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 -

On Mar 1, 12:49Â*pm, wrote:
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. Â*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. Â*Or companies supplying the
nuclear reactors, etc. Â* 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. Â* 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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yep even nuclear cars, imagine the risks of that,

never the less these were how nuke was sold to the public who at the
time looked at nuke only as a weapon.....

the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime

wrote:
....

the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime

Virtually none of it was "industry's" doing.

One of the charges in the legislation establishing the original AEC
(precursor of NRC) was the promotion of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. It was a national policy objective pretty much generally
accepted at the time.

Most of the farfetched notions were, however, dreamed up by the kinds of
folks mentioned above -- the writers and editors for popular "science"
and technology rags of the time. Some of these did get occasional
exposure in the more mainstream publications, unfortunately.

Now, of course, the movement of which haller is a prime example dredge
up every source they can possibly find to raise as a red herring and
example of "lying" or other malfeasance by presenting science fiction or
outlandish conjecture as fact.

It's the same thing as the other article he just posted -- not a single
actual factual argument--merely a stringing together of one half-truth
or innuendo or in some cases outright fraud as if it proved a
preconceived conclusion conclusively. Of course, there's no way one can
actually have a rational discussion w/ any of these folks -- as haller
shows, they simply dodge from one assertion to another, never have to
build a defensible scientific or engineering analysis that a
hypothetical situation could even be possible, assert "coulda's" or "may
haves" willy-nilly as fact and even worse. When called on any
particular item, they simply ignore the point and go to the next
strawman on the list. After a while, they then go back to somewhere
earlier in the list and repeat.

If it weren't for the fact they are doing great harm to the development
of a rational energy policy as well as postponing doing something useful
for environmental abatement of combustion gases and emissions, not to
mention causing an even more rapid depletion of our oil and gas
reserves, it would, as noted before, almost be funny to watch.

--

In article , dpb wrote:

It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that
except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any
increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.

--

From a purely epidemiological standpoint, it really shouldn't be all
that difficult to find clusters of excess cancers, and there are forms
of cancer that are more highly correlated with exposure to nuclear
materials. It would be correlational, but then much of public health
is.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that
except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any
increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.

--

From a purely epidemiological standpoint, it really shouldn't be all
that difficult to find clusters of excess cancers, and there are forms
of cancer that are more highly correlated with exposure to nuclear
materials. It would be correlational, but then much of public health
is.

That assumes there _are_ such clusters...the dispersion was so wide,
it's highly unlikely to be concentrated enough to show up imo.

--

clifto wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote:
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.

As long as there's a steady supply of stupid people for reactor sites
to hire, there's no safety in nuclear power.


you watch too much "Simpsons" TV.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

as to hiroshima they were really low yield weapons detonated at higher
altitude, which caused more damage but created less radioactive
debris. no doubt this helped in rebuilding.

plus the types of radiation from a nuke plant was different from
hiroshima.

long lived highly enriched nastys in reactors are highly dangerous.

In article , dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that
except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any
increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.

--

From a purely epidemiological standpoint, it really shouldn't be all
that difficult to find clusters of excess cancers, and there are forms
of cancer that are more highly correlated with exposure to nuclear
materials. It would be correlational, but then much of public health
is.

That assumes there _are_ such clusters...the dispersion was so wide,
it's highly unlikely to be concentrated enough to show up imo.

--

That should be even easier, then. Any related cancers suddenly
spike after Chernobyl world wide? Any upswings over time, since
radiation-induced cancers are very dose dependent. There either was an
important change in cancers after Chernobyl or there wasn't. If there
are no clusters and no spike, then it would be hard to argue (at least
from an epi standpoint) that Chernobyl had any impact.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:

It is, however, a statistical correlation at best and my guess is that
except for the near downstream track it will be impossible to detect any
increase owing specifically to Chernobyl.

