranium and produce very little waste compared to a civilian nuclear power plant.)
So you support driving a nuclear reactor all over the ocean, but not having one in one place, monitored by a large security force, with several defenses in place to prevent release to the public. Civilian nuclear power also provides millions of homes with electricity. How fucking illogical is your case? How about some numbers?
Quote:
Not unless you are changing the laws of physics. No amount of reprocessing is going to change the half-life of a radioactive element. At best, reprocessing concentrates the really bad stuff while allowing us to use some of the leftover good stuff. Concentrated 'really bad stuff', while taking up less space to store, has a whole slew of new problems and dangers. In addition, reprocessing is a very dirty and dangerous endeavor, which is why there are very few reprocessing plants in the world (and many of them, at least in the US, are EPA superfund sites).
More bullshit. Clearly, you don't know much about physics to think you need to change the laws. The whole point of reprocessing is that you are re-using the elements that have a high half life. Duh. The 'really bad stuff', which is plutonium, is re-used and converted to other elements. The elements which cannot be re-used, i.e. americium, is only 3% of the waste and is turned into a small glass cylinder which can be safely stored for hundreds of years until it is no longer dangerous. There are no reprocessing plants in the US. Another demonstration of your lack of knowledge on this matter.
So, Seuss, I'll ask for the 4th or 5th time... where is the energy gonna come from?
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
pothead_bob
Resident Pothead


Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Microppose]
#14191045 - 03/27/11 08:26 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Electricity FTW. We already have three great sources for electrical power. No byproducts that need to be disposed of, no harm to the earth, year around source in one way or another.
1)Solar Power 2)Wind Power 3)Water Power
Do any of you 'green energy' folks ever stop to wonder why private companies that specialize in making electricity... companies that have share holders and a primary interest of turning a profit... aren't using these 'free' energy sources in any significant way, but instead turn to coal and nuclear power? If the energy source was so cheap and efficient, then why wouldn't they be using that to make even more money?
Did you read my post about the amount of solar panels needed to supply as much power as nuclear power provides in the US? You should.
-------------------- No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge which is itself based upon the mathematical sciences. -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519) Speak well of your enemies. After all, you made them.
|
PsychoReactive
.


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 2,563
Loc: Cocalero
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: EdgeChaos]
#14202273 - 03/29/11 04:27 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EdgeChaos said:
At anyone who thinks nuclear power is bad.
Then I would be happy for you to go live in Chernobyl restricted zone for a few weeks, I bet you are too scared to even handle fluorescent lamps!
Obama is a NWO puppet just like all the previous pawns (I mean presidents except for JFK and Lincoln who were assasinated) and United States of Corporations (I mean America). He doesn;t give a slight fuck about the people in US, he will place 1000 nuclear plants if it smells like money for the elite.
Get ready for FEMA camps America... your government loves you.
EDIT: removed the profanity
Edited by PsychoReactive (03/29/11 05:12 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> I bet you are too chicken shit to even handle fluorescent lamps, you douchebag!
Be nice, please. Flaming is against the forum rules and can result in a ban from the forum.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
PsychoReactive
.


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 2,563
Loc: Cocalero
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
#14202332 - 03/29/11 05:12 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I bet you are too chicken shit to even handle fluorescent lamps, you douchebag!
Be nice, please. Flaming is against the forum rules and can result in a ban from the forum.
Done...
|
EdgeChaos
Still a stranger

Registered: 08/04/06
Posts: 2,071
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
psycho4ctive said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > I bet you are too chicken shit to even handle fluorescent lamps, you douchebag!
Be nice, please. Flaming is against the forum rules and can result in a ban from the forum.
Done...
I can handle the heat.
Using Chernobyl as an example of why the US should not use nuclear energy is a bit dishonest. It is however a great example of why we need to constantly improve our safety and regulatory prevention methods.
As already stated in this thread, the Chernobyl indecent was caused by an unsafely constructed reactor and the small number of safety features they did have were turned off for a "test". Our current technology and regulatory infrastructure are far superior than anything the Russians have ever built.
I recommend that you actually read up on the subject before making outrageous claims and making an ass of yourself.
|
PsychoReactive
.


