JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

In the event of a major catastrophe involving a nuclear plant, what would
you consider a safe distance from prime residential areas?

About a block.

There were no offsite releases of any real significance at TMI, people
continued to work onsite safely throughout.

Frankly, the largest danger was being that of being trampled by the
newshounds when trying to get out for lunch.

This has now devolved into the ludicrous.

Read Commissioner Klein's speech and take it to heart along w/ the
statistic I provided previously of 5000 reactor-years w/o a single
fatality or even injury from a nuclear-related cause at a LWR reactor in
the US.

Unless you have something far more substantive to discuss, I'm done.

--

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim
otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

We don't know every possible disaster scenario connected with supper.
That is a way too high bar to set.


The odds of there being a fire in my home are pretty low. Does this mean I
should make all the windows impossible to open, since the odds of having to
escape through a window are so low?

No, but that is an easily known disaster scenario that will occur
with enough frequency to plan for in an effective way. A few light years
from the "don't know every possible disaster scenario" your posts
suggests is the criteria for nuclear power plants. A decision to not
allow houses because there might be a fire and window that is stuck is
closer to that.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim
otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of
office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

We don't know every possible disaster scenario connected with supper.
That is a way too high bar to set.


The odds of there being a fire in my home are pretty low. Does this mean
I
should make all the windows impossible to open, since the odds of having
to
escape through a window are so low?

No, but that is an easily known disaster scenario that will occur
with enough frequency to plan for in an effective way. A few light years
from the "don't know every possible disaster scenario" your posts
suggests is the criteria for nuclear power plants. A decision to not
allow houses because there might be a fire and window that is stuck is
closer to that.


I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent any time
in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

On Apr 25, 8:17*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim
otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of
office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

*We don't know every possible disaster scenario connected with supper.
That is a way too high bar to set.

The odds of there being a fire in my home are pretty low. Does this mean
I
should make all the windows impossible to open, since the odds of having
to
escape through a window are so low?

* * No, but that is an easily known disaster scenario that will occur
with enough frequency to plan for in an effective way. A few light years
from the "don't know every possible disaster scenario" your posts
suggests is the criteria for nuclear power plants. A decision to not
allow houses because there might be a fire and window that is stuck is
closer to that.

I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent any time
in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I live in NJ, easily within range of Shoreham for your mega disaster
scenarios, both from any fallout, as well as the economic consequences
to the NYC area. I also live about 25 miles from Oyster Creek, the
oldest operating nuke in the country. That plant just received a 20
year extension on it's operating license, despite the attempts of all
the environmental extremists to force it to close. I sleep well
every night. I'd sleep even better if we had a nuke in my own
municipality, where it could cut my property taxes in half, like
Oyster Creek has done for Lacey township. That's what's killing us
here, high taxes, caused by left wing nut jobs like you, not the
nukes.

So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about, eh?

wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 8:17 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster
scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim
otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of
office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

We don't know every possible disaster scenario connected with supper.
That is a way too high bar to set.

The odds of there being a fire in my home are pretty low. Does this
mean
I
should make all the windows impossible to open, since the odds of
having
to
escape through a window are so low?

No, but that is an easily known disaster scenario that will occur
with enough frequency to plan for in an effective way. A few light years
from the "don't know every possible disaster scenario" your posts
suggests is the criteria for nuclear power plants. A decision to not
allow houses because there might be a fire and window that is stuck is
closer to that.

I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent any
time
in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I live in NJ, easily within range of Shoreham for your mega disaster
scenarios, both from any fallout, as well as the economic consequences
to the NYC area. I also live about 25 miles from Oyster Creek, the
oldest operating nuke in the country. That plant just received a 20
year extension on it's operating license, despite the attempts of all
the environmental extremists to force it to close. I sleep well
every night. I'd sleep even better if we had a nuke in my own
municipality, where it could cut my property taxes in half, like
Oyster Creek has done for Lacey township. That's what's killing us
here, high taxes, caused by left wing nut jobs like you, not the
nukes.

So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about, eh?
====================

How often did you attempt to commute on the LIE in the 1970s, on weekdays,
between 5:00 AM and 10:00 PM?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Again: Should I make my windows impossible to open? That's an
absolutely accurate analogy to the traffic situation in Long Island
at the time when Shoreham almost became operational.



