Any Current Defenders of Nuclear Energy?

Any Current Defenders of Nuclear Energy?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

03/16/11 9:17 PM
Old Moparz member Bob Joined: 08/18/08 Posts: 5,759	In the wake of Japan's current nuclear reactor situation, one of which there is no possible good outcome, I was wondering how many people who may have thought nuclear energy was a good idea, may not think so now? Of course there is a chance that some people will still think so, even if they are just taking the stance as devil's advocate. I don't know if I am starting this topic for any reason other than immense anger that has been brewing in me for a long time. Ever since the mid 70's when I was in my teens, I remember the protests & the "NO NUKES" movement that was going on over how bad it was for nuclear reactors to be built. They were "cheap" forms of energy we were told. They were "clean" forms of energy we were told. It was a chance to be self sufficient & get away from dependency of foreign oil. This was clearly bullshit, especially when the "accident" at the Three Mile Island" happened where a partial meltdown occurred. So now we have a full scale meltdown going on, but will have to wait to see what the government tells us how bad it is. They'll tell us what happens to the people in Japan & what it does to them, like maybe a head cold. "It's minor, just stay indoors, maybe put some duct tape on the doors & windows & all will be fine." I suppose the people near the Chernobyl disaster just weren't fucking smart enough to have rolls of duct tape handy? That disaster wasn't enough to convince anyone that nuclear power plants might be a bad idea. Why not use a pile of broken glass & rusty razor blades to cushion your fall off a ladder? In Utopia, nuclear power is a clean & safe method. In reality, the world where we live, it's a bad idea, even on paper. The human race is far from perfect. There is incompetence, greed, egos, & outright stupidity. Add any or all of this traits to the mix & we're fucked. This isn't a simple opinion of mine, it's based on the track records of the people & companies involved with building & running nuclear power plants. Here's what we should be concerned with..... The design of the failed plants in Japan were done by General Electric in the 1970's. Back then, the cooling system design was flawed, & before it was built, 3 engineers at GE went public & criticized the design saying it will fail. They were fired/resigned, & now proven to be correct. GE Built Nuclear Reactors Failing At Fukishima- GE Nuclear Crisis [freedomist.com] Now, in the US the same companies who fucked everything up will be contracted to build two nuclear reactors in Texas in the gulf coast area. Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants: The No BS Info on Japan's Disastrous Nuclear Operators [www.truth-out.org] The failure of emergency systems at Japan's nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us who have worked in the field. Nuclear plants the world over must be certified for what is called "SQ" or "Seismic Qualification." That is, the owners swear that all components are designed for the maximum conceivable shaking event, be it from an earthquake or an exploding Christmas card from al-Qaeda. The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from "failed" to "passed." The company that put in the false safety report? Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction, which will work with TEPCO to build the Texas plant. There's more. Last night, I heard CNN reporters repeat the official line that the tsunami disabled the pumps needed to cool the reactors, implying that water unexpectedly got into the diesel generators that run the pumps. These safety backup systems are the "EDGs" in nuke-speak: Emergency Diesel Generators. That they didn't work in an emergency is like a fire department telling us they couldn't save a building because "it was on fire." What dim bulbs designed this system? One of the reactors dancing with death at Fukushima Station 1 was built by Toshiba. Toshiba was also an architect of the emergency diesel system. Just fucking wonderful!
