View Single Post
  #161   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
[email protected] trader4@optonline.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default Safety of Nuke Power

On Mar 1, 10:49Â*am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:31Â*am, " wrote:





On Mar 1, 10:10�am, wrote:


On Mar 1, 9:41�am, " wrote:


And of course the final hypocrisy in all this is that the same
environmentalists that block everything, are also the ones telling us
how the very existence of mankind is at stake due to global warming.
Yet, they block not only nuclear, which emits close to zero green
house gases and is one huge thing we could be quickly using to reduce
dependence on fossil fuels, but also virtually everything else.


well the final waste product of nuclear plants will kill you for
thousands of years....... or so yucca mountain is supposed to store
them for.


Typical. �Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns
about global warming that could be right. � That the warming of Earth
is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change
that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years.
This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists,
experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real
risk.


Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online
quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse
emissions. � But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste
stored at Yucca might kill someone? � Makes a lot of sense. �BTW,
there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage
all over the country. � Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons
programs dating back 60 years. � All that has to be stored
somewhere. � The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point
to even debate. � But one thing is not debatable. � And that is those
that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left
this waste sitting all over the country.


knowing people in nuclear power plant building, note i live in
pittsburgh no new plants have been licensed in the US although some
are coming close, then the public will express their opinion


The public is expressing their opinion. � It's just like yours, based
on fear, instead of rational facts. � What I'd like to hear is exactly
what your riskless energy solution is. � And it would be nice if it
also addressed some of your other populist worries. � Like reducing
the trade deficit. � Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. � Not
spiraling up energy prices, etc. � Nuclear is a positive contributor
to all that.


the pebble idea sounds great, and i hope its safe.


but remember we were told the existing plants were perfectly safe, and
would produce power so cheap meters would be unnecessary.


Hmm, who told you that? � �I never recall any such claim. � The first
plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. � They may have
been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they
would be free.


ultimately


neither were true, TMI came way too close to poisioning a populated
area.


Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC
and killed 3000 people. � Should we close the airports and stop
building them too? � From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.


bring on the nukes, watch the public howl, and build them in china. I
predict licenses wouldnt be approved here because public opinion will
demand no nukes


Unfortunately, you may be right. � It's interesting you keep trying to
push off nukes to other countries. � First Mexico, now China. �As if
they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to
accept nuclear power. � � What do you say about France? �Aren't they
environmentally and safety conscious? � �They get about 70% of their
electric power from nukes in France. � Or Japan, which has 55 nukes
that provide 1/3 of their power? � �As I recall, Japan has more reason
than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear
power. � Yet, they have no problem with it.


my point is have other countries find the glitches in the pebble
system. all new things have unforseen troubles
yes at the time the very first nuke plants were being built we were
told they were safe, triple redundant, and no electric meters would be
needed.


go search back old science magazines, and others posted it. its not
made up


and since you bring up aircraft, we both should know that contaiment
buildings werent designed for a hit by a fully fueled airliner, the
largest werent designed yet at the time the current reactors were
built.......


life is full of risks, everything is risk vs rewards.


now the risk of poisioning a large part of our country
permanetely..... essentially forever, while raising cancer risk nation
and likely world wide?


just what reward is worth that?


your interst is making money selling new plants which will increase
the stock and probably your retirement account.


congrats that reward doesnt help most here- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


Â*meterless electricity: Â*Yep, you are correct, it was published in
the popular science type mags of the time. Â*Why would lyou have
believed such obvious 'pie in the sky' dreaming?



I have to concede, if you take fanciful magazine articles of what
MIGHT be possible in the future, then H probably did read stories that
about meterless electricity. When he first made the claim that this
was promised, I took it to mean that it was being promised by power
companies actually building the plants. Or companies supplying the
nuclear reactors, etc. As you say, I don't see how you take a
speculative magazine article as a promise.

While at the time I don't recall meterless electricity stories, there
sure were plenty of other pie in the sky forecasts, like using nuclear
reactors in the home for heating. But why anyone would consider them
reliable promises is beyond me.





I suppose you also believe that the 'wonderful air car' that keeps
cropping up in the same type publications is also true and it will go
for miles and miles and miles on a charge of compressed air and that
it will be built all over the world. Â*That claim is still surfacing
and it first appeared about 12 or more years ago. Â*Thus far not one
consumer car has hit the street.

How about the 'we will be able to drop a pill in the gas tank' bit
that was also "predicted" at the same time?

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -