# Nuke power plant question raised again.



## taichiliberal (Mar 14, 2011)

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  Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

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.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 14, 2011)

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill


----------



## Trajan (Mar 14, 2011)

wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on  plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Mar 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.
> 
> Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill


Actually, that's incorrect.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.
> 
> Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill



becasue no one is going to wait 50 years or more for a return on the money it takes and even then, in the end, they may just not operate it due to regulatory strictures driven by insane energy policy....then what?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 14, 2011)

Trajan said:


> wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on  plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.



I have no problem with nuclear being part of our energy solution. How many Americans have died mining coal?  Just need to be sure it is safe and evacuation is feasible. A nuclear accident is very low probability but very high potential casualties


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Mar 14, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on  plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.
> ...


One of the main problems getting better and even safer nuclear plant technology online is regulatory red tape and flaming hoops. Have you seen the *"Nuclear Battery?"* Can't do them, they are mired in so much red tape and utter crap, we'll probably never see these in production.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 14, 2011)

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  Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
> Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News
> ...



Why do ignorant people thing nuclear power is unsafe?

Since you are obviously an expert, can you tell me how large of an area will be contaminated as a result of the accident?


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 15, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.
> 
> Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill



I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved.  But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

That's several decades of nuke waste, man.  Not good!

And you're right about accidents.....case in point here on Long Island, New York investors footed the bill for the failed Shoreham Plant, but eventually the taxpayer got stuck with the clean up and shut down!

And of course, if there are no immediate deaths or illnesses, the State and the company go into overdrive to deny cancers and deaths of surrounding residents years later.

I really feel for the people of Japan, because for a lot of folk their hell is just beginning.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 15, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



The "red tape" is born out of the nuke plant companies fudging facts and cutting corners when it suits them.  Case in point:  in New York, the Indian Point power plant has had so many violations over the years that it should have been shut down decades ago!  And if it weren't for people being more involved after 3 mile Island and a Gov. who was realistic about evacuation plans, the flaws in the Shoreham plant would have never come to light, and it would have gone on line with them!

And thern there is the case regarding a few decades of nuclear waste that no one knows how to decontaminate.

I say, just have a few experimental facilities to work out all the kinks, then you can use them for public service.


----------



## westwall (Mar 15, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.
> ...







Yes, it is.  However radiation is not the killer lurking in the shadows, it is disease from all the bodies contaminating the water all over the place.  Cholera is a very real possibility along with a whole host of other nasty diseases.


----------



## rdean (Mar 15, 2011)

Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes.  Put it at sea level on the coast.

Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place?  This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".  

Now we know.  We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast.  Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.


----------



## dilloduck (Mar 15, 2011)

rdean said:


> Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes.  Put it at sea level on the coast.
> 
> Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place?  This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".
> 
> Now we know.  We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast.  Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.



Did you get the political leanings of the scientists who put it there yet ?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Mar 15, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The red tape is born out of fear and ignorance caused by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

To get "experimental facilities" approved would require the removal of tons of the red tape, as I said. Unless you want to wait another 30 years for those.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 15, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> 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?
> ...



For a Windbag who has demonstrated his stupidity and dishonesty many times over, it's comical for YOU to accuse anyone of being ignorant.

Here's one reason why people don't like nuke plants:

*Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952*
Nuclear power plant accidents: listed, visualised and ranked since 1952 | World news | guardian.co.uk

And since I never claimed to be an expert, I'll just let the reporters educate your Windbagged brain:


*Radioactive cloud spreading in Japan nuclear crisis*Radioactive cloud spreading in Japan nuclear crisis | The Australian


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 15, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



That is your OPINION, NOT FACT.  You can't ignore my previous examples.  And Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were a matter of fact and history....precautions and due diligence were enacted so that nonsense like that wouldn't happen here.....and yet things still go wrong.

Nuclear power plant accidents: listed, visualised and ranked since 1952 | World news | guardian.co.uk

What you call unecessary red tape, I call necessary reviews, as we're dealing with material that is a like a bad oil spill/fire/explosion to the nth degree.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I see it as adding insult to injury......those clouds from reactor explosions are going to be a real bitch to the public health down the road that can't be ignored, and have yet to come to full and terrible fruition.