Profile	back to top

03/16/11 9:57 PM
Riktor member Joined: 09/03/08 Location: Antares Posts: 2,096	Old Moparz posted: In the wake of Japan's current nuclear reactor situation, one of which there is no possible good outcome, I was wondering how many people who may have thought nuclear energy was a good idea, may not think so now? Of course there is a chance that some people will still think so, even if they are just taking the stance as devil's advocate. I don't know if I am starting this topic for any reason other than immense anger that has been brewing in me for a long time. Ever since the mid 70's when I was in my teens, I remember the protests & the "NO NUKES" movement that was going on over how bad it was for nuclear reactors to be built. They were "cheap" forms of energy we were told. They were "clean" forms of energy we were told. It was a chance to be self sufficient & get away from dependency of foreign oil. This was clearly bullshit, especially when the "accident" at the Three Mile Island" happened where a partial meltdown occurred. So now we have a full scale meltdown going on, but will have to wait to see what the government tells us how bad it is. They'll tell us what happens to the people in Japan & what it does to them, like maybe a head cold. "It's minor, just stay indoors, maybe put some duct tape on the doors & windows & all will be fine." I suppose the people near the Chernobyl disaster just weren't fucking smart enough to have rolls of duct tape handy? That disaster wasn't enough to convince anyone that nuclear power plants might be a bad idea. Why not use a pile of broken glass & rusty razor blades to cushion your fall off a ladder? In Utopia, nuclear power is a clean & safe method. In reality, the world where we live, it's a bad idea, even on paper. The human race is far from perfect. There is incompetence, greed, egos, & outright stupidity. Add any or all of this traits to the mix & we're fucked. This isn't a simple opinion of mine, it's based on the track records of the people & companies involved with building & running nuclear power plants. Here's what we should be concerned with..... The design of the failed plants in Japan were done by General Electric in the 1970's. Back then, the cooling system design was flawed, & before it was built, 3 engineers at GE went public & criticized the design saying it will fail. They were fired/resigned, & now proven to be correct. GE Built Nuclear Reactors Failing At Fukishima- GE Nuclear Crisis [freedomist.com] Now, in the US the same companies who fucked everything up will be contracted to build two nuclear reactors in Texas in the gulf coast area. Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants: The No BS Info on Japan's Disastrous Nuclear Operators [www.truth-out.org] The failure of emergency systems at Japan's nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us who have worked in the field. Nuclear plants the world over must be certified for what is called "SQ" or "Seismic Qualification." That is, the owners swear that all components are designed for the maximum conceivable shaking event, be it from an earthquake or an exploding Christmas card from al-Qaeda. The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from "failed" to "passed." The company that put in the false safety report? Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction, which will work with TEPCO to build the Texas plant. There's more. Last night, I heard CNN reporters repeat the official line that the tsunami disabled the pumps needed to cool the reactors, implying that water unexpectedly got into the diesel generators that run the pumps. These safety backup systems are the "EDGs" in nuke-speak: Emergency Diesel Generators. That they didn't work in an emergency is like a fire department telling us they couldn't save a building because "it was on fire." What dim bulbs designed this system? One of the reactors dancing with death at Fukushima Station 1 was built by Toshiba. Toshiba was also an architect of the emergency diesel system. Just fucking wonderful! In a utopia, there is a source of energy which is clean, efficient, cheap, and completely safe from human failings. In reality, there is none. Nuclear comes the closest with two out of four. I understand the opposition to nuclear. I really do. However, there are six billion people on this planet and wind farms and solar panels just ain't going to get the fucking job done. Right now, with the technology we have, nuclear is the best course of action, both financially and practically. Ideally, we should be working on new sources of energy. Cold fusion would a great start. However, I'm not about to start tearing down cooling towers because four reactors in Japan couldn't withstand a wrath-of-God-caliber 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a 33-foot tsunami. SONGS - roughly thirty minutes from my house - is rated to withstand a 7.0 mag quake max, and it was built a decade after the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. Yes, nuclear power facilities should be built to withstand the greatest seismic event conceivable for their locale. If you asked anyone in Sendai if they thought it conceivable that they'd experience the third or fourth most powerful earthquake on record, I don't think you'd receive too many replies in the affirmative. The quake moved the island of Hokkaido 8 feet for fuck's sake.
Profile	back to top

03/16/11 10:04 PM
LisaM. member Joined: 04/13/08 Posts: 7,295	I think that in theory, nuclear power is a useful and economic thing, but in practice, I don't think the human race is advanced enough to handle it. As a scientist, myself, I remember when I was 12 years old, going on a tour of the now closed Seabrook Nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. I was fascinated by the whole thing and that was what really kicked it in for me to become a scientist. Looking back on that, I now feel the dread that the whole process is like trying to create your own sun, then harness the energy with nothing more than dental floss holding together the whole operation; it's bound to blow at some point and we lose control. With the current state of nuclear events in Japan, my main concern is where is all that radiation going to go? It has to go somewhere, and I pray to God that a big wind doesn't come along and send it over here. I've already had cancer once, and I don't need it again. I do, however, feel that the remaining workers at the Japan plants are nothing short of heroes. Mind you, I say "workers" and not the politicians and bosses and suits, but the grunts in the trenches, so to speak who have willingly put themselves in harm's way to try to contain the crisis. My heart goes out to all of them, because with all that exposure, you know they're goners, and it'll all be from cancer or leukemia. Even though I am a scientist, I much prefer caution with everything and a little less technology, is certainly no harm.