Okay, I'll play. My windows are impossible to open (from the outside and
somewhat cumbersome from the inside) due to burglar bars. There's a
tradeoff. The tradeoff is the likelihood of an emergency evacuation vs the
chance of a burglar. Burglaries are more common than fires.

In the case of Shoreham, perhaps those in charge felt the availability of
power was more necessary than the need for evacuation.

Still, I'll wager dollars to donuts that even if the Shoreham owners gave
everybod on Long Island a boat or a helicopter such that 3 million people
could get a hundred miles away in two hours, there'd still have been
objections.

What they COULD have done is erect those cute little signs on the sides of
the roads. You know, the ones that read: "Hurricane (Snow emergency,
Volcano, etc. ) evacuation route," except it would say: "Nuclear Emergency
Boogie Blvd." This would have provided the psychological security
desperately needed by the folks on Long Island and Shoreham could have
proceeded with nary a concern.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent
any time in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

Agreed. But we do have people here who spent time in caves, overseas, atop
trees, in jail, flying airplanes, and negotiating with a roofing contractor
during the Shoreham debacle. They had as much connection to the
"deficiencies" at Shoreham as anybody living on the same block.

dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
...

TMI-I was also shut down. For obviously political reasons.
...

No.

TMI-I continues to operate. NRC current status report indicates its
at nominal 100% power as we speak.


Yes. The event at Three Mile Island took place in 1979. The operating permit
for Unit I was suspended almost immediately and wasn't reinstated until
1985.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I'll bite: why is location relevant? Because people live nearby?


In another message, you pretended to know something about the
Shoreham plant. Your information was obviously incomplete. Go look
at a map.
The U.S. mortality rate per megawatt is infinitely higher for
coal-fired plants than nuclear powered ones.

Irrelevant.

No it's not. We've already made the decision about energy vs.
potential deaths. If we're willing to accept some number of deaths
due to coal, natural gas, hydroelecric, gerbils on wheely-things,
and so on, then that same acceptance should apply to nuclear.

If it can be shown that the actual deaths and disease (or their
risk) from nuclear power is less or the same as other forms of
energy generation, than that issue should be completely off the
table.

Now you sound like the fools who say that the number of dead U.S.
soldiers in Iraq weren't such a big deal compared to how many
Americans die in car accidents each year.

No, that's apples and orangutans. We've already made the decision that we're
willing to tolerate "x" deaths per Gigawatt generated. If some form of
energy generation comes in at "y" where "y" is substantially less than "x",
then it's disingenuous to criticize this generation process for causing "y"
deaths.

A similar argument would be: "Air travel results in 2,000 deaths per 100
million miles traveled, and therefore should be banned" when we've already
accepted 81,000 automobile deaths for the same passenger distance. Or space
exploration should be curtailed because we've had seven deaths in 100
gazillion miles traveled.

Nothing is absolutely safe. With radiation, there are three, and only three,
hazards to health.

* Radiation sickness. You either die or get completely over it.
* Genetic mutation. There has never been a case of such in human history.
* Cancer. Cancer is the most studied disease on the planet, and we're making
strides against it daily.

We don't even know the NAMES of all the stuff that comes out of a
coal-powered plant's smokestack!

As an aside, military deaths in Iraq are NOT a big deal, or at least no more
so than a mountain climbing accident, a sky-diving death, a NASCAR
collision, or time on the International Space Station. Our soldiers joined
volunteered for the opportunity to kill people and blow things up. They
accepted the risk of personal disaster for the thrill of adventure, just
like Sir Edmund Hillary.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent
any time in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

Agreed. But we do have people here who spent time in caves, overseas, atop
trees, in jail, flying airplanes, and negotiating with a roofing contractor
during the Shoreham debacle. They had as much connection to the
"deficiencies" at Shoreham as anybody living on the same block.

Can you point me to an actuarial table somewhere with statistics of
fatalities caused by negotiating with a roofing contractor?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent any time
in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

I said I had never been specifically to the Shoreham site, not that I
had never been on Long Island.

But, it's still immaterial to the fact that the hysteria made over the
evacuation plan ended up in a shortsighted decision made from ill-formed
opinion and was not based on any demonstrated threat the operation of
the plant would have posed.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent any
time in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

I said I had never been specifically to the Shoreham site, not that I had
never been on Long Island.

But, it's still immaterial to the fact that the hysteria made over the
evacuation plan ended up in a shortsighted decision made from ill-formed
opinion and was not based on any demonstrated threat the operation of the
plant would have posed.