----------



## JBeukema (Mar 15, 2011)

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?



Okay, we promise we won't build them on the Ring of Fire...





> 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  Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
> Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News



And petroleum has had no negative impact, right?


> 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 .



Numbers? How many are operating? What are their operating costs compared to other sources? 





> 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.



By whom?





> 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.



Who denies that disposing of the waste is the biggest hurdle?





> 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,



If that's your point, why'd you not get right to it?





> 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.


Devotion to nuclear?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 15, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.
> ...



So I can count you as an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power now? the only reason we have a problem with nuclear waste in the US is that people like you stopped us from building newer reactors that recycle it. France gets 17% of its electricity from recycled nuclear fuel, and is building the first generation 3 reactor now.

Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy


----------



## JBeukema (Mar 15, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.
> ...




A good start is sending it to breeder reactors


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 16, 2011)

First, Obama and the Dimocrats were able to put a end to offshore drilling, when the public wants it, because of the BP oil spill. The moratorium on offshore drilling is still going on, despite the fact that oil prices are skyrocketing! It will continue to go on.

Next, the 30 year moratorium on nuclear power was set to end because of political pressure. In 30 years there has never been a meltdown at ANY of the 104 nuclear reactors in this country! NONE! All we had is OVER-BLOWN Three Mile Island incident. NOTHING MORE. Yet for 30 years no new nuclear plants. Now we were set to do it and the Dimocrats are set to put a moratorium on it, because of the Japan meltdown! They say we need to learn from Japan incident before we go forward with more plants. Here is the lesson: *Don't build the plants on fault lines or close to fault lines and don't build them were huricane and tsunami  are effect them!!!* Lesson learned, now build the plants like planned!

Natural Gas is getting attacked because of Fracking (which is a reason issue and concern I might add).

Next Coal will come under attack, because in the words to the Douche Bag in NV, "Coal makes us sick!"

If electric cars are our future and YES THEY ARE OUR FUTURE!!! Then we will need an abundance of stationary power sources. Sorry but wind and solar aren't going to cut the mustard at this point or anytime in the near future!



> BBC News - Japan earthquake: Impact on US nuclear energy future?
> He notes the comments of Senators Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer on Sunday urging caution when it comes to additional nuclear plants.
> 
> Mr Lieberman called for Congress to "put the brakes" on building nuclear capacity until the lessons from Japan can be assessed and absorbed.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...






Within two months the vast majority of ionizing radiation (the dangerous stuff) will be gone.  The rest is fairly benign and while you don't want to eat it or sleep in it, it is mild enough as to be no longer a problem.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Mar 16, 2011)

We have a huge waste storage problem here.  We won't recycle the stuff, or store it sanely.   
The non recycle thing goes back to Jimmy Carter wanting to move forward on a SALT treaty.   Recycling would result in large quantities of bomb material as part of his rational.   We have yet to come up with a logical way to store the spent fuel, (there are lots of competing designs, but no one can on agree on which is best, so the worst possible method, just storing the stuff as is, it what we have wound up doing.)

The problem with Nuke construction is you have a huge up front cost that is not recoverable by any rate plan that is acceptable to US consumers.  The capital cost of a nuke plant amortized over its useful life results in a per KWH charge about double any current alternative.

While I personally think Nuke is superior to coal or oil I have to recognize that for a substantial majority of the population don't agree.  And that there is not way a nuke plant will ever be built again in my lifetime.


----------



## skeptic (Mar 16, 2011)

There is a safe form of nuclear energy and we won't endorse it because it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct:

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Mar 16, 2011)

Cool web page on what is going on in Japan.

It is mostly a Thorium boosting site.

I never heard of thorium before.   It sounds like a cool solution.   I don't see it happening, but it sounds intriguing

.


----------



## skeptic (Mar 16, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Cool web page on what is going on in Japan.
> 
> It is mostly a Thorium boosting site.
> 
> ...



China should be making Thorium reactors, selling thorium reactors and selling processed thorium fuels. 