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 2,563
Loc: Cocalero
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: EdgeChaos]
#14208069 - 03/30/11 07:09 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EdgeChaos said:
Quote:
psycho4ctive said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > I bet you are too chicken shit to even handle fluorescent lamps, you douchebag!
Be nice, please. Flaming is against the forum rules and can result in a ban from the forum.
Done...
I can handle the heat.
Using Chernobyl as an example of why the US should not use nuclear energy is a bit dishonest. It is however a great example of why we need to constantly improve our safety and regulatory prevention methods.
As already stated in this thread, the Chernobyl indecent was caused by an unsafely constructed reactor and the small number of safety features they did have were turned off for a "test". Our current technology and regulatory infrastructure are far superior than anything the Russians have ever built.
I recommend that you actually read up on the subject before making outrageous claims and making an ass of yourself.
The Chernobyl accident happened in what 1986?? Ages ago, since then, off course things have improved, then again, nuclear power plants are never safe, look at Japan buddy, there are radiation traces in US now. Then again Obama, doesn't give a damn, he (just like Bush) likes to fight illegal wars with Libya.
PS Russia wasn't dumb, they build Chernobyl nuclear plants in Ukraine...
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
psycho4ctive said:
Quote:
EdgeChaos said:
Quote:
psycho4ctive said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > I bet you are too chicken shit to even handle fluorescent lamps, you douchebag!
Be nice, please. Flaming is against the forum rules and can result in a ban from the forum.
Done...
I can handle the heat.
Using Chernobyl as an example of why the US should not use nuclear energy is a bit dishonest. It is however a great example of why we need to constantly improve our safety and regulatory prevention methods.
As already stated in this thread, the Chernobyl indecent was caused by an unsafely constructed reactor and the small number of safety features they did have were turned off for a "test". Our current technology and regulatory infrastructure are far superior than anything the Russians have ever built.
I recommend that you actually read up on the subject before making outrageous claims and making an ass of yourself.
The Chernobyl accident happened in what 1986?? Ages ago, since then, off course things have improved, then again, nuclear power plants are never safe, look at Japan buddy, there are radiation traces in US now. Then again Obama, doesn't give a damn, he (just like Bush) likes to fight illegal wars with Libya.
PS Russia wasn't dumb, they build Chernobyl nuclear plants in Ukraine...
What does the fact the soviets built Chernobyl in Ukraine have to do with anything? How does that make them not dumb?
What does the time that has passed since Chernobyl have to do with anythihng? You say that this has something to do with it and that things have improved with time, but what argument do you have for this postiion? This seems like a dishonest or ignorant picture your painting: what about Chernobyl would have been different had it happened twenty-five years later?
|
HeavyToilet
The Heaviest OfThem All


Registered: 08/06/03
Posts: 9,458
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
Quote:
psycho4ctive said: then again, nuclear power plants are never safe, look at Japan buddy, there are radiation traces in US now.
You're using the nuclear plants in Japan to prove your point that "nuclear power plants are never safe"? If you were trying to prove that point, then wouldn't it be better to show examples of reactors that were based on current technology, and under the most strict observation & care that have had catastrophic events, rather than using some of the most poorly designed reactors (which probably had corners cut during its building), which were based on half century old technology that were built in a location notorious for earthquakes?
I think the only times a possible disaster could have happened were when using experimental reactors.
What about the hundreds of nuclear plants over the world which have been fine for years, and even decades?
Edited by HeavyToilet (03/30/11 10:10 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: HeavyToilet]
#14209010 - 03/30/11 11:28 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You're using the nuclear plants in Japan to prove your point that "nuclear power plants are never safe"? If you were trying to prove that point, then wouldn't it be better to show examples of reactors that were based on current technology, and under the most strict observation & care that have had catastrophic events, rather than using some of the most poorly designed reactors (which probably had corners cut during its building), which were based on half century old technology that were built in a location notorious for earthquakes?
Actually, Japan has some of the safest nuclear power plants in the world. Their building codes, because of the seismic activity, are the best in the world. Also, considering the majority of nuclear power plants across the world are what you consider "old technology" (not that nuclear power plant technology changes quickly), then shouldn't we be focusing on them in our discussion?
Quote:
I think the only times a possible disaster could have happened were when using experimental reactors.
And yet history proves you wrong. Chernobyl, three mile island, greifswald, wendscale, chalk river, etc. And these are just power plants... the list of nuclear disasters related to processing and storage of nuclear material is much larger.
Quote:
What about the hundreds of nuclear plants over the world which have been fine for years, and even decades?
It is the ones that have problems that I am worried about... along with the long term repercussions of those problems... along with the long term repercussions of dealing with the waste from those hundreds of nuclear plants.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
MelloRed



Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 186
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: Seuss]
#14209116 - 03/30/11 11:44 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: Actually, Japan has some of the safest nuclear power plants in the world. Their building codes, because of the seismic activity, are the best in the world. Also, considering the majority of nuclear power plants across the world are what you consider "old technology" (not that nuclear power plant technology changes quickly), then shouldn't we be focusing on them in our discussion?
Not really, unless your trying to shut down all existing plants. I guess some people want that, but I don't see it happening. The more important discussion is where to go from here which would entail building newer, safer plants.
Quote:
Seuss said: And yet history proves you wrong. Chernobyl, three mile island, greifswald, wendscale, chalk river, etc. And these are just power plants... the list of nuclear disasters related to processing and storage of nuclear material is much larger.
Outside of Chernobyl (which was gross negligence), Mayak (also some pretty irresponsible Soviet management), and possibly the Japanese problems (which required a once a millenium type natural disaster), the other problems have had almost no impact on the general public. If this is the worst I can expect, build them down the road from me please.
Quote:
Seuss said: It is the ones that have problems that I am worried about... along with the long term repercussions of those problems... along with the long term repercussions of dealing with the waste from those hundreds of nuclear plants.
Balance those considerations with concerns about global warming and concerns about people if cheap, plentiful power is not available. I would argue that unless we magic fussion or some other power source quickly, nuclear power is the best out of a number of non-optimal alternatives.
|
EdgeChaos
Still a stranger

Registered: 08/04/06
Posts: 2,071
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
psycho4ctive said:
Quote:
EdgeChaos said:
Quote:
psycho4ctive said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > I bet you are too chicken shit to even handle fluorescent lamps, you douchebag!
Be nice, please. Flaming is against the forum rules and can result in a ban from the forum.
Done...
I can handle the heat.
Using Chernobyl as an example of why the US should not use nuclear energy is a bit dishonest. It is however a great example of why we need to constantly improve our safety and regulatory prevention methods.
As already stated in this thread, the Chernobyl indecent was caused by an unsafely constructed reactor and the small number of safety features they did have were turned off for a "test". Our current technology and regulatory infrastructure are far superior than anything the Russians have ever built.
I recommend that you actually read up on the subject before making outrageous claims and making an ass of yourself.
The Chernobyl accident happened in what 1986?? Ages ago, since then, off course things have improved, then again, nuclear power plants are never safe, look at Japan buddy, there are radiation traces in US now. Then again Obama, doesn't give a damn, he (just like Bush) likes to fight illegal wars with Libya.
PS Russia wasn't dumb, they build Chernobyl nuclear plants in Ukraine...
Correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked no one had suffered a lethal dose of radiation from the Fukushima plant. Also, The radiation that is measurable in the states is negligible in comparison to the amount of radiation we receive from the sun and microwaves every day.
A nuclear plant being hit with a tsunami and a huge earthquake at the same time and no casualties from radiation, so far, is a testament to the safety of these reactors. I suggest that you consider the basis of your fear.
|
MelloRed



Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 186
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: Obama wants Nuclear Power?!?! [Re: EdgeChaos]
#14209870 - 03/30/11 02:29 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EdgeChaos said: Correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked no one had suffered a lethal dose of radiation from the Fukushima plant. Also, The radiation that is measurable in the states is negligible in comparison to the amount of radiation we receive from the sun and microwaves every day.
No one's had a lethal dose and doubt anyone will. The next part is not exactly true though. The reporting has been awful, but here's a map trying to track the highest levels reported by prefecture:
http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=4870
This is in nGy/hr. Normal background radiation is somewhere around 30 nGy/hr. The readings in the plants' prefecture are censored, but the prefecture to the south has reports that are as much as 70 or so times that. That amount is not great and if it was a continual exposure for years could increase the risk of cancer. That was an outlier and most recent readings have been half that. Below the threshold for a noticeable increase in cancer risk.
|
|