Profile	back to top

03/16/11 11:42 PM
Chalkmaze member Joined: 05/03/08 Posts: 402	Riktor posted: Ideally, we should be working on new sources of energy. Cold fusion would a great start. I think all options should be explored and am not a scientists, but since the whole Cold fusion thing got started here in Utah, I've been paying attention, and there's a bunch of reasons to think it's not going to happen in our lifetime, or that it's even possible. Lots of errors and unvalidated data and experimentation went on. False claims, unduplicatable results, sloppy data collection etc. It seems to all be based on false positives. That being said, I've been told Cold fusion is mathematically possible, but I think that's the wrong tree to be barking up or hoping to see results from. But that's all I'm gonna say about it, just throwing out some of the info., make of it what you will. We in Utah were the most Cold fusion happy people on the planet for quite some time, millions were spent here and around the world, but it just seemed to bring to light more about all the shotty experimenting, and the hype finally fizzled out. - [voices.idahostatesman.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2011 10:48PM by Chalkmaze.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 12:12 AM
PeedroPaula member Why so serious? Joined: 09/07/08 Location: San Pedro CA Posts: 15,229	I don't understand why a lot more isn't being done to harness geothermal energy.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 4:40 AM
YKWYA member All these moments...... Joined: 11/27/07 Posts: 1,142	LisaM. posted: I think that in theory, nuclear power is a useful and economic thing, but in practice, I don't think the human race is advanced enough to handle it. There is that. But I think the Human Race is stuck between a rock and hard place really. There is nothing else on this planet that will sustain our energy needs - especially with the decline of non renewable energy resources. The ugly truth is that Oil has fuelled our population growth, and without a source of energy as abundant we are in trouble. Wind/Sea/Solar being able to provide energy enough is pie in the sky. At least, energy to support the virualent 'Growth, growth growth' that permeates everything we do nowadays. Ironically, Japan is going to have to rely on Oil importa it wouldnt normally have to - so what with more trouble in the middle east, it is going to further raise the rpice of Oil. Add to that the other economic effects.... Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2011 04:42AM by YKWYA.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 5:42 AM
Joan Cootes member cougar Joined: 09/04/08 Location: fuggen Minno Posts: 12,124	I've never understood why "we" have to have nuclear power plants. To me they are just too dangerous. OK, people here have said solar energy or wind power won't be enough to provide the energy needs of the multitudes. I still think research should be done into alternative forms of energy to make them cheap and readily available to everybody. And yes, PeedroPaula has a good point about geothermal energy. Something needs to be done, because we can't keep on the way we are going.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 5:58 AM
LisaM. member Joined: 04/13/08 Posts: 7,295	YKWYA posted: LisaM. posted: I think that in theory, nuclear power is a useful and economic thing, but in practice, I don't think the human race is advanced enough to handle it. There is that. But I think the Human Race is stuck between a rock and hard place really. There is nothing else on this planet that will sustain our energy needs - especially with the decline of non renewable energy resources. The ugly truth is that Oil has fuelled our population growth, and without a source of energy as abundant we are in trouble. Wind/Sea/Solar being able to provide energy enough is pie in the sky. At least, energy to support the virualent 'Growth, growth growth' that permeates everything we do nowadays. Ironically, Japan is going to have to rely on Oil importa it wouldnt normally have to - so what with more trouble in the middle east, it is going to further raise the rpice of Oil. Add to that the other economic effects.... America has plenty of oil reserves--those who control things just don't want to tap into them, because somehow they think it's better for us to keep sucking off the tit of the Middle East and letting them control our destiny via the oil purse-strings. My opinion is that we need to take a step back and just cool it already. I'm not saying go back to the Little House On The Prairie days and wash your clothes in the creek, but do we really need all this technology? How many new "generations" of Ipods, cell phones, computers and all the other things that we somehow cannot live without, do we need? Growing up, we never had any of this stuff, and we were just fine. You went outside and tossed a ball around