They could be energy independent and even a net exporter of energy, which would sustain their industrial economy, solve many of their enviro issues and enhance their national security. 

Plus they would be doing the world a huge favor.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> 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?
> ...



See above information and responses.....what would YOU call it?


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Yep, and here's a couple of facts about France that willfully ignorant Windbag's don't want to hear about:

EDF nuclear waste stored in open air in Russia: report | Reuters


France reports incidents at 8 nuclear plants

http://texasvox.org/2011/02/22/franc...uclear-plants/


France Moves Ahead With Nuclear Waste Project

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12837958


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



which DOES NOT deal with all the waste and brings along the problem of transportation, temporary storage, etc.


----------



## JBeukema (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Sounds like another neocon/conservative/corporatist




That is some funny shit


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> First, Obama and the Dimocrats were able to put a end to offshore drilling, when the public wants it, because of the BP oil spill. The moratorium on offshore drilling is still going on, despite the fact that oil prices are skyrocketing! It will continue to go on.
> 
> Next, the 30 year moratorium on nuclear power was set to end because of political pressure. In 30 years there has never been a meltdown at ANY of the 104 nuclear reactors in this country! NONE! All we had is OVER-BLOWN Three Mile Island incident. NOTHING MORE. Yet for 30 years no new nuclear plants. Now we were set to do it and the Dimocrats are set to put a moratorium on it, because of the Japan meltdown! They say we need to learn from Japan incident before we go forward with more plants. Here is the lesson: *Don't build the plants on fault lines or close to fault lines and don't build them were huricane and tsunami  are effect them!!!* Lesson learned, now build the plants like planned!
> 
> ...



To clue in this jabbering jackass Ghook:


--- within two years after 3 Mile Island, you had a spike in infant, child, and elderly deaths along with various cancers (i.e., thyroid) indicative to radiation poisoning.

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News


--- Nuke power accidents have been happening for decades...but so long as there are no immediate and/or massive numbers of illness/death, the MSM doesn't trumpet it beyond a 72 hour limit

U.S. Nuclear Accidents

Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents


----  Obviously, our jabbering Ghook is a bit behind the times regarding Obama:

*Obama unveils plan to build new nuclear plant*
Advertisement


*Obama OKs Oil Drilling off U.S. Coasts*

Obama OKs Oil Drilling off U.S. Coasts - CBS News


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

rdean said:


> Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes.  Put it at sea level on the coast.
> 
> Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place?  This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".
> 
> Now we know.  We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast.  Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.



Oh my god, I agree with rdean! 

Seriously though, Apparently these issues with the reactors melting were caused by the following tsunami, not the quake. Atleast that is what has been reported, even through Japanese media. Only allowing reactors to be built in none high quake zones seems to present an entire host of new problems. However, I 100% agree that these reactors should be built inland, instead of on Shore. 

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah I know, They need sea water to cool them. Hey? Spend the fucking money to pipe the sea water inland like they do Oil. 

Another thing to consider, is why exactly does Japan have 6 plants on it's East Coast? = Maybe to make sure that the jet stream takes it away from Japan? Actually no. There are 11 on the Western shore, which would bring it across the sea of Japan and into Russia, Korea and China instead of away from it. I counted 19 plants in Japan. Apparently, The U.S has 36 plants that are licensed to operate. California has 4. This isn't taking into consideration how many reactors each site has by the way.

Now, Japan is smaller than California, Japan is 377873 km2, and California is 423970 km2. One has to wonder if they packed too many Plants and / or reactors in a dangerous area, not to mention near shore, it should have been clear that a disaster would eventually happen? ~BH

INSCDB: Maps: JAPAN


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

westwall said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Two hours, let alone two months of exposure to certain levels of radiation will set you up for future cancers and such that may or may not be treatable, if it doesn't kill you outright in a matter of days or weeks.  The "fairly benign" stuff you mention will be in the ground, water, food, live stock...and that's a nice set up for future cancers.  This is a major FUBB (fucked up beyond belief) syndrome that won't be minimized by NRC, nuclear industry or gov't placating or rationalization.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes.  Put it at sea level on the coast.
> ...