--
From a purely epidemiological standpoint, it really shouldn't be all
that difficult to find clusters of excess cancers, and there are forms
of cancer that are more highly correlated with exposure to nuclear
materials. It would be correlational, but then much of public health
is.
That assumes there _are_ such clusters...the dispersion was so wide,
it's highly unlikely to be concentrated enough to show up imo.

--

That should be even easier, then. Any related cancers suddenly
spike after Chernobyl world wide? Any upswings over time, since
radiation-induced cancers are very dose dependent. There either was an
important change in cancers after Chernobyl or there wasn't. If there
are no clusters and no spike, then it would be hard to argue (at least
from an epi standpoint) that Chernobyl had any impact.

Precisely, and imo, if any studies had shown even a hint, haller and his
ilk would be on them like a hen on a June bug, even if they weren't
statstically significant but only showed a point estimate possibility.
Of course, the "suddenly" is a problem w/ low-dosage events and that
makes the correlation of causation even more tenuous.

That they're not implies to me w/o even looking that all work (of which
I'm sure there's a lot because plans were in effect to begin such
follow-on studies while I was still in Oak Ridge participating in
engineering solutions studies/analyses for the site within the year
after the incident).



--

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime

Virtually none of it was "industry's" doing.
....

One other point I intended to make before I kill watching the thread as
having reached its inevitable conclusion of going 'round 'n 'round...

The "industry" has been, if nothing else, remarkably _unsuccessful_ in
their attempts at "propaganda" or "public relations". This was owing to
the thought that simply presenting good, solid engineering and
scientific evidence would carry the argument against bluster and
fear-mongering. As this thread illustrates, it doesn't do much except
leave a track record against the misinformation.

In a former life, when being in a position where I was one of the point
persons to talk on nuclear power and all, the inevitable discussions of
this type almost always came up.

The most useful piece of advice I ever got was from the behavioral
science guy who provided a lecture on how to deal with various types of
audience interaction. He pointed out these individuals are like the
small child who has learned that by sheer persistence it can get its own
way in a large percentage of cases because the parent will finally give
in simply to get a moment of peace. The only way to stop such behavior
is to _NOT_ let them wear you down--extremely tiresome, wasteful of
resources, etc., but its the only course of action that will in the end
be productive.

Sad, but how true.

Finis...

--

On Mar 1, 2:33�pm, dpb wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime

Virtually none of it was "industry's" doing.

...

One other point I intended to make before I kill watching the thread as
having reached its inevitable conclusion of going 'round 'n 'round...

The "industry" has been, if nothing else, remarkably _unsuccessful_ in
their attempts at "propaganda" or "public relations". �This was owing to
the thought that simply presenting good, solid engineering and
scientific evidence would carry the argument against bluster and
fear-mongering. �As this thread illustrates, it doesn't do much except
leave a track record against the misinformation.

In a former life, when being in a position where I was one of the point
persons to talk on nuclear power and all, the inevitable discussions of
this type almost always came up.

The most useful piece of advice I ever got was from the behavioral
science guy who provided a lecture on how to deal with various types of
audience interaction. �He pointed out these individuals are like the
small child who has learned that by sheer persistence it can get its own
way in a large percentage of cases because the parent will finally give
in simply to get a moment of peace. �The only way to stop such behavior
is to _NOT_ let them wear you down--extremely tiresome, wasteful of
resources, etc., but its the only course of action that will in the end
be productive.

Sad, but how true.

Finis...

--

so you gave up???????

thats interesting.

so you admit you were in the business of selling reactors presence to
the general public?

i see you had zip success since 3 mile island.

On Mar 1, 12:46*pm, " wrote:
*Discuss this story *Print This Post *E-Mail This Article
* Published on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 by CommonDreams.org


Now that we see where you get your news from and consider credible as
a source, it explains a lot.




Why Must Nuke-Power Lemmings Again Flock to the Radioactive Sea?
by Harvey Wasserman
It's baaaaaack. The fifty-year multi-trillion dollar failure of atomic
energy has resumed its lemming-like march to madness.