or climbed a tree for fun, and now, the world's so caught up in having everything so technologically advanced, that if you take away someone's cellular device for even an hour, it's like you've amputated their hands---"OMG! I can't text!!" We've gotten too caught up in the "wow" factor and have lost sight of what's truly important and the bigger picture. Same holds true with the nuclear power-thing; time to go back to the drawing board and find another avenue for energy. The guy that tunes my piano drives a Volkswagon that is powered by used vegetable oil that he gets as a free donation from area restaurants that don't know what to do with all that used grease. Sounds like a good plan, to me. Here's his website--he's got a lot of great ideas and information on it, and he works full time now as a home energy auditor: [www.ourrenewablenation.org]
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 8:35 AM
Apolutrosis member Human Being Joined: 04/29/08 Location: The Jefferson Memorial Posts: 320	Automobiles kill more people than nuclear energy has, or will. Should we ban them as well? As Riktor says, you have to work with what you've got, and take the bad with the good. The bad is that sources of high energy will always be dangerous.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 8:40 AM
JamesyEsquire member EsqBok Joined: 08/24/08 Location: England Posts: 148	The fact is, nuclear power post Chernobyl is still statistically the safest we have, more people have died as a result of wind power as they have nuclear. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely safe, 10 x more than the Fukushima plant and even that has survived relatively well given what was thrown at it. People are afraid of nuclear power because they do not understand it, the events of Chernobly could never happen in a modern plant, even a full meltdown will only have relatively local consequences.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 5:28 AM
melissa member Joined: 12/12/07 Posts: 12	Prayers and blessings to japan..... and I question what effects nuclear fallout will have on Japan, Hawaii, California... No one here (central coast, ca) seems concerned? Everyone that I spoke to are relying on media and government to keep us informed if we need to take precaution? That's scary! I'm worried about japan and the people there!!!! I also worry about the air, food, water, short term effect, long term effect here. A ton of heath stores, yoga places, vegans, water savers (someone who bathe only every few months to save water) green state... and I don't see anyone here concerned? hhhmmm? So what do you all think about this? Am i over reacting? Makes me feel like leaving town for a few weeks... Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2011 05:29AM by melissa.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 5:45 AM
Joan Cootes member cougar Joined: 09/04/08 Location: fuggen Minno Posts: 12,124	Trouble is, Melissa, you can't really "leave town" because eventually the radiation will go all around the world and affect everybody and everything. Maybe not in a huge dramatic sort of way, as the cloud dissipates, but in smaller ways. I'm getting a bit scared as well. I live in Australia and Japan isn't that far away from me...
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 8:41 AM
JamesyEsquire member EsqBok Joined: 08/24/08 Location: England Posts: 148	The radiation from Fukushima even in a full melt down will have ZERO effect on anyone outside of Japan, you need to understand the science more.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 9:32 AM
LisaM. member Joined: 04/13/08 Posts: 7,295	JamesyEsquire posted: The fact is, nuclear power post Chernobyl is still statistically the safest we have, more people have died as a result of wind power as they have nuclear. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely safe, 10 x more than the Fukushima plant and even that has survived relatively well given what was thrown at it. People are afraid of nuclear power because they do not understand it, the events of Chernobly could never happen in a modern plant, even a full meltdown will only have relatively local consequences. Really? Never say never. . . .perhaps we should check in with Japan in about 10 years to see how their cancer statistics are. The nuclear situation over there is nothing short of a "controlled" Hiroshima and Nagasaki--it'll have the same long term effects.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 9:53 AM
JamesyEsquire member EsqBok Joined: 08/24/08 Location: England Posts: 148	LisaM. posted: Really? Never say never. . . .perhaps we should check in with Japan in about 10 years to see how their cancer statistics are. The nuclear situation over there is nothing short of a "controlled" Hiroshima and Nagasaki--it'll have the same long term effects. How can it have the same effects when this event is completely localised?