1) There was no evac plan because at the time, none could work. Imagine
having to evacuate Madison Square Garden in 5 minutes, with only one door.

2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid making
lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid making
lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.

We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to
reactor integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be
initiated. We have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work.
We also have a long history of operational evidence the overall
technology is as safe as or safer than other technologies which we
routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--

HeyBub wrote:
dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
...

TMI-I was also shut down. For obviously political reasons.
...

No.

TMI-I continues to operate. NRC current status report indicates its
at nominal 100% power as we speak.


Yes. The event at Three Mile Island took place in 1979. The operating permit
for Unit I was suspended almost immediately and wasn't reinstated until
1985.

But you didn't say "temporarily shut down" -- the prior posting implied
it was closed permanently. I wanted to correct that impression for any
who might not know.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.

We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to reactor
integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be initiated. We
have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work. We also have a
long history of operational evidence the overall technology is as safe as
or safer than other technologies which we routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--


Yes, I read the speech.

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose was
considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?

On Apr 25, 12:19*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.

We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to reactor
integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be initiated. *We
have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work. We also have a
long history of operational evidence the overall technology is as safe as
or safer than other technologies which we routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. *Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--

Yes, I read the speech.

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose was
considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say the fundamental threat pre 9/11 was Islamic extremists. That
was evidenced by their prior attempt a decade earlier to bring the
towers down using a truck bomb. Of course to do something about it
requred someone with the ability to realize they were at war with us.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.
We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to reactor
integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be initiated. We
have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work. We also have a
long history of operational evidence the overall technology is as safe as
or safer than other technologies which we routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--


Yes, I read the speech.

And????

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose was
considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?

Well, it's fundamentally immaterial, but...

The WTC (and all other high rise buildings as well, of course) was
designed to a specific set of impact, wind, seismic, and fire loadings.

The towers both withstood the impacts as expected/designed; they fell
because the actual fire loading was greater than the design criteria.

The difference in the reactor is it isn't postulated "how", it is
presumed that a LOCA can occur and there are systems in place to
mitigate the results thereof. The design basis is a complete guillotine
break--"if the pipe is broke it can't get any broker" and it isn't
assumed that it is repaired. Consequently, there isn't the question of
whether a different initiating event caused the break--the break is
assumed to have "just happened".

So, the comparison is a red herring that distracts and obfuscates and
plays on fears but doesn't contribute--precisely Chairman Klein's point.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.
We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to
reactor integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be
initiated. We have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work.
We also have a long history of operational evidence the overall
technology is as safe as or safer than other technologies which we
routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--


Yes, I read the speech.

And????

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose
was considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?

Well, it's fundamentally immaterial, but...

The WTC (and all other high rise buildings as well, of course) was
designed to a specific set of impact, wind, seismic, and fire loadings.

The towers both withstood the impacts as expected/designed; they fell
because the actual fire loading was greater than the design criteria.

The difference in the reactor is it isn't postulated "how", it is presumed
that a LOCA can occur and there are systems in place to mitigate the
results thereof. The design basis is a complete guillotine break--"if the
pipe is broke it can't get any broker" and it isn't assumed that it is
repaired. Consequently, there isn't the question of whether a different
initiating event caused the break--the break is assumed to have "just
happened".

So, the comparison is a red herring that distracts and obfuscates and
plays on fears but doesn't contribute--precisely Chairman Klein's point.

--


All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it (in
this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

Not in the sense of which you have raised the red herrings, no, not
exactly. You keep raising the specter of initiating events; in reality
the design is based on mitigating consequences irrespective of the
initiating event.

There is a fundamental difference between how long or how hot a fire is,
say, as opposed to saying an operational system is unavailable. Once
it's unavailable, it can't become any more so--therefore the
consequences of losing that system are bounded. The alternate way
_can_, agreed, produce a longer, hotter fire. But if I have no primary
flow postulated, it doesn't matter whether it was a 50-cent fuse that
propagated a chain of events or somehow the welds all failed
simultaneously and a section of 4-ft diameter pipe just magically fell
out--it's gone either way and the system must deal with the
consequences. That's why the auxiliary systems are there to compensate.
OTOH, there were no auxiliary support systems in the WTC--once the
columns were compromised the buildings were doomed.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it (in
this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.

