Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
wrote:

to sell movie tickets. I bet if you looked you would find out more
people have died falling off of wind turbines than died in US reactor
accidents. There certainly have been many thousand times the number
who have died in coal and oil related accidents.

Heck, as the bumper sticker said, more people have died in Teddy
Kennedy's car than from nuclear accidents. Sometimes I think Teddy poses
the greater danger to the country (g).

He and his ilk;the greatest danger to the US.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. France is
also considered a very 'green' nation.




Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
wrote:

to sell movie tickets. I bet if you looked you would find out more
people have died falling off of wind turbines than died in US reactor
accidents. There certainly have been many thousand times the number
who have died in coal and oil related accidents.
Heck, as the bumper sticker said, more people have died in Teddy
Kennedy's car than from nuclear accidents. Sometimes I think Teddy poses
the greater danger to the country (g).

He and his ilk;the greatest danger to the US.

Paul Oman wrote:


France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. France is also
considered a very 'green' nation.
....

Latest data I was able to find the last time the subject came up was
IAEA for 2004 where they were still nearly 80%. I don't think their
percentage has change that much since...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...n/gensum2.html

And of course, they as well as all of of the rest of the civilian power
industry, recycle instead of being stuck in our self-imposed absurd mire...

--

wrote in message
...
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/GhostTown...icknavmenu.htm

heres a page of links, to pictures of the russian dead zone. some
areas are so hot even after all these years you can die.

so take a look around and ask yourselves, is the risk worth it?

what if this happened in our country?

I have one in my "back yard" and there are very close to being approved for
the first new reactor in years. I really hope it goes through...

Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
....

I have one in my "back yard" and there are very close to being approved
for the first new reactor in years. ...

You talking about the recent TVA/NuStart application for the Bellefonte
site? While the application has been filed, it's probably at least four
years before any approvals will wend their way through the licensing
maze. It will, of course, be the acid test for the "streamlined" process...

--

dpb wrote:
Dr. Hardcrab wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Three Mile ISland...

I still consider that a near miss:
...

Actually, in the end it was a very good test and demonstration of the
adequacy of the system design to handle a LOCA (albeit an operator-error
induced one, but a LOCA nonetheless).

Probably ought to clarify that a bit--the LOCA (loss of coolant
accident) part wasn't actually an operator error; it occurred when the
PORVs (pilot-operated relief valves) did not automatically reseat after
they opened.

The problem occurred on the operator response to the incident wherein
they interceded w/ the HPI (High pressure injection) systems and later
the RCPs (reactor coolant pumps) on the basis of their misinterpretation
of the pressurizer level instrumentation indication and the fact they
did not recognize they had a leak (stuck PORV).

This came about because the PORV location was close enough to the
pressurizer outlet that the liquid-water interface became comingled
owing to the flow disturbance. This confused the level indication which
was a dP cell across the interface.

Consequently, they erroneously concluded that somehow they were in
danger of filling the pressurizer solid w/ water which is a no-no, hence
they turned off the HPI to avoid (they thought) doing that. Then, after
a while as they continued to lose cooling water, the RCPs began to
cavitate and they were turned off to prevent damage to them. At that
point they then had a core becoming uncovered and no longer had forced
circulation of what coolant they did have and things went downhill from
there.

As I noted previously, the shift which came on next recognized the
symptoms when they were going through the shift turnover meetings and
began recovery operations immediately.

As a very brief synopsis, this leaves out a lot of detail, of course,
but is a general description of what went wrong at TMI. There are a
couple of obvious things here, the most obvious of which was the
question of how, if the system were in danger of going solid, could
there have been such low coolant level as to have caused RCP cavitation?

What went right, of course, was that HPI was incorporated in the system
and once it was restarted to cover the core and the RCPS were again on
to circulate flow, the accident was on its way towards mitigation.

Of course, the sad part is that if the operators had simply left the
system alone, there would have been nothing but an operational incident
of the stuck PORV (for which there was already a pending corrective
action/notice in place) and after a short outage to repair/correct it,
the plant would have been back in operation.

--

wrote:
....
we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........

isnt that enough for you?

Well, ignoring CO2 and other emissions now, are you?

I'm fine w/ fossil-fired units as long as they're not wasting oil and
natural gas as we currently are (both of which are far too valuable to
be frittered away on central-station generation).

But, if the greenhouse gas argument has any legs at all, there's only
one real alternative, and that is nuclear. (I know, there's
solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/..., but none of those has the facility to
replace large central-station generation 24/7 at anyways near the
capacity required.)