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:00 AM
OMS member Loving Life (like a boss) Joined: 05/04/08 Location: the abstract Posts: 9,129	Apolutrosis posted: Automobiles kill more people than nuclear energy has, or will. Should we ban them as well? As Riktor says, you have to work with what you've got, and take the bad with the good. The bad is that sources of high energy will always be dangerous. And coal mines...don't forget them.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:05 AM
OMS member Loving Life (like a boss) Joined: 05/04/08 Location: the abstract Posts: 9,129	JamesyEsquire posted: The radiation from Fukushima even in a full melt down will have ZERO effect on anyone outside of Japan, you need to understand the science more. I'm not too sure about that but they have stressed that what blows over the Pacific will dissipate. I just read that Vienna is monitoring the levels and ATM the radiation being detected thus far is lower than when China was performing nuclear tests. Furthermore, what impact did the H-bomb or the testing at Bikini Atoll have on mainland US? People need to chill.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:09 AM
LisaM. member Joined: 04/13/08 Posts: 7,295	JamesyEsquire posted: LisaM. posted: Really? Never say never. . . .perhaps we should check in with Japan in about 10 years to see how their cancer statistics are. The nuclear situation over there is nothing short of a "controlled" Hiroshima and Nagasaki--it'll have the same long term effects. How can it have the same effects when this event is completely localised? Being localized or widespread doesn't matter, the effect of exposure to a nuclear meltdown and high levels of radiation are the same---increased incidences of cancer and leukemia. To put it in perspective, take a look at this photo: What you're seeing is a picture of my armpit, taken today, over one full year after having had radiation therapy to that area for breast cancer. Therapy mind you--controlled doses. See all the dark areas? That's skin that is still burned from those controlled doses. Now imagine radiation out of control and what it will do to you. What it does is alter your DNA so the cells can't properly divide and grow. With "therapeutic" radiation, the goal is the same--to interrupt the cancerous DNA so that it can't properly divide and grow as a cancer cell. Problem is, is that you have to dose the healthy cells around it, too, thus running the risk of actually developing more cancer from the treatment that was meant to do good. So now think of all those people over in Japan, getting hit with mega-doses of radiation, uncontrolled. . . . no good can possibly come of that.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:16 AM
OMS member Loving Life (like a boss) Joined: 05/04/08 Location: the abstract Posts: 9,129	LisaM. posted: JamesyEsquire posted: LisaM. posted: Really? Never say never. . . .perhaps we should check in with Japan in about 10 years to see how their cancer statistics are. The nuclear situation over there is nothing short of a "controlled" Hiroshima and Nagasaki--it'll have the same long term effects. How can it have the same effects when this event is completely localised? Being localized or widespread doesn't matter, the effect of exposure to a nuclear meltdown and high levels of radiation are the same---increased incidences of cancer and leukemia. That is completely false.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:26 AM
LisaM. member Joined: 04/13/08 Posts: 7,295	OMS posted: LisaM. posted: JamesyEsquire posted: LisaM. posted: Really? Never say never. . . .perhaps we should check in with Japan in about 10 years to see how their cancer statistics are. The nuclear situation over there is nothing short of a "controlled" Hiroshima and Nagasaki--it'll have the same long term effects. How can it have the same effects when this event is completely localised? Being localized or widespread doesn't matter, the effect of exposure to a nuclear meltdown and high levels of radiation are the same---increased incidences of cancer and leukemia. That is completely false. And being a scientist, yourself you surely must have some documented proof to back up that statement? If that nuclear plant down in Texas ever had a meltdown, I'm sure you guys would clear out of there in a hurry.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:44 AM
OMS member Loving Life (like a boss) Joined: 05/04/08 Location: the abstract Posts: 9,129	LisaM. posted: OMS posted: LisaM. posted: JamesyEsquire posted: LisaM. posted: Really? Never say never. . . .perhaps we should check in with Japan in about 10 years to see how their cancer statistics are. The nuclear situation over there is nothing short of a "controlled" Hiroshima and Nagasaki--it'll have the same long term effects. How can it have the same effects when this event is completely localised? Being localized or widespread doesn't matter, the effect of exposure to a nuclear meltdown and high levels of radiation are the same---increased incidences of cancer and leukemia. That is completely false. And being a scientist, yourself you surely must have some documented proof to back up that statement? If that nuclear plant down in Texas ever had a meltdown, I'm sure you guys would clear out of there in a hurry. Lisa, I understand you are sensitive to the situation since you had cancer. And since you've had cancer I'm sure you never let one sun ray hit your skin, travel in a plane, have an xray for any reason, etc, etc, etc. But since you had cancer and you are using the "scientist" label as if you have a PhD in Nuclear Science, then I am going to bow out and let you win because you are uber sensitive in this sitch to the point you are scaring the hell out of yourself. Sadly, someone will read your posts and freak the fuck out too. But what I do know is that being NEXT to a source a radiation at its point of origin is different than being half way across the world. And I also know that a beam of radiation concentrated on the skin or area of the body has different effects than if it's dissipated throughout the room. Also, I have never claimed to be a scientist, ever. My friend is a scientist...he does things that you or I will never do. He also has a PhD in tumor cell biology...he keeps me informed on radiation and cancer. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2011 11:45AM by OMS.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 12:47 PM
LisaM. member Joined: 04/13/08 Posts: 7,295	Well OMS, I think that "time" will be tell-all as far as the Japan situation goes. I don't claim to be a Nuclear Physicist, but you and I are both Clinical laboratory scientists with enough background knowledge to know that certain things, like massive doses of radiation, aren't good for you. Perhaps I am a bit more sensitive to the whole topic having just gone through cancer treatment myself; it's frightening to wonder if they got it all out, and if they've caused more to come, with the treatments I was given. I'm not trying to cause witch-hunt type hysteria, but as far as my posts scaring the hell out of people---I certainly hope they do just that. Maybe that's what it will take for people to rise up and say "Enough. This isn't working, we need a better fuel/energy source and not be at the mercy of the bureaucrats, "suits" and others who would only work to serve their own agendas." Maybe a good scare is what we all need.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 1:19 PM
OMS member Loving Life (like a boss) Joined: 05/04/08 Location: the abstract Posts: 9,129	At the moment, there has not been a meltdown...I think that is important to remember. To date, the only people who have gotten massive doses of radiation are the plant workers or people directly involved. I believe they have reported 20 people with radiation sickness. I'm sitting here watching the news and they are emphasizing that people really need to read and understand what is being reported. There was a hypothetical model of where a radiation plume would have traveled IF it happened last Saturday...and people are acting as if it DID happen. Some people hang onto and live in a world of irrational fears...I do not. On the subject of "suits" and "cancer", there have been about a 10% budget cuts in Gov. research funding. The EPA has been hit too. A little off topic but related, nonetheless. Lets see if they are gonna squeeze out money for ways of replacing our nuclear power plants. You see what happened after the oil spill and our shores and wildlife was affected. The drilling didn't go away, and it won't. What happens in these types of situations is that the experts learn from each even and work on implementing "Corrective and Preventive Actions". I bet the people in Japan never dreamed that all three pumps would be disabled from this event. eta: I do not use the title "scientist" as I haven't ever filled a position with that title and it requires a PhD to call yourself one. That would be a slap in the face to scientists who truly hold a PhD and perform research. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2011 01:33PM by OMS.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 6:39 PM
Kid IRA1 member kill yr idols Joined: 09/03/08 Location: formerly some antiseptic Posts: 3,380	Aye, I'm still with nuclear power. There are obvious risks, yes, but I'll take the relatively short term and exceptionally rare damage from a nuclear disaster over the long term poisoning of fossil fuels.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 7:52 PM
melissa member Joined: 12/12/07 Posts: 12	What I wonder is if "The radiation from Fukushima even in a full melt down will have ZERO effect on anyone outside of Japan, you need to understand the science more." Why is the heath department here in slo now giving out free potassium iodine? if no risk why give out drug that could have some severe side effects? I know that it's intended to help prevent against thyroid gland cancer.... if the risk is high enough to need protection against thyroid gland cancer, then to me it seems like you would still be at risk for other types of cancer. I don't have a PHD but it seems like common sense... I'm not trying to start a scare. I'm just trying to gather information and i don't trust the media or government to keep me informed. i don't want me or any of my loved ones to end up getting cancer because we didn't leave, because we were misinformed.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 10:24 PM
Old Moparz member Bob Joined: 08/18/08 Posts: 5,759	Riktor posted: In a utopia, there is a source of energy which is clean, efficient, cheap, and completely safe from human failings. In reality, there is none. Nuclear comes the closest with two out of four. Nuclear comes the closest? Of the four factors to compare varying energy sources to, none are even on the same page. That's like four people going to the doctor & being told that they are "sick" & need treatment. Person #1 has a head cold, person #2 has a paper cut, person #3 has a bruise, but person #4 has a head injury with their brain exposed. They can all get asprin & go home. If nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, or any other possible type of fuel can be used, I see nuclear as the only one that can put the largest number of people at risk & make a huge area uninhabitable for several generations. It's happened already & I see it happening again within my lifetime. In 1979 Three Mile Island scared the crap out of a lot of us. In 1986 Chernobyl killed thousands & caused who knows how many others to be sick. It was estimated in the 100,000's. Riktor posted: I understand the opposition to nuclear. I really do. However, there are six billion people on this planet and wind farms and solar panels just ain't going to get the fucking job done. Right now, with the technology we have, nuclear is the best course of action, both financially and practically. Ideally, we should be working on new sources of energy. Cold fusion would a great start. However, I'm not about to start tearing down cooling towers because four reactors in Japan couldn't withstand a wrath-of-God-caliber 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a 33-foot tsunami. SONGS - roughly thirty minutes from my house - is rated to withstand a 7.0 mag quake max, and it was built a decade after the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi. Yes, nuclear power facilities should be built to withstand the greatest seismic event conceivable for their locale. If you asked anyone in Sendai if they thought it conceivable that they'd experience the third or fourth most powerful earthquake on record, I don't think you'd receive too many replies in the affirmative. The quake moved the island of Hokkaido 8 feet for fuck's sake. I don't have an answer as to what source of power to use, but having worked in the engineering & construction field since 1986 & having witnessed incompetence, corruption, stupidity & more, I can safely say that I have no faith in people building something that can potentially put a huge part of the population at risk. A company I was employed by in the late 80's had an inspector taking cash from the contractor for fudging his inspection reports saying that the piles driven for the bridge foundations were deep enough. They weren't & all had to be removed & replaced. It would have been interesting to see what may have happened if an overpass collapsed onto the interstate when traffic was on it.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 10:33 PM
Old Moparz member Bob Joined: 08/18/08 Posts: 5,759	Apolutrosis posted: Automobiles kill more people than nuclear energy has, or will. Should we ban them as well? As Riktor says, you have to work with what you've got, and take the bad with the good. The bad is that sources of high energy will always be dangerous. I don't think that comparing automobile accidents to a nuclear disaster is valid. Even if the accident was the largest accident in history, let's say a 2837 car pile up on the interstate during bad fog happened, the cars can be towed, fixed, & the highway can still be used when the mess is cleaned up. A nuclear power plant accident, whether it's human error, mother nature, or any other reason, it's forever. Even if there were 200,000 witnesses standing on the side of the road or on the overpass looking down through fog cutting goggles, none of them would be at the same risk of getting a sickness or disease from it like they will from radiation poisoning. I'll be happy to work with whatever else there is, even pay more to use it & not have to worry about dying or losing my home because it's glowing.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 10:50 PM
Old Moparz member Bob Joined: 08/18/08 Posts: 5,759	JamesyEsquire posted: The fact is, nuclear power post Chernobyl is still statistically the safest we have, more people have died as a result of wind power as they have nuclear. Modern nuclear power plants are extremely safe, 10 x more than the Fukushima plant and even that has survived relatively well given what was thrown at it. People are afraid of nuclear power because they do not understand it, the events of Chernobly could never happen in a modern plant, even a full meltdown will only have relatively local consequences. I'd like to see the link or reference to the statistics for the facts you are claiming to be true. The one where wind power killed more people than nuclear power. That sounds pretty hard to swallow. A good number of nuclear reactors being used aren't new & safe, & I don't care how much was thrown at the Japanese plant, it failed. That proves it isn't safe, it didn't work, & that it wasn't designed for the worst case scenario. I'm afraid of nuclear power & I have a good understanding of how it works. I also know how a lawnmower works, & I know that if I stick my fingers in the rotating blade to see if they are moving, I will probably lose a few digits. Local consequences? What's your idea of local? When even the most conservative people, politicians & corporate CEO's at power companies, say that 20 mile radius evacuations are necessary, that's not local to me. Maybe on a global scale 20 miles is nothing, but the USA has over 100 reactors & most are in densely populated areas.
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 10:52 PM
Old Moparz member Bob Joined: 08/18/08 Posts: 5,759	JamesyEsquire posted: The radiation from Fukushima even in a full melt down will have ZERO effect on anyone outside of Japan, you need to understand the science more. ZERO effect? Are you a lobbyist for the nuclear industry?
Profile	back to top

03/17/11 11:02 PM
Old Moparz member Bob Joined: 08/18/08 Posts: 5,759	OMS posted: But what I do know is that being NEXT to a source a radiation at its point of origin is different than being half way across the world. And I also know that a beam of radiation concentrated on the skin or area of the body has different effects than if it's dissipated throughout the room. OMS, halfway around the world isn't the problem, it's the ones in the USA. Did you click on the link & read any of the info regarding what I posted for the two nuke plants coming to Texas? They're going to be built by the SAME company that built the Japanese plant that just self imploded. Not only that, but there is a second company that is building it with them, & it's the same company that was caught changing seismic reports that had failed. They changed them into passing reports to save about $1 billion. They had to dismantle the Shoreham plant in NY before it was ever used because of it.
Profile	back to top

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum. Please log in at the top of the page.

terms of use | privacy policy