As usual, you're buying into the party line without doing any critical thinking.  Observe and learn:

SAN ONOFRE: Regulatory commission had concerns about generators at nuclear plant

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...589b063e6.html


Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants
The no-BS info on Japan's disastrous nuclear operators 

http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info...axpayer-funds/


And if you do some honest research, you'd know that America already has nuke plants built on fault lines.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

skeptic said:


> There is a safe form of nuclear energy and we won't endorse it because it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct:
> 
> Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hmm, sounds good but

Thorium reactors


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 16, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like another neocon/conservative/corporatist
> ...



Not as funny as what I did to you on Post #27, of which you obviously have no logical or rational response to.  Carry on.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> As usual, you're buying into the party line without doing any critical thinking.  Observe and learn:
> 
> SAN ONOFRE: Regulatory commission had concerns about generators at nuclear plant
> 
> http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...589b063e6.html



Really now? Where did I mention anything about a Party or even Political beliefs? Are you fucking stupid? Do you even read the post that you quote?



> Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants
> The no-BS info on Japan's disastrous nuclear operators
> 
> http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-inf... You need alot of help don't yuh? :clap2: ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Quote in my post before the last, where you disagree with me? Can you do that, huh you basket case? I'll have you swinging yourself from a rope by the end of this week if you keep this crystal clear bullshit going.   ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Hey Dummy? Apologize for your mistake, and I won't put my post & your response in my signature. I would apologize if I did it. Listen my Liberal nutjob. Use what brain you have left for once. Just some advice. Otherwise like Drago told Rocky, "I must break you!".  ~BH


----------



## JBeukema (Mar 16, 2011)

Dude, if you think I'm a conservative, you must be a Marxist


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> Dude, if you think I'm a conservative, you must be a Marxist



J, Are you guys all on dope? Can anyone read a post or understand the quoting process here? LMAO!

Bro! I was talking to your herO taichiliberal, who you sucked butt to, but then he / she still slapped you down anyway with a rude response. I wasn't talking to you, I never quoted you, and I could care less if you're a Conservative or not. An American is good enough for me.  ~BH


----------



## KissMy (Mar 16, 2011)

They have not been trying hard enough to get water circulating at these reactors. They have had enough time to replace or repair those back-up generators to get those pumps running. They have dropped the ball on this nuclear emergency. Now it is turning into a disaster.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...







Only partially true.  Ionizing radiation is the only type you need worry about.  Radioactive isotopes with long half lives like Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 at 28 and 30 years each approximately are benign so long as you do not ingest them.  Years long exposure to large concentrations is another story but that is not the scenario here.  Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, which means it's radiating like a son of a bitch.  That will kill you, the rest no.  There have been extensive tests and monitoring of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors as well as the British Commonwealth POWs who were within a mile and a half from one of the bombs.  There has been no discernible effect from the radiation.  So long as you survived the initial radiation effects the following years saw the survivors lead normal lives with the normal rates of cancer etc.  In fact the only known survivor of both weapons, Tsutomu Yamaguchi just died at the age of 93.  The cause was stomach cancer but he was 20 years older than the average age of death so I doubt that was a factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07yamaguchi.html


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> skeptic said:
> 
> 
> > There is a safe form of nuclear energy and we won't endorse it because it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct:
> ...






Which was a long winded version of "show me".  He never addresses any of the science. he just talks about economists jokes.  Not particularly helpful there chum.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Oh ok, I get it. You make a crystal clear mistake for everyone to witness, Yet you run away and don't own up to it? Yeah, just what I figured from a coward with no honor. And just for the record, if you think that you can spin and twist things in order to fool the stupid sheople, just remember you're the one shoveling their crap up in the barn. You're not even smart enough to be one of them. Just scrape up that shit because that's all a blind, lying, useful tool like yourself is worth.  ~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 16, 2011)

KissMy said:


> They have not been trying hard enough to get water circulating at these reactors. They have had enough time to replace or repair those back-up generators to get those pumps running. They have dropped the ball on this nuclear emergency. Now it is turning into a disaster.