Why?

Isn't the definition of insanity the belief that if you do the same
thing again and again you'll somehow get a different result?

The first commercial reactor opened in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in
1957. America was promised electricity "too cheap to meter."

That was a lie.

OK, let's take a look at this claim, now that we know where you got
it. A quick google search turns up that the claim this alleged
"promise" is based on one line from a speech made to a group of
scientific writers by the head of the Atomic Energy Commission in
1954, as reported by the NY Times. This link will put it all into
perspective for you.

http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html

In the speech he gave, he said:

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to
meter," he declared. ... "It is not too much to expect that our
children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world
only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and
under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great
speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as
disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."


If you take that in context, it's far from clear that he was even
speaking specifically about nuclear power, unless you believe he also
meant nuclear power was going to extend human lifespan, end famine and
make air travel effortless.

Take a look at all the other contemporary speeches made in that time-
frame, that made it clear that no one seriously thought nuclear power
was anywhere close to being free.

But this does show how loons seek to take ANYTHING out of context and
blow it all out of proportion to reality to support their cause.




America was promised there'd soon be consensus on a safe way to
dispose of high-level radioactive waste.

That was a lie.

America was promised private insurance companies would soon indemnify
reactor owners--and the public--against the consequences of a
catastrophic meltdown.

That was a lie.

America was promised these reactors were "inherently safe."

Then America was told no fuel had melted at Three Mile Island.

Lie and lie.

Then they said nobody was killed at Three Mile Island

Another lie.


What is actually the lie is that someone was killed. Maybe H here
can explain exactly who it was.




They said it took six years for acid to eat through to a fraction of
an inch of the steel protecting the Great Lakes from a Chernobyl at
Davis-Besse, Ohio. That's a lie too.

Now they say they say nukes are economically self-sustaining.

Only because they are, as has been proven for 40 years around the
world.




But de-regulation stuck the public with the capital costs, and hid the
true amortization for the long-term expenses of rad waste disposal,
plant decommissioning, on-going health impacts and likely melt-downs
by terror and error.

And now through the socialist rant against "de-regulation" into the
mix too. As if anyone can build a nuke today that is not highly
regulated? Good grief.




Now they say nukes can fight global warming. But they ignore huge
radon emissions from uranium mill tailings,

The loons actually think radon causes global warming?




huge CO2 emissions from
fuel enrichment, and huge direct heat that results from nuke fission
itself,

Here's a clue. Whether we generate large volumes of electric power
from oil, natural gas, coal or farts, the process involves the same
generation of heat. Why don't the loons tell us the right way to do
it? Could it be that's it's easier to just rail against everything,
without being in favor of any solution?


not to mention the long-term energy costs of decommissioning
and waste handling.

The industry will pay for it.




All reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass radioactive destruction
for any willing terrorist. Had the jets that hit the World Trade
Center on 9/11/2001 hit nukes instead, the death toll and the
(uninsured) economic losses would be beyond calculation.

No because the concrete and steel containment buildings were designed
to withstand the impact of a jet liner and jet fuel burning outside a
plant isn't going to get through many feet of concrete.




It could be happening as you read this.

They say a new generation of nukes will be "inherently safe," which is
exactly what they said about the last one. Limited construction
experience with this "new generation" already shows massive cost
overruns. There is no reason to believe these will be any safer,
cheaper, cleaner or more reliable than the last sorry batch.

You mean the sorry batch that have been operating here for the last 40
years, with no fatalities or serious injury to anyone from the
nuclear power?




They say more reactors won't be a proliferation problem. But they want
war on Iran which wants the Peaceful Atom to give it nuke weapons like
those in India and Pakistan.

The countries most interested in proliferating or acquiring nuclear
weapons don't give a damn whether we have more reactors here or not.
They are gonna do what they want anyway.



