On 2011-03-15, Pete C. wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Sunworshipper wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:34:38 -0400, "Steve W."


http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/

Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....

Read that first thing this morning. How thick is the graphite,
metal,
and concrete. 4,000 degree F.+ melt for how long? Has it been done
before? Still, that sounds like Air Force and airline pilots
wouldn't
make it till retirement. That is if a couple of beers is like tail
gating out at the plant.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Or at least, if you
did,
you obviously didn't grasp the facts.

Yeah, nuclear power has risks - so do solar panels and wind turbines
and cars. Cars kill 50,000 people every year - should we ban them
too?

There is a big difference Rich.
Automobiles are low risk / small consequence propositions. No car
accident
will ever pose a threat to an economy.
Nuclear generating facilities are tiny risk / HUGE consequence
operations.
Even a single catastrophe can have large and long lasting impact.

Commercial nuclear power has never had a single mass casualty event in
it's decades of operation.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter6.html

"How many people died of radiation? No one knows - not even
approximately.
The official casualty reports range from 300 to 300,000 and many
unofficial
sources put the toll over 400,000.

The final toll will not be known in our lifetime, and maybe not our
childrens either. "

It has not even had a small scale civilian
casualty event. Opposition to nuclear power is based on ignorance and
paranoia, not any science or rational thought.

Again, commercial nuclear power generation has never had a single mass
casualty event in it's decades of operation. Chernobyl *was not* a
commercial power reactor.

Whether it was commercial or not has almost zero statistical significance.

It has tremendous statistical significance. Chernobyl had a poor reactor
design that was never used in any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl
had a non-existant containment design that was never used in any
commercial power reactor. Chernobyl was poorly maintained, far below the
maintenance level of any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl only failed
when some idiots were allowed to play with the reactor, something that
does not happen at any commercial power reactor. Chernobyl has no
relation to commercial power reactors.

It has some relation, but I agree.