I agree my friend. ~BH


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



For the first, I never said there was no waste.

For the second, so what? Do you have any idea what requires an incident report at a nuclear power plant?

For the third, see my response to the first.


----------



## Zander (Mar 16, 2011)




----------



## GHook93 (Mar 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > First, Obama and the Dimocrats were able to put a end to offshore drilling, when the public wants it, because of the BP oil spill. The moratorium on offshore drilling is still going on, despite the fact that oil prices are skyrocketing! It will continue to go on.
> ...



I know all about the after effects of 3 mile island and they should be taken seriously, but shutting down nuclear plants for over 3 decades was not the answer. And take you propaganda and other meltdowns and shove it up your ass. 

Earth to stupid, he authorized a nuclear power plant before Japan and now the DEMOCRATS are want to continue moratorium because of Japan!

Obama authorized ONE contract to offshore oil!!! ONE!!! That is using the crisis to shut down offshore drilling!


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 17, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Likewise.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 17, 2011)

GHook93 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Really?  Because his annoucement didn't state that....perhaps YOU can provide proof of what you say.  If not, spare me the BS.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 17, 2011)

Learn to fucking use the quote and to cut and paste.



taichiliberal said:


> You stated the following, "....the only reason we have a problem with nuclear waste in the US is that people like you stopped us from building newer reactors that recycle it."
> 
> That is a totally ignorant statement by a Windbag that offered no proof other than a PR piece on French nuke plant technology.  All I did was fill in the blanks that obviously you and your website seem to want to ignore.  TFB if you don't like ALL the FACTS, but no one said life was easy.



Are you denying that people like you stopped nuclear power in its tracks decades ago? 



> Secondly, only a willfully ignorant Windbag would try to blow off the seriousness of nuclear waste, and then try to pretend that avoidance of paper work is a justifiable excuse to continue a process that produces deadly waste of which France cannot handle on it's own.



Do you understand the difference between an incident at a nuclear power plant, which was your second point, and waste?

I am not saying waste is not a problem, I am stating that, if we were not still using first generation reactors that should have been phased out by now, waste would be less of a problem.


----------



## AmericanMade76 (Mar 17, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Learn to fucking use the quote and to cut and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 18, 2011)

Zander said:


>



A silly cartoon that reflects the mental capacity of those who cannot mount a logical or honest, fact based critic.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 18, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Learn to fucking use the quote and to cut and paste.
> 
> learn to stop being a whiny little Windbag bitch, because You could read EVERYTHING I posted and responded to.  Bottom line: an intellectually bankrupt Windbag can't logically or factually refute what I post, so he blows smoke.
> 
> ...



You're a lying Windbag, as the chronology of the posts shows.  What you state here is NOT what you were stating point for point previously.  Why don't you fucking grow up and just deal with being wrong on a point?  It won't kill you,  as I and others have done so when warranted on these discussion boards for years.

Bottom line:  history shows how the unwilling the nuclear power industry was and is to change or to be open to critical review by experts in the field. Regardless of all the alleged new designs, there were NO plans regarding nuclear waste that accumulated from old or proposed new nuke plants.  It's the same old storage or bury or ship it around BS....and the existing plants that operated with all types of flaws, mishaps and accidents were ardently defended (and still are ) as perfectly safe and within safe parameters.

And as I've documented here, that's just a Windbag of bullshit.


----------



## Intense (Mar 18, 2011)

On Sight Fuel Repossessing would be a big plus, it would actually eliminate the dangers in transport and stockpiling wasted fuel rods. I would want to see modern plants built in more remote areas, away from known earthquake, flood, tornado areas. Areas where security is at an advantage, and evacuation actually doable. 

We should not be blocking Natural Gas Plants, nor Hydro, both technologies are much more highly advanced than the past. There are Multiple advantages here. They also don't all shut down at once, because of a glitch in the system, leaving everyone screwed for weeks, like the nuke plants do. We need a stronger infrastructure, not a handicapped one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 18, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> learn to stop being a whiny little Windbag bitch, because You could read EVERYTHING I posted and responded to.  Bottom line: an intellectually bankrupt Windbag can't logically or factually refute what I post, so he blows smoke.