No; I did _NOT_ miss that--we are (or at least I am) discussing why the
perceived need for near-instantaneous evacuation of Long Island was an
illogical requirement for adequately safe operation of Shoreham. And,
in passing, I'm trying to fight the NIMBY syndrome you're
exhibiting--"it's fine for somewhere else, but youse guys do it, not
here" that you're exhibiting by making the statements whether you're
intending that or not.

Secondarily, we are discussing why the comparisons you're making to
other events/disasters are not conducive to logical thinking with
respect to nuclear safety because the same arguments are made by others
and used by activists because they understand and use the fear factor
and also rely on the lack of critical thinking to cause instinctive
reaction that can be turned into public pressure.

Yet again I emphasize Chairman Klein's concerns.

--

On Apr 25, 12:48*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.
We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to
reactor integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be
initiated. *We have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work.
We also have a long history of operational evidence the overall
technology is as safe as or safer than other technologies which we
routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. *Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--

Yes, I read the speech.

And????

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose
was considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?

Well, it's fundamentally immaterial, but...

The WTC (and all other high rise buildings as well, of course) was
designed to a specific set of impact, wind, seismic, and fire loadings.

The towers both withstood the impacts as expected/designed; they fell
because the actual fire loading was greater than the design criteria.

The difference in the reactor is it isn't postulated "how", it is presumed
that a LOCA can occur and there are systems in place to mitigate the
results thereof. *The design basis is a complete guillotine break--"if the
pipe is broke it can't get any broker" and it isn't assumed that it is
repaired. *Consequently, there isn't the question of whether a different
initiating event caused the break--the break is assumed to have "just
happened".

So, the comparison is a red herring that distracts and obfuscates and
plays on fears but doesn't contribute--precisely Chairman Klein's point..

--

All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it (in
this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.- Hide quoted text -


Of course not. You're only opposed to the nukes we already have and
any new ones being built. The pie in the sky theoretical ones,
they're OK. Just like the environmental extremists who rag on
about using wind and solar. Yet, when it comes time to actually put
up windmills or a solar farm, well guess who's there blocking that?
Same folks. It's happening here in NJ with windmills and just
happened in the Mojave desert too.

It's possible that "The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or
coal-fired power plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency
can meet future power demand". It is also possible that it might never
rain again...but it ain't likely. This is perhaps the most stupid
statement I have ever seen come out of Washington in 65 years.

EJ IN NJ

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our
energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI

The lede:

The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power
plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future
power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said.

To all those red-meat,
gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here
(we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating,
tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.

Talk amongst yourselves.


[1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher)
hisself, Ed Abbey.

wrote in message
...
On Apr 25, 12:48 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.
We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to
reactor integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be
initiated. We have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work.
We also have a long history of operational evidence the overall
technology is as safe as or safer than other technologies which we
routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of
unproductive
participation. Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--

Yes, I read the speech.

And????

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you
suppose
was considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?

Well, it's fundamentally immaterial, but...

The WTC (and all other high rise buildings as well, of course) was
designed to a specific set of impact, wind, seismic, and fire loadings.

The towers both withstood the impacts as expected/designed; they fell
because the actual fire loading was greater than the design criteria.

The difference in the reactor is it isn't postulated "how", it is
presumed
that a LOCA can occur and there are systems in place to mitigate the
results thereof. The design basis is a complete guillotine break--"if
the
pipe is broke it can't get any broker" and it isn't assumed that it is
repaired. Consequently, there isn't the question of whether a different
initiating event caused the break--the break is assumed to have "just
happened".

So, the comparison is a red herring that distracts and obfuscates and
plays on fears but doesn't contribute--precisely Chairman Klein's point.

--

All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it
(in
this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.- Hide quoted
text -


Of course not. You're only opposed to the nukes we already have and
any new ones being built.

==================

I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree, you
know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support your
delusion.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....

Yes, I read the speech.
And????
....
I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree, you
know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support your
delusion.

Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout
_you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear
power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads
such as this one that really don't ring true).

Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively
like those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the
"concern", when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a "well,
what about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...

To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."



--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Yes, I read the speech.
And????
...
I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree,
you know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support your
delusion.

Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout
_you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear
power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads such
as this one that really don't ring true).

Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively like
those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the "concern",
when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a "well, what
about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...

To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."



--


I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the plant's
owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Yes, I read the speech.
And????
...
I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree,
you know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support your
delusion.
Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout
_you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear
power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads such
as this one that really don't ring true).

Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively like
those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the "concern",
when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a "well, what
about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...

To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."



--


I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the plant's
owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.