They say the green alternatives won't work, but wind power is the
cheapest form of new generation now being built. The Solartopian array
of wind, solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, ocean thermal and increased
conservation and efficiency are attracting billions in investments all
over the world. The immensely profitable green energy industry is
growing at rates of 25-35%.


Yeah, it's profitable because it's heavily subsidized by the govt.
Here in the people republic of NJ, if you want a solar electric system
for your house, it's about $50K. But the state will pick up about
$30K of that with a tax paid by everyone who uses electricity, rich
and poor a like. Sounds like a flat tax that the libs hate. But it
helps the greenies feel good about having an electric system that only
cost $20K. And it will pay for the $20L portion of it over the next
10 years or so, assuming it lasts that long. The other $30K, well
that's another story.



Meanwhile, "there isn't enough money in the federal till to change
Wall Street's calculation of the financial risks" for new nukes, says
Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust.

It is impossible to embrace both nuclear power and a free market
economy.


Yep, cause the loons don't know squat about or like either one. If
you had a streamlined and reasonable licensing program, the free
market would be building nukes right and left.




Nuke power cannot exist without massive government subsidies,
government insurance, government promises to deal with radioactive
waste, government security, government blind eyes to basic safety and
environmental standards.

Same could be said about social security and Amtrak.




A terrorist reactor attack would mean the end of our political rights
and the beginning of martial law, killing all the basic freedoms which
have defined the best of this country.


And even more lunacy.




America is again being told this can't happen here. It is another lie.

Yet Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Lieberman and other mainstreamers
flock to the nuke madhouse. Al Gore says new nukes must prove
themselves economically (they can't) but that there'll be a "small
part" for reactors in the future, and that the waste problem will be
solved.

There's a move to reverse California's ban on nuke construction
pending a solution to the waste problem. (California has four active
reactors near major earthquake faults).

Environmental Defense doesn't think "any options should be taken off
the table."

But in 1952 a Blue Ribbon Commission told Harry Truman the future of
America was with solar power.

Then Dwight Eisenhower embraced the "Peaceful Atom", sinking America
in the most expensive technological failure in human history.

In 1974 Richard Nixon responded to the Arab Oil Embargo by promising a
thousand US reactors by the year 2000. The No Nukes movement and
soaring oil prices kicked in, and the industry tanked.

So Jimmy Carter started us up the road to Solartopia ... until Ronald
Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof and forced us
into Death Valley.

Now Gore has sold the world on the dangers of global warming. But will
it just be another excuse to throw more good money at more bad
reactors?

Clearly, there will be no easy end to this madness. But atomic
energy's bio-economic clock has clearly run out.

Basic sanity, ecological truth and the smart green money are all on
our side.

Our challenge is to put them in charge before more Three Mile Islands
or Chernobyls--or a nuclear 9/11--irradiate the asylum.


And then it ends where it began, with a lot of political rant that
makes no sense.

wrote:
....

so you gave up???????

thats interesting.

so you admit you were in the business of selling reactors presence to
the general public?

i see you had zip success since 3 mile island.

I "admit" nothing of the sort -- I proudly consider the time I spent w/
a US reactor vendor as part of their team to handle outside contacts
one of the more interesting parts of my career.

Actually, as has come to fore and your other posting so sadly decries,
there is a very prominent return. At least two applications have been
filed within the last six months. I know of several other utilities
that are seriously looking and expect several more filings this year.

And yes, for this thread for the time being, I'm letting the four-year
olds have the candy bar...

--

On Mar 1, 2:00*pm, " wrote:
as to hiroshima they were really low yield weapons detonated at higher
altitude, which caused more damage but created less radioactive
debris. no doubt this helped in rebuilding.

Yeah, if you consider 20Ktons low yield. It did wipe out the city.
As to how much radioactive waste it created vs Chernobly, I'm actually
not sure about that, one way or the other. Chernobly was such a half
assed hell hole to begin with that it was easy to just walk away from
it instead of rebuilding it.





plus the types of radiation from a nuke plant was different from
hiroshima.

long lived highly enriched nastys in reactors are highly dangerous.


The uranium used in commercial reactors is enriched to a whopping 2 or
3%. Before those rods go into the nuke, you could hold them in your
hand. Weapons grade uranium like that used at Hiroshima is what's
highly enriched, which is to 80 or 90%.

wrote in news:a1469d1f-a867-4a0a-8ed5-
:

On Mar 1, 2:00*pm, " wrote:
as to hiroshima they were really low yield weapons detonated at higher
altitude, which caused more damage but created less radioactive
debris. no doubt this helped in rebuilding.

well,they were air-burst,not ground burst,which digs a lot of dirt up and
spreads it.I'm not so sure about "higher altitude",as nukes usually are
detonated at around 3-5 thousand feet.

Yeah, if you consider 20Ktons low yield. It did wipe out the city.
As to how much radioactive waste it created vs Chernobly, I'm actually
not sure about that, one way or the other. Chernobly was such a half
assed hell hole to begin with that it was easy to just walk away from
it instead of rebuilding it.





plus the types of radiation from a nuke plant was different from
hiroshima.

long lived highly enriched nastys in reactors are highly dangerous.

And they VERY rarely get released.That's the important part.


The uranium used in commercial reactors is enriched to a whopping 2 or
3%. Before those rods go into the nuke, you could hold them in your
hand. Weapons grade uranium like that used at Hiroshima is what's
highly enriched, which is to 80 or 90%.



actually,those early nukes were very dirty,as they didn't know enough to
fine-tune the amount of fissionables so that ALL the fissionables actually
fissioned.IOW,they wasted a lot of uranium and plutonium to be sure the
bombs would fission.

Unlike N.Korea's recent nuke test "fizzle".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
clifto wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote:
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.

As long as there's a steady supply of stupid people for reactor sites
to hire, there's no safety in nuclear power.


you watch too much "Simpsons" TV.

No, I've seen the effects stupid people can have on even the simplest
operations. Plus, I can't at this moment think of a single incident at a
nuclear power facility that wasn't caused by stupidity. Not even one single
incident caused by an actual materials or design failure runs through my
mind.

--
If they could invoke Dubya,
I can certainly call a jerk Hussein.

No, I've seen the effects stupid people can have on even the simplest
operations. Plus, I can't at this moment think of a single incident at a
nuclear power facility that wasn't caused by stupidity. Not even one single
incident caused by an actual materials or design failure runs through my
mind.


and how do you guarantee a stupid person in the future wouldnt create
a disaster.

one tech looking for air leaks caused a electrical fire in the control
cables....

top of reactor core nearly ate thru, one and i believe it was around
the great lakes, a water deflector came loose and blocked cooling
water, the nearly brand new reactor nearly melted down and was
permanetely shut down and encased in a oncrete vault.

how many old reactors have been shut down, disassembled and the ground
cleaned up, core sent for proper disposal?

On Mar 1, 9:59Â*am, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 12:49Â*pm, wrote:





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. Â*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. Â*Or companies supplying the
nuclear reactors, etc. Â* 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. Â* 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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yep even nuclear cars, imagine the risks of that,

never the less these were how nuke was sold to the public who at the
time looked at nuke only as a weapon.....

the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe you actually _do_ get your science out of popular mechanics/
science mags.

Next you will be looking for the flying car, George Jetsons jet car,
Fast Than Light Flight, etc. All of them are in the popular mags.
Predictions? Only in your mind.

Harry K

On Mar 1, 12:21Â*pm, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:33�pm, dpb wrote:





dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime

Virtually none of it was "industry's" doing.

...

One other point I intended to make before I kill watching the thread as
having reached its inevitable conclusion of going 'round 'n 'round...