I am too stupid to do what intelligent people do, you are required by the liberal aganda to compensate for my lack of intelligence by pretending I am as smart as everyone else.



			
				idiotliberal said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your statement, you dense Windbag.  See, in a debate/discussion, when you make a statement and people ask you to provide proof of what you say, that doesn't mean you just repeat your BS by turning it into a question.  Any High School English teacher heading a Debate Squad will tell you that.   So quit your stalling, my intellectually bankrupt Windbag....prove what you say or just keep blowing smoke.



Proof of what? That there are idiots who oppose nuclear power?

Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



			
				idiotliberal said:
			
		

> Do you realize that you can't bullshit your way past me when the chronology of the posts shows what statements were made, how they were responded to and what evidence was presented to support a persons statements or responses?  Knock of the Windbag bullshit, get your quantum shit together and honestly debate the issue as it happens.


Like I said in a previous post, learn to cut and paste. If you do you might not end up talking about one thing after posting about another.



			
				idiotliberal said:
			
		

> You're a lying Windbag, as the chronology of the posts shows.  What you state here is NOT what you were stating point for point previously.  Why don't you fucking grow up and just deal with being wrong on a point?  It won't kill you,  as I and others have done so when warranted on these discussion boards for years.
> 
> Bottom line:  history shows how the unwilling the nuclear power industry was and is to change or to be open to critical review by experts in the field. Regardless of all the alleged new designs, there were NO plans regarding nuclear waste that accumulated from old or proposed new nuke plants.  It's the same old storage or bury or ship it around BS....and the existing plants that operated with all types of flaws, mishaps and accidents were ardently defended (and still are ) as perfectly safe and within safe parameters.
> 
> And as I've documented here, that's just a Windbag of bullshit.



History shows that you are an idiot liberal.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 18, 2011)

AmericanMade76 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Learn to fucking use the quote and to cut and paste.
> ...


----------



## Intense (Mar 18, 2011)

We need to learn to be more environmentally friendly in mining resources, that especially relates to the various chemicals contaminating our water tables. The bottom line here is not money, but a workable long term solution that we can all live with. Government is also a part of the problem here, enabling and covering for unethical practices. For once, I would love to see the high road taken.



> In the U.S., the search for the next Bakken is in full swing, with the Niobrara formation near the border of Colorado and Wyoing showing the most promise, and similar approaches being tried in Texas and Oklahoma.
> 
> Like all new oil frontiers, it has its challenges.
> 
> ...


_________________________________________



> March 18th, 2011 - Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, fracing, and fracture stimulation, is when shale gas drilling companies come to an area, buy up drilling rights from landowners, cut new roads and raze patches of land in formerly undisturbed natural environments, cart in and out tens of millions of gallons of water and tons of chemicals and "proppants" like sand with hundreds of big rig trucks that produce tons of diesel emissions and wear down existing roads, drill holes that go vertically down and then horizontally under multiple properties, mix the water, chemicals, and proppants together on-site to make fracking fluid, run compressors that produce more diesel emissions to pump the fluid into the wells at high pressure to shatter underground deposits of shale and release bound-up natural gas, pump some of the fluid back out and cart it off to who knows where while leaving the rest underground, install permanent equipment to "clean" and capture most of the natural gas that comes back up the well and to release gas into the air when there's excess pressure, and then pack up, go home, and cash checks while the land stays pockmarked with drill pads, the air's been polluted with volatile organic compounds, and the water supply of everyone downstream is left in jeopardy--drilling in New York State could affect you, NYC! And you, Philly! And you, New Jersey! Much of the interest in exploration lies in the Delaware River Basin in NE Pennsylvania and NY State's Southern Tier, as well as the Catskills region, areas that supply your water. Water, water everywhere...
> 
> No Fracking! Stop Hydraulic Fracturing Natural Gas Stimulation Drilling in New York State


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 18, 2011)

While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.

However, see which you can go the longest without, water, natural gas, or oil.