Amplify that to include "...and the perceived need for
near-instantaneous evacuation of Long Island was an illogical
requirement for _adequately-safe_ operation of the Shoreham in
particular." and I'll be mollified.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Yes, I read the speech.
And????
...
I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree,
you know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support
your delusion.
Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout
_you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear
power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads
such as this one that really don't ring true).

Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively
like those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the
"concern", when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a "well,
what about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...

To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."



--


I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the
plant's owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.

Amplify that to include "...and the perceived need for near-instantaneous
evacuation of Long Island was an illogical requirement for
_adequately-safe_ operation of the Shoreham in particular." and I'll be
mollified.

--


Now we have to find out what YOU think would be an appropriate length of
time for evacuation, especially since I never suggested "instantaneous", and
you have no clue as to what travel was like in L.I. at the time.

So, gimme a number of hours or days which you think are appropriate.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Yes, I read the speech.
And????
...
I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you disagree,
you know the drill. Find one or messages written by me which support
your delusion.
Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout
_you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear
power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads
such as this one that really don't ring true).

Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively
like those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the
"concern", when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a "well,
what about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...

To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."



--

I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the
plant's owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.
Amplify that to include "...and the perceived need for near-instantaneous
evacuation of Long Island was an illogical requirement for
_adequately-safe_ operation of the Shoreham in particular." and I'll be
mollified.

--


Now we have to find out what YOU think would be an appropriate length of
time for evacuation, especially since I never suggested "instantaneous", and
you have no clue as to what travel was like in L.I. at the time.

I already told you I've been on LI (and was actually there a fair number
of times on other business at that time so I have quite a "clue" as to
travel).

So, gimme a number of hours or days which you think are appropriate.

Several (your choice of units). As noted, folks worked onsite at TMI
throughout the incident.

--

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the plant's
owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.

How about they need the water for cooling purposes.. or is every
plant on the water now suspect?

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

Yes, I read the speech.
And????
...
I never said or even remotely implied any such thing. If you
disagree, you know the drill. Find one or messages written by me
which support your delusion.
Tell ya' what...we've been playing along w/ your silly game; how 'bout
_you_ provide a message in which you have advocated commercial nuclear
power (other than the false positive of the protestations in threads
such as this one that really don't ring true).

Otherwise, I have to tend to agree that your tactics are excessively
like those of the doomsdayers -- there's never enough to satisfy the
"concern", when one hydra is slain yet another head pops up w/ a
"well, what about...?", etc., etc., etc., ...

To make another analogy, "if it walks like a..."



--

I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are
not placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for
the plant's owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.
Amplify that to include "...and the perceived need for
near-instantaneous evacuation of Long Island was an illogical
requirement for _adequately-safe_ operation of the Shoreham in
particular." and I'll be mollified.

--


Now we have to find out what YOU think would be an appropriate length of
time for evacuation, especially since I never suggested "instantaneous",
and you have no clue as to what travel was like in L.I. at the time.

I already told you I've been on LI (and was actually there a fair number
of times on other business at that time so I have quite a "clue" as to
travel).

So, gimme a number of hours or days which you think are appropriate.

Several (your choice of units). As noted, folks worked onsite at TMI
throughout the incident.

--


I think you're kidding around now. Matter of fact, I'm sure of it. Go back
to painting windows or whatever it is you're doing this afternoon.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the
plant's
owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.

How about they need the water for cooling purposes.. or is every
plant on the water now suspect?


Of course not. Only you would say such a thing.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


I hereby advocate commercial nuclear power, as long as facilities are not
placed in stupid locations because the land was a great deal for the
plant's
owner(s) or they just liked the view of the water.

How about they need the water for cooling purposes.. or is every
plant on the water now suspect?


Of course not. Only you would say such a thing.

It is a valid question for clarification purposes alone.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
....

I think you're kidding around now. Matter of fact, I'm sure of it. ...

Dammnation!!! You cain't slip nuthin' by ol' Joe, now can ya'?

Find a place for that man on the ACRS--folks that sharp are hard to come by.


Yes, I read the speech.
And????

I'm still waiting (albeit not w/ bated breath, granted) for your erudite
evaluation of the Chairman's remarks???

--

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent
any time in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

Agreed. But we do have people here who spent time in caves,
overseas, atop trees, in jail, flying airplanes, and negotiating
with a roofing contractor during the Shoreham debacle. They had as
much connection to the "deficiencies" at Shoreham as anybody living
on the same block.