If you think the Chernobyl pictures are a problem, look at the air
pollution problems China and India are making from their fossil-fired
generation and consider that impact as they continue to build at the
rate they are. And, while considering, consider that whatever we do in
the US isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in their
governments' policies of what is in their best short term interests.

So, if you want to make any positive impact whatsoever, you had best get
on the nuclear bandwagon--it's the only real alternative. What may
happen in another 20-50 years for C sequestration and all is hard to
guess, but my personal opinion is it is at least that long before
there's any hope of any of the currently-proposed technologies being
large-scale viable at anything close to competitive costs. Meanwhile,
we already know how to build and operate safe, cost-competitive nuclear
power plants -- all we need is to do it.

arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
proves the dead area is very large....

IF YOU"RE GOING TO KEEP CLAIMING THIS AT LEAST GO BACK AND FIND WHERE IT
WAS AND DO THE COMPLAINING TO THE PERPETRATOR.


....

no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is
no guarantee

The costs are paid by the fund the nuclear utilities contribute to --
this has been pointed out to you previously.

Yucca Mountain is no guarantee for what? It is what it is -- a
temporary storage facility until the US finally gets off its duff and
begins to reprocess fuel and make use of the vast resource we're now
just sitting on.

This again is not a technical challenge, it's a political problem
created by folks like you who have no solutions, only complaints, most
of them as ludicrous as the arguments you've tried to make here.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
...

I have one in my "back yard" and there are very close to being approved
for the first new reactor in years. ...

You talking about the recent TVA/NuStart application for the Bellefonte
site? While the application has been filed, it's probably at least four
years before any approvals will wend their way through the licensing maze.
It will, of course, be the acid test for the "streamlined" process...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073001881.html

Dr. Hardcrab wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Dr. Hardcrab wrote:
...

I have one in my "back yard" and there are very close to being
approved for the first new reactor in years. ...

You talking about the recent TVA/NuStart application for the
Bellefonte site? While the application has been filed, it's probably
at least four years before any approvals will wend their way through
the licensing maze. It will, of course, be the acid test for the
"streamlined" process...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...073001881.html

Hadn't seen that -- TVA Bellefonte was the only one I was aware of that
had actually been filed...

http://www.tva.gov/news/releases/oct...va_nustart.htm

I still wouldn't put "soon" or "very close" in front of either, though.

Hopefully the process will at least be workable this go 'round, though.

--

Hopefully the process will at least be workable this go 'round, though.


heres a question for nuke supporters, do the plants carry insurance
and are willing to pay if a accident similiar to chernobyl does occur?

one that makes permanetely uninhabitible a big chunk of our country,
and the possiblity of loss of life and sickness that would go with
such a accident?

pay everyone to move, for all lost property? expenses and health
troubles?

wrote:
Hopefully the process will at least be workable this go 'round, though.


heres a question for nuke supporters, do the plants carry insurance
and are willing to pay if a accident similiar to chernobyl does occur?
....

Yes, up to a federally mandated maximum.

But, have you yet figured out you can't have a Chernobyl (I surely wish
you'd correct the capitalization even if you can't get anything else
right) physically cannot occur w/o a Chernobyl-type reactor and even if
the reactor design were similar, the simple expedient of actually having
a containment (w/o which _NO_ reactor would ever be licensed in the US
hence making the question of one w/o containment moot for the US) would
mitigate such an event?

--

" wrote in news:53ec47bc-af2f-4449-bdcd-
:



heres a question for nuke supporters, do the plants carry insurance
and are willing to pay if a accident similiar to chernobyl does occur?

since we do not use graphite-moderated reactors for power generation in the
US,a "Chernobyl-type accident" cannot occur.

Note that the Three Mile Island accident was a good example of US nuke
safety.Very little real effect on the environment,the safety systems
worked as designed.France and Japan both generate a significant amount of
their nations electric power very safely.(using pressurized-water reactors)


one that makes permanetely uninhabitible a big chunk of our country,
and the possiblity of loss of life and sickness that would go with
such a accident?

pay everyone to move, for all lost property? expenses and health
troubles?




Have you researched "pebble bed reactors" yet?
They self-moderate,inherently safe.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

on 2/28/2008 11:18 PM Jim Yanik said the following:
" wrote in news:53ec47bc-af2f-4449-bdcd-
:



heres a question for nuke supporters, do the plants carry insurance
and are willing to pay if a accident similiar to chernobyl does occur?


since we do not use graphite-moderated reactors for power generation in the
US,a "Chernobyl-type accident" cannot occur.