And we are already short of water in many urban areas. Can we afford to contaminate water for the recovery of oil or natural gas?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.
> 
> However, see which you can go the longest without, water, natural gas, or oil.
> 
> And we are already short of water in many urban areas. Can we afford to contaminate water for the recovery of oil or natural gas?



Only the west coast douche bags are low on water. The Midwest has more than it needs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.
> 
> However, see which you can go the longest without, water, natural gas, or oil.
> 
> And we are already short of water in many urban areas. Can we afford to contaminate water for the recovery of oil or natural gas?



Seventy percent of the planets surface is covered in water, much of it thousands of feet deep. What makes you think we are running short of it?


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 18, 2011)

Intense said:


> On Sight Fuel Repossessing would be a big plus, it would actually eliminate the dangers in transport and stockpiling wasted fuel rods. I would want to see modern plants built in more remote areas, away from known earthquake, flood, tornado areas. Areas where security is at an advantage, and evacuation actually doable.
> 
> We should not be blocking Natural Gas Plants, nor Hydro, both technologies are much more highly advanced than the past. There are Multiple advantages here. They also don't all shut down at once, because of a glitch in the system, leaving everyone screwed for weeks, like the nuke plants do. We need a stronger infrastructure, not a handicapped one.



I posted a link that shows France shipping it's waste to Russia for reprocessing.  Thing is, there will STILL be waste after the reprocessing, and there are NO plans I know of to build facilities that would begin to reprocess the DECADES of accumulated nuke waste deposited around the world.  And there are NO plans to shut down and decontaminate the current plants that are LONG past there designed operating capacity.

There was a process presented that would SAFELY DECONTAMINATE nuclear waste and their by-products, but Wall St. speculation killed it years ago.  I'll get the name of the process and post it...the story may no longer be available on the web, but I'll try.

A note on natural gas:  do some research as to why the USA won't pay Mexico a decent price for their hefty natural gas supplies.

And a "glitch" in nuke plants can result in more than just a small wire fire.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 18, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > learn to stop being a whiny little Windbag bitch, because You could read EVERYTHING I posted and responded to.  Bottom line: an intellectually bankrupt Windbag can't logically or factually refute what I post, so he blows smoke.
> ...



And as you can see folks, once properly challenged with facts and a logical, rational discourse, our Quantum Windbag just lives up to his screen name.   Someone clue in the dumb bastard Windbag that Wiki-pedia is NOT a reliable source material.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 19, 2011)

And for those who STILL have their heads either in the sand or up Limbaugh's/Hannity's ass and think that Japan's problem has no possible equivalent here:


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

It&#39;s too risky to keep Indian Point nuclear power plant open: Gov. Cuomo


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Not quite....check this out:


Health effects of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination

And then there's this:

_*The Radiation Effects Research Foundation looked at thyroid conditions, known to be linked to radiation exposure.

The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


THE BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
6 August 1945 - US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima
9 August - Nagasaki is bombed
Around 214,000 people were killed in the bombings
Japan surrendered to the Allies on 14 August 1945

People who have been exposed to radiation are known to be at an increased risk of malignant and benign thyroid nodules, but few studies have followed them for long periods.

Studies of children, including those exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl disaster, have shown the younger a person is the higher the risk of thyroid conditions.

Between 2000 and 2003, the Japanese researchers looked at the incidence of thyroid diseases among 3,185 people, with an average age of 70, who had been in the cities when the bombs hit.

The team also looked at people's level of exposure to radiation - which was possible because all those studied had been followed throughout their lives.

Young 'at greater risk'

Just under 45% - 1,833 - of those studied had malignant tumours, nodules [lumps on the thyroid] and cysts.


This is a unique survey that provides an important insight
Professor Sarah Darby, Cancer Research UK

Those who were aged under 20 when the atomic bombs dropped had a higher risk of disease than those who had been older.

The researchers, led by Dr Misa Imaizumi, wrote in JAMA: "The present study revealed that, 55 to 58 years after radiation exposure, a significant relationship existed in the prevalence of not only malignant thyroid tumours but also benign thyroid nodules and that the relationship was significantly higher in those exposed at younger ages.

"Thus, the effect of radiation on the thyroid nodules may exist long after radiation exposure in atomic bomb survivors."

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias."* _


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > skeptic said:
> ...



You should have read it more carefully:

_

The fast breeder reactor is only the second stage of a long-term project. There are no defined time lines as lot of technology development, research and demonstration activities need to be completed before commercial deployment of thorium reactors for power, Thakur told me in an email. I think it is decades away. First, he explains, we need to have a significant capacity of the fast breeder reactors where thorium could be used as a blanket. (For a good overview on what this means, read this article on thorium reactor physics at the World Nuclear Association.)





"...Ultimately, we can argue all we want, but the proof will come in the most basic possible formsomeone submitting a credible design to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission or some analogous body. So far, that hasnt happened. NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell told Spectrum that there isn't anything on our radar for a thorium-based reactor at this point. "_


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 30, 2011)

BolshevikHunter said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



WTF is this Bolshevik fool babbling about?


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...






Everything you posted reinforces what I said about ionizing radiation.  The section you cut and pasted had this little missive at the end.....

Sarah Darby, professor of medical statistics at Cancer Research UK, said: "This is a unique survey that provides an important insight into the relationship between ionizing radiation and the risk of thyroid cysts and nodules, including cancer.

"These conditions are rarely fatal, and some people with a thyroid cyst or nodule do not experience any symptoms.

"Therefore, it is difficult to collect information on the relationship between radiation exposure and the subsequent risk of thyroid disease that is free from any bias." 

Which means that if you survive the initial burst of ionizing radiation you have little to fear.  There was no measurable difference between those exposed and those unexposed.
That is all that matters.  Ionizing radiation will cause you to be terribly ill for a while.  If you recieved a really bad dose you have hours, if you recieved a moderate dose you will survive but there is a real good chance of developing blood cancers and other cancers, especially those of the thyroid (because of the iodine 131).  Those will kill you within a few years.  If you recieved a light dose you have little to fear unless you are unlucky.  In other words, those with light doses of radiation (even ionizing) run the same risks as those of the general population to develop cancers.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 30, 2011)

westwall said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Ms. Darby's conclusion tries to equalize an unnatural introduction of radioactive materials  with "natural" exposure over a period of time.  I don't quite get what she deems "unlucky"...but as the other material I showed gives an example of a lot of "unlucky" people who didn't quite fall into Ms. Darby's slot.


----------



## westwall (Mar 30, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...






None of what you posted negates what I have laid out above.  Ionizing radiation is the killer.  The only way you can get any sort of health issues from Strontium or Cesium is if you ingest them.  Then you get to die.  On the other hand if you take simple precautions those radioactive isotopes can't hurt you.  They primarily emit alpha and beta particles that can be stopped by a sheet of paper.  You can wash off the radiation with no deleterious effects.

Do you want to sleep in a area contaminated with them?  No, of course not...that would be classified as stupid now wouldn't it.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 31, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > While water does not have the romance of oil or natural gas, and does not get the defense, because it is provided by municipalities, rather than for profit companies.
> ...



Viable Drinking water is not as plentiful as you think.  And contaminating the oceans can lead to limitations on the sea life that we've come to depend on to meet our dietary requirements.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 31, 2011)

westwall said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You keep propping up these perfect scenarios.  Unfortunately what is happening in the real world doesn't always fit one's expectations.  Ground water and soil contamination affects the entire eco-system, and the food chain eventual gets to YOU.  The cumulative effect...especially if certain types of radioactive contaminants are released and quickly rained into the ground/lake/river/ocean.

The primary defense mode of the nuke power industry is that if people are not immediately maimed, poisoned or killed by a plant accident, then it's all negligible and can be handled.  THAT fallacy is based upon denial of spikes in cancers and birth defects within in the radius of the accident during the coming years as being related.  I've always asked the question that would folk repeat the ideology that you do here were suddenly faced with cancer after being in the vicinity of a plant cited for leaks, emissions or an accident.  To date, I haven't gotten a straight answer.


----------