Can you point me to an actuarial table somewhere with statistics of
fatalities caused by negotiating with a roofing contractor?

No, but inasmuch as homicides occurring during said negotiations are not
mentioned in the news, one can reasonably conclude that they a
a) Very rare, or
b) Very common.

dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
dpb wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
...

TMI-I was also shut down. For obviously political reasons.
...

No.

TMI-I continues to operate. NRC current status report indicates its
at nominal 100% power as we speak.


Yes. The event at Three Mile Island took place in 1979. The
operating permit for Unit I was suspended almost immediately and
wasn't reinstated until 1985.

But you didn't say "temporarily shut down" -- the prior posting
implied it was closed permanently. I wanted to correct that
impression for any who might not know.

Ah, thanks. I was trying to emphasize the political decision process
trumping the scientific decision process.

wrote:
-

I live in NJ, easily within range of Shoreham for your mega disaster
scenarios, both from any fallout, as well as the economic consequences
to the NYC area. I also live about 25 miles from Oyster Creek, the
oldest operating nuke in the country. That plant just received a 20
year extension on it's operating license, despite the attempts of all
the environmental extremists to force it to close. I sleep well
every night. I'd sleep even better if we had a nuke in my own
municipality, where it could cut my property taxes in half, like
Oyster Creek has done for Lacey township. That's what's killing us
here, high taxes, caused by left wing nut jobs like you, not the
nukes.

So, once again, you don't know what you're talking about, eh?

He may not be a left-wing nut job - he may be a serious victim of nuclear
phobia. Like fear of heights or clowns, it is simply not possible to argue
or persuade someone to NOT be afraid of their phobia object - one simply has
to deal with what one has.

In the case of acrophobia, the best solution is to move to a flat place,
like Nebraska. For a fear of clowns, one must embrace mirthless, depressing
places to maximize the avoidance of comical performers. Like progressive
websites or Democratic Party rallies.

Even then, one must be careful, what with the preponderance of colorful
wigs, grotesque painted faces, and unusually large footwear.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


I think it's safe to say that nobody else in this discussion spent
any time in Long Island during the Shoreham debacle.

Agreed. But we do have people here who spent time in caves,
overseas, atop trees, in jail, flying airplanes, and negotiating
with a roofing contractor during the Shoreham debacle. They had as
much connection to the "deficiencies" at Shoreham as anybody living
on the same block.

Can you point me to an actuarial table somewhere with statistics of
fatalities caused by negotiating with a roofing contractor?

No, but inasmuch as homicides occurring during said negotiations are not
mentioned in the news, one can reasonably conclude that they a
a) Very rare, or
b) Very common.

"I don't know, officer. We were up on the roof. I explained all the
things that needed attention, and gave him a quote. He said I was out of
my ****ing mind. Next thing you know, he tripped over his shoelace,
fell, and landed head first on the concrete patio. It's an awful
tragedy, to be sure."

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
And then there are the security issues involved with nuke plants,
which some operators are only pretending to have dealt with.

If you have specific information any operator of facility is not fully
compliant with all applicable NRC guidelines, the NRC would definitely
like to know about it.

While I don't think you have any knowledge at all about nuclear power
facilities or would recognize a safety issue if you saw one, here's the
perquisite information.

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html

Report a Safety or Security Concern Non-Emergency

Including any concern involving a nuclear reactor, nuclear
fuel facility, or radioactive materials.

You may send an e-mail to Allegations. However, because e-mail
transmission may not be completely secure, if you are concerned about
protecting your identity it is preferable that you contact us by
phone or in person. You may contact any NRC employee (including a
resident inspector) or call:

NRC's Toll-Free Safety Hotline: (800) 695-7403

--

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said
it (in this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.

Huh? They EXPECT broken coolant pipes and fires in the control room?

I think nuke plant safety, rather, is based on what COULD happen.

dpb wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
And then there are the security issues involved with nuke plants,
which some operators are only pretending to have dealt with.

If you have specific information any operator of facility is not fully
compliant with all applicable NRC guidelines, ...

I thought not...

--

"dpb" wrote in message
...
dpb wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
And then there are the security issues involved with nuke plants,
which some operators are only pretending to have dealt with.

If you have specific information any operator of facility is not fully
compliant with all applicable NRC guidelines, ...

I thought not...

--



Busy. Stay tuned. I'll resurrect this in a new thread that'll be easy to
spot.