Note that the Three Mile Island accident was a good example of US nuke
safety.Very little real effect on the environment,the safety systems
worked as designed.France and Japan both generate a significant amount of
their nations electric power very safely.(using pressurized-water reactors)


one that makes permanetely uninhabitible a big chunk of our country,
and the possiblity of loss of life and sickness that would go with
such a accident?

pay everyone to move, for all lost property? expenses and health
troubles?





Have you researched "pebble bed reactors" yet?
They self-moderate,inherently safe.



Doesn't matter. As long as the words 'nuclear', or 'reactor' is
associated with the plant, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe we
should just call them Fission Energy Generators. The Anties won't know
what that means. They'll probably think it is energy generated from
fishes. :-)

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I wonder how practical that is, versus the incredible expense?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


wrote in message
...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.

all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.

to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like
that.

people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age

Elevators in our condo were update last year with a feature that uses
gravity to automatically return them to the bottom floor if the power fails.
No emergency power required.

maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke
power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from
most people centers.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

it would provide jobs for mexicans, lessening their desire to
immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold
transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although
still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............

On Feb 29, 8:00*am, " wrote:
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke
power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from
most people centers.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

You know, I've wondered about that for a long time too. It would
seem that it would be a great business idea for some investors. With
Mexico's govt culture of corruption, it should be easy to get
approvals and start building with a hell of a lot less opposition and
regulation that you get here. For Mexico, the govt gets $$$, the
politicians get $$$, the locals get lots of jobs during construction,
etc.

For the US, we get power, but no jobs and add to the trade deficit.
And then, if they put the nukes near Tijuana, you get a bunch of them
that you have no regulatory control over how safely they are built and
run and if it someday has the accident you're so worried about, San
Diego is right next door. Sounds like the best for everyone!





it would provide jobs for mexicans, lessening their desire to
immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold
transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although
still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............

BTW, it's a swell idea you have to suggest putting something you
consider so potentially lethal in Mexico, where they get take the
risk. May I suggest that it suggests you have some deep rooted
issues that are surfacing?

" wrote in news:3882fc40-e4b8-4beb-b226-
:

maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

Why,when there's never been any real problem with US nuke plants?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke
power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from
most people centers.

How far would make you *feel better*?
("reasonably content";define "reasonable")


hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

and yet you worry about nuke security at US plants.....

it would provide jobs for mexicans,

Its not the US job or responsibility to provide jobs for Mexicans.
Let MEXICO worry about Mexicans.

lessening their desire to
immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold
transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although
still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............


With all the reactors operating in all the countries of the world,and only
ONE bad accident in RUSSIA,and you worry about uncontained disasters;
that sounds like an *unreasonable* fear to me.

Have you researched "pebble-bed" reactors yet? Inherently safe.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

The Streets wrote:

all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.

to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff
like that.

people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age

Elevators in our condo were update last year with a feature that uses
gravity to automatically return them to the bottom floor if the power
fails. No emergency power required.

Yeah, but how fast does it go down?

wrote:
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke
power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from
most people centers.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

it would provide jobs for mexicans, lessening their desire to
immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold
transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although
still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............

Good idea.

We could put one in an uninhabited area, say Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and no
one would complain.

On Feb 29, 8:42�am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke
power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from
most people centers.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

it would provide jobs for mexicans, lessening their desire to
immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold
transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although
still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............

Good idea.

We could put one in an uninhabited area, say Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and no
one would complain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nevada has decided it shouldnt be the countries nuke graveyard,
despite its past.

heres a good question.

if a nuke plant has a accident today, just what is its federally
mandated max insurance cap? i got news for you its trivial, and a
excuusion on everyones homeowners policy too.

essentially you lost so sorry................

those effected would be forced to move with no compensation, no homes
no anything. our government would be forced to help somehow. given how
many might be effected katrina victims would of been considered lucky

while the pro nuke advocates talk of safety, they ignore federal
investigations of safety troubles and bad wiring that could of caused
a disaster.

the nuke power industry like everyone else wants to cut costs, and
have created their own public relations nightmare.

oh and do note i suggested nuke plants in mexico far from our country.
southern mexico would be ideal.

In article
,
" wrote:

maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

Even the most conservative regulator would not approve a NEW site NEAR any
significant population.

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content.

Not a chance, hal.

Based on your words of late, I suspect you are of the same mindset as those
that subscribe to the [any nuke is a BAD nuke] prejudice.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

Oh, gawd. There's nothing quite like an ethnic distraction from a legitimate
debate. Way to go...
--
sigh
JR

On Feb 29, 9:31�am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

Even the most conservative regulator would not approve a NEW site NEAR any
significant population.

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content.

Not a chance, hal.

Based on your words of late, I suspect you are of the same mindset as those
that subscribe to the [any nuke is a BAD nuke] prejudice.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

Oh, gawd. �There's nothing quite like an ethnic distraction from a legitimate
debate. �Way to go...
--
� � � � � � � �sigh
JR

not a distraction a honest suggestion.

we the people need to rise up demonstrarte, complain to congress to
stop the building of new reactors in the us..........

let other countries find the troubles.........

note you failed to address my comments about bad wiring

wrote:
....

note you failed to address my comments about bad wiring

They've all been built since K&T went out of style, Haller.

PLONK.

--

Jim Yanik wrote:
....
Note that the Three Mile Island accident was a good example of US nuke
safety.Very little real effect on the environment,the safety systems
worked as designed. ...

In fact, if the operators had just sat back and done essentially nothing
instead of intervening, there would have been no "TMI" anybody would
remember. Only a short outage similar to that in FL the other day...

....

Have you researched "pebble bed reactors" yet?

"haller" and "research" in the same sentence? There's an oxymoron for
ya!

--

" wrote in news:35f1ecaf-da87-4a26-8702-
:

while the pro nuke advocates talk of safety, they ignore federal
investigations of safety troubles and bad wiring that could of caused
a disaster.

but haven't.


the nuke power industry like everyone else wants to cut costs, and
have created their own public relations nightmare.

oh and do note i suggested nuke plants in mexico far from our country.
southern mexico would be ideal.





NIMBY.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 29, 9:34Â*am, " wrote:
On Feb 29, 9:31�am, Jim Redelfs wrote:





In article
,

" wrote:
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

Even the most conservative regulator would not approve a NEW site NEAR any
significant population.

this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content.

Not a chance, hal.

Based on your words of late, I suspect you are of the same mindset as those
that subscribe to the [any nuke is a BAD nuke] prejudice.

hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?

Oh, gawd. �There's nothing quite like an ethnic distraction from a legitimate
debate. �Way to go...
--
� � � � � � � �sigh
JR

not a distraction a honest suggestion.

we the people need to rise up demonstrarte, complain to congress to
stop the building of new reactors in the us..........

It's quite interesting that you don't see your proposal to place nukes
in Mexico for what it is.. You consider them lethal accidents
waiting to happen and don't want them here. Yet, you have no
problem suggesting that they be built in Mexico.

I'm not a big fan of playing the race card, but in this case, I'd sure
like to hear what makes Mexican lives worth less than American ones.

Oh, just for the record, I live about 25 miles from the oldest nuke in
the US and I sleep well every night.





let other countries find the troubles.........

note you failed to address my comments about bad wiring- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
while the pro nuke advocates talk of safety, they ignore federal
investigations of safety troubles and bad wiring that could of caused
a disaster.

Reference please?

--

On Feb 29, 12:36�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:
while the pro nuke advocates talk of safety, they ignore federal
investigations of safety troubles and bad wiring that could of caused
a disaster.

Reference please?

--

it was very newsworthy perhaps 5 years ago. many reactors had miles of
bad wiring.

as to my suggestion of mexico.

my real point is the indusry can try to make the public accept them
but i doubt it will fly.

people dont want cell phone towers in their neighborhood, but a nuke
plant 50 miles away will be much worse...........

wrote:
....

it was very newsworthy perhaps 5 years ago. many reactors had miles of
bad wiring.
....

If you can't substantiate something specific to discuss, then don't
bring it up. I have given you factual data for every one of your
fantasies and can provide further detail on any point you wish to
challenge. You simply make up or reiterate one piece of rhetoric after
another and never finish a single subject.

As for the US putting reactors in southern Mexico, that's simply
ludicrous, the least of which being the "not in my back yard" syndrome.

As for cell towers, same problem -- all the yuppies want the stuff but
somehow expect it to be magically supplied for them.

--

In article
,
" wrote:

maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?
Yep. Downtown NY is just filthy with them and they are building new
ones almost hourly. This is SO... ludicrous.