The "industry" has been, if nothing else, remarkably _unsuccessful_ in
their attempts at "propaganda" or "public relations". �This was owing to
the thought that simply presenting good, solid engineering and
scientific evidence would carry the argument against bluster and
fear-mongering. �As this thread illustrates, it doesn't do much except
leave a track record against the misinformation.

In a former life, when being in a position where I was one of the point
persons to talk on nuclear power and all, the inevitable discussions of
this type almost always came up.

The most useful piece of advice I ever got was from the behavioral
science guy who provided a lecture on how to deal with various types of
audience interaction. �He pointed out these individuals are like the
small child who has learned that by sheer persistence it can get its own
way in a large percentage of cases because the parent will finally give
in simply to get a moment of peace. �The only way to stop such behavior
is to _NOT_ let them wear you down--extremely tiresome, wasteful of
resources, etc., but its the only course of action that will in the end
be productive.

Sad, but how true.

Finis...

--

so you gave up???????

thats interesting.

so you admit you were in the business of selling reactors presence to
the general public?

i see you had zip success since 3 mile island.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I do believe I recall such responses back in about grade 5.

Harry K

wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:31 am, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:10�am, wrote:
(snip)

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

BS. I live 25 miles from the first commercial nuke in the USA.
JCPL, mid 60's. No such foolish claims were ever made. And for
good reason. The plants were expensive to build. Who was gonna pay
for them? And even if the power itself was free, you still have a
huge distribution system to pay for. Ever think about who pays for
the transmission towers, sub stations, utility polls?

BTW, it's not up to me to do research to support your silly claims.
If it's true, you show us.


He's right. I spent many an afternoon in my Grandpa's basement and down
at the library, reading old Popular Science magazines and actual real
scientific journals, and the 'too cheap to meter' claim was a common
sales pitch. Note well that 'too cheap to meter' /= 'free'. It just
means they claimed you would pay for the hookup and a monthly flat fee,
which would have been a hell of cost savings for them, in those
mechanical meter, manually read, pre-computer days.

Nobody actually believed it, though.

(BTW, Popular Science, 100 years or so ago, WAS an actual science
journal. Articles for laymen didn't appear till late 30s or 40s, and
they still had actual science content on a regular basis well into the
60s, when they went strictly gee-whiz new-tech and home improvement.)

--
aem sends...

wrote:
No, I've seen the effects stupid people can have on even the simplest
operations. Plus, I can't at this moment think of a single incident at a
nuclear power facility that wasn't caused by stupidity. Not even one single
incident caused by an actual materials or design failure runs through my
mind.


and how do you guarantee a stupid person in the future wouldnt create
a disaster.

one tech looking for air leaks caused a electrical fire in the control
cables....

top of reactor core nearly ate thru, one and i believe it was around
the great lakes, a water deflector came loose and blocked cooling
water, the nearly brand new reactor nearly melted down and was
permanetely shut down and encased in a oncrete vault.

Fermi II, IIRC. 1967. Described in a sensationalist book 'We Almost Lost
Detroit. No idea how accurate the book was.

how many old reactors have been shut down, disassembled and the ground
cleaned up, core sent for proper disposal?

Not very many, so far. I think NRC and the Navy just got around to
dismantling the R&D reactors for the original nuke sub program a couple
of years ago. The earliest commercial reactors are just now reaching
end-of-life, and many got their licenses extended (according to the
papers) by doing upgrades and reinspections. Commercial ones that are
offline permanently are mothballed in place, if the newspaper reports
are accurate.

They really do need to move all those old fuel rods to a centrally
located real deep hole, sooner rather than later. I'm sure the taxpayers
will end footing most of that bill. After a century or so, the stainless
cylinders inside those concrete casks will start to deteriorate.

They put a lot of thought into the 'keep out' markers for Yucca Mountain
and similar sites. Granite and gold for durability, supposed to still
be legible in 10k years. Multiple languages, as well as diagrams showing
atomic structure of the stored materials, that will hopefully mean
something to anyone still around then. (presuming no current languages
will still be spoken.) ISTR they also buried markers around the
perimeter in some way that would call attention to itself to any
prospectors, in case the above-ground markers got stolen or recycled as
grave markers or something.