On Feb 29, 3:53�pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from
population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?

this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than
downtown new york?

� �Yep. Downtown NY is just filthy with them and they are building new
ones almost hourly. This is SO... ludicrous.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

most existing nuke plants are close to population centers, i live
within 50 miles of shippingport power station. i repair machines in
area, awhile ago they distribuited iodine to the residents in case of
a accident

"The Streets" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I wonder how practical that is, versus the incredible expense?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


wrote in message
...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.

all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.

to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like
that.

people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age

Elevators in our condo were update last year with a feature that uses
gravity to automatically return them to the bottom floor if the power
fails.
No emergency power required.

Hmmm. I thought most buildings already had that -- at least for basic
systems like exit and power-failure lights. One of the lessons learned in
the first Wold Trade Center bombing was that a central emergency system
generator, if destroyed -- which it was, can't do any good when the power
failures. The WTC replaced stairway lights with local battery-power units
which did work on 9/11.

I see battery-powered egress lights in restaurants, churches, stores, etc.
now. Something for elevators sounds a bit more expensive especially for
tall buildings, but even a system that returns the elevator cab to the main
floor could be powered by something like a car battery for the bit of power
and limited time required.

TKM

Something for elevators sounds a bit more expensive especially for
tall buildings, but even a system that returns the elevator cab to the main
floor could be powered by something like a car battery for the bit of power
and limited time required.


yeah thats all thats needed........

just enough to get all elevators down and doors open.

so firefighters can do other more important things

In article
,
" wrote:


katrina victims would of been considered lucky

Aw, more Katrina "victims" crapola.

They knowingly occupied costal property BELOW sea level, were given ample
warning to evacuate and they stayed put.

The bulk of them got what they deserved. The bulk of them got MORE than they
deserved: Our money.

I'll cheerfully accept the personal risks associated with nuclear power. It
beats the heck out of strip-mining.
--

JR

In article
,
" wrote:

not a distraction a honest suggestion.

In that case, let me chastise you for an overtly racist suggestion, ignoring
the countless, other reasons it was a LOUSY, if honest, suggestion.

we the people need to rise up demonstrarte, complain to congress to
stop the building of new reactors in the us..........

Au, contraire, my blind "friend". I will rise up and demonstrate only to
COUNTER to such an effort.

note you failed to address my comments about bad wiring

Yours is the first I've heard of that. I diligently "watch" our "nearby" Fort
Calhoun station: No such issue.

Still, I'll ask my son-in-law about it. He is an engineer at the Excelon
station nearby the Quad Cities. I expect he'll smile and debunk the issue as
he does virtually all the other head-in-the-sand, hang-wringing, baseless
charges against the industry. Stay tuned.
--

JR

In article , dpb wrote:

They've all been built since K&T went out of style

Hey! Knob and tube is GOOD wiring!
--

JR

In article , dpb wrote:

"haller" and "research" in the same sentence? There's an oxymoron for
ya!

What's weird, though, is that, prior to this stupid thread, I always thought
his stuff was worth reading. I guess that, if you keep scratching LONG
enough...
--
sigh
JR

In article
,
" wrote:

most existing nuke plants are close to population centers

As they should be to minimize transmission losses.

i live within 50 miles of shippingport power station.

You probably enjoy reasonably-priced, if not CHEAP, electric power.

awhile ago they distribuited iodine to the residents in case of
a accident

That's to treat the abrasions and lacerations incurred from slamming shut
windows and doors in the event of a TMI-type incident and the wind is blowing
in their direction.

We spent more wisely he They installed a network of special alert sirens
to give us time to get to the drug store to BUY iodine.

Me? I simply wear a lead-lined suit all the time. It gets pretty
uncomfortable in the summer but, at least I'm safe.

Unbelievable...
--

JR

i live within 50 miles of shippingport power station.

You probably enjoy reasonably-priced, if not CHEAP, electric power.


not true at all, pittsburgh had some of the highest electric rates in
the nation, untill a few years ago, duquesne light sold off power
generation, rates dropped, now they are headed up agan big
time.........

around here nuke didnt equal low cost.

as a matter of fact stranded costs were a big issue, and why
generation was sold off

no matter what you claim selling nuke, espically new nuke, and the
transmission lines that go with it, is going to be a tough to
impossible sell.

my katrina comments are based we are nearly all uninsured if a reactor
poisions a region.

claims will hit the fedreal cap, and that will be that. the power
companies nor the feds have the bucks to compensate folks for a
chernobyl sized disaster