Of course, if some calamity produces a general societal collapse and
loss of all historical records, and a reversion to a barely literate
agrarian economy led by local Jefes and Shamans, the dump sites may
become very holy places.

aem sends...

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:56:28 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

build the plants in china, they truly need more electric.


Already done.

1. China embraces the atom
By Frederick W Stakelbeck Jr
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_B.../HC04Cb05.html

March 04, 2006

With domestic energy demand expected to increase steadily over the
next several decades and with a precipitous decline in domestic
production from existing oil and natural-gas fields, China finds
itself at an unavoidable "energy crossroads" that will define its
growth, influence and prosperity for years to come.

Recognizing the potential consequences associated with any protracted
energy shortage, Beijing has embraced nuclear power as a solution.
According to the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), the government
body responsible for much of the country's nuclear-power program,
China plans to invest US$48 billion to build 30 nuclear reactors by
2020. Currently, the country has nine reactors in operation with
another two under construction at a combined cost of $3.2 billion.
(more)

2. Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom
Explosive growth has made the People's Republic of China the most
power-hungry nation on earth. Get ready for the mass-produced,
meltdown-proof future of nuclear energy.
By Spencer Reiss
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ina&topic_set=


3. . China may halt production of liquefied coal: official
June 10, 2007
http://english.people.com.cn/200706/...10_382750.html
China, which is rich in coal but poor in petroleum and gas, may put an
end to projects which are designed to produce petroleum by liquefying
coal, an official with the country's top economic planning agency has
said.
The consideration came after evaluation of the nation's limited energy
resources and its econological environment, a deputy director of the
industry department of the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC) told a seminar on China's fuel ethanol development, held in
Beijing on Saturday.
"Liquefied coal projects consume a lot of energy, though the
successful industrialization of liquefied coal could help reduce the
country's dependence on petroleum," said the official who declined to
be named.
The Chinese government said earlier it would invest more in developing
alternative energy resources including biomass fuel and liquefied coal
to substitute petroleum during the 11th Five-Year Program (2006-2010)
period, amid concerns over the country's growing dependence on
petroleum.
(more) ..... elsewhere I recall China's official abandonment of this
technology as it requires enormous amounts of water. Already scarce
water is more precious for human consumption and for agriculture.

4. Ban on use of corn for ethanol lauded
By Le Tian (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-06-22 06:47
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...ent_899837.htm


China's policy not to use basic food crops, especially corn, to make
biofuel as a substitute for petroleum is a "sound decision", a Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official said yesterday.

"Such a decision by such an important world player as China is likely
to accelerate the second-generation technology for production of
ethanol fuel from non-food crops - through conversion of biomass,"
Abdolreza Abbassian, Commodity Analyst and Secretary of FAO's
Intergovernmental Group for Grains, told China Daily.

The UN food body official's remarks came shortly after China imposed a
moratorium on projects making ethanol fuel from corn and other basic
food crops. The importance of corn in China's food economy has
prompted the government to ask companies to switch to non-basic food
products such as cassava, sweet potato and cellulose to make ethanol
fuel.

"Food-based ethanol fuel will not be the direction for China," said Xu
Dingming, vice-director of the Office of the National Energy Leading
Group, at a seminar on China's ethanol fuel development in Beijing on
Saturday.
(more)

5. It goes without saying that China is charging ahead on all fronts
to develop hydroelectric power, wind farms, coal bed methane, solar
power and more I can't remember for the moment.

meterless power was one of the sales tools for nuclear power.

people were really afraid of nuke power, to the public it was a weapon

to terrorists nuke power plants still are

On Mar 1, 8:31*pm, aemeijers wrote:
wrote:
No, I've seen the effects stupid people can have on even the simplest
operations. Plus, I can't at this moment think of a single incident at a
nuclear power facility that wasn't caused by stupidity. Not even one single
incident caused by an actual materials or design failure runs through my
mind.

and how do you guarantee a stupid person in the future wouldnt create
a disaster.

one tech looking for air leaks caused a electrical fire in the control
cables....

top of reactor core nearly ate thru, one and i believe it was around
the great lakes, a water deflector came loose and blocked cooling
water, the nearly brand new reactor nearly melted down and was
permanetely shut down and encased in a oncrete vault.

Fermi II, IIRC. 1967. Described in a sensationalist book 'We Almost Lost
Detroit. No idea how accurate the book was.

how many old reactors have been shut down, disassembled and the ground
cleaned up, core sent for proper disposal?

Not very many, so far. I think NRC and the Navy just got around to
dismantling the R&D reactors for the original nuke sub program a couple
of years ago. The earliest commercial reactors are just now reaching
end-of-life, and many got their licenses extended (according to the
papers) by doing upgrades and reinspections. Commercial ones that are
offline permanently are mothballed in place, if the newspaper reports
are accurate.

They really do need to move all those old fuel rods to a centrally
located real deep hole, sooner rather than later. I'm sure the taxpayers
will end footing most of that bill. After a century or so, the stainless
* cylinders inside those concrete casks will start to deteriorate.

They put a lot of thought into the 'keep out' markers for Yucca Mountain
and similar sites. *Granite and gold for durability, supposed to still
be legible in 10k years. Multiple languages, as well as diagrams showing
atomic structure of the stored materials, that will hopefully mean
something to anyone still around then. (presuming no current languages
will still be spoken.) ISTR they also buried markers around the
perimeter in some way that would call attention to itself to any
prospectors, in case the above-ground markers got stolen or recycled as
grave markers or something.

Of course, if some calamity produces a general societal collapse and
loss of all historical records, and a reversion to a barely literate
agrarian economy led by local Jefes and Shamans, the dump sites may
become very holy places.

aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll lay you odds that Hallerburton is also _against_ the Yucca
mountain project. From his reasoning in this thread, he probably
figures it is too dangerous to store there while ignoring the danger
of having it scattered in sites all over the country.

Harry K

On Mar 2, 6:22*am, " wrote:
meterless power was one of the sales tools for nuclear power.

people were really afraid of nuke power, to the public it was a weapon

to terrorists nuke power plants still are

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it _was not_ hyped that
way by scientists. You are still believeing in comic book style
writing. They also predicted we could run cars on water, take
vacations in space...etc.

How many pairs of 'x-ray' glasses did you buy as a kid before you
realized they were fake?

Harry K

In article
,
Harry K wrote:

How many pairs of 'x-ray' glasses did you buy as a kid before you
realized they were fake?

Fake? Damn, that explains a lot.

On Mar 2, 10:06*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article
,
*Harry K wrote:

How many pairs of 'x-ray' glasses did you buy as a kid before you
realized they were fake?

*Fake? Damn, that explains a lot.


A quick google search turns up that this alleged
"promise" is apparently based on one line from a speech made to a
group of
scientific writers by the head of the Atomic Energy Commission in
1954, as reported by the NY Times. This link will put it all into
perspective for you.

http://www.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html


In the speech he gave, he said:


"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap
to
meter," he declared. ... "It is not too much to expect that our
children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world
only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
and
under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great
speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as
disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."


If you take that in context, it's far from clear that he was even
speaking specifically about nuclear power, unless you believe he also
meant nuclear power was going to extend human lifespan, end famine
and
make air travel effortless. And even if he meant nuclear power, as
opposed to science in general, it was clearly totaly speculation, not
specific promises made to anyone to "sell" them on nuclear power.

Take a look at all the other speeches made in that time-
frame of the 50's which made it clear that no one seriously promised
nuclear power
was anywhere close to being free.

But this does show how loons seek to take ANYTHING out of context and
blow it all out of proportion to reality to support their cause.