Are you allowed to shout 'FIRE' in a burning auditorium?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, June 25, 2005 00:15
VIEWED: 6268
PAGE 4 of 8

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Though I think, more likely, you may either be overstating the risks or you may have been told things that have been exaggerated, or both.
At least the truth that you want to hear, right?
Depends on what grown-ups you’re talking about, I guess.

Please pull that pitchfork out of your ass, you play Devil's advocate too much to be taken seriously (on this post, I mean).
I don't want to hear that our river's unclean. But the truth's a might different than that.
Vermont Yankee has problems, got a link to a story that tells otherwise? I'd like to see it.
Okay, the grown-up thing- I was pokin' a little at the fact that most 'grown ups' don't understand much of anything they don't directly deal with, like where their energy comes from.
Sorry if I'm a little terse right now, my son is driving me crazy at the moment.

Sonisall, go to your room! Chrisisall

RUE

Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:01 AM

Just taking a break from programming, which fries one's brain right quick ... skimmed through and am definitely coming back for more ...

Quote:
Nuclear power actually produces less waste material by weight/KW hour than any other type of power.

I would have no problem with nuclear power but for the long-term waste hazard. I suggest simple chemical recrystallization to concentrate the waste, and launch it off the face of the Earth heading out beyond Pluto. You know, turn space into the ultimate safe and secure garbage dump. (I actually am for this idea, I just think it's primitive.)

HARDWARE

Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:25 AM

I am only passingly familiar with nuclear power but I did work at a project at 2 nuclear generation stations. Working there and talking to the operating engineers (who are obviously nuclear power advocates) the following truths about nuclear power were made crystal clear to me;

1) The newest nuclear power station in the US is 30 years old. Most nuke stations were licensed for 30 years with a 20 year optional extension.

2) When the licenses expire the stations close. There are no plans and no capacity to replace nuclear stations with conventional power generation let alone non-polluting generation.

3) Every nuke station is unique. Almost none of them use the same equipment. Any equipment that needs to be replaced needs to custom ordered and fabricated.

4) The long term radioactive byproducts are not as dangerous as the short term "hot" material. The stuff that is radioactive for 10,000 years you can handle safely. The stuff that has a half life measured in days will kill you dead.

5) Nuclear power design has not stopped even though building has halted for 30 years. Newer designs are inherently more safe than older designs.

6) It's all for nought since NIMBY guarantees there won't be any more nuke stations built.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Please pull that pitchfork out of your ass, you play Devil's advocate too much to be taken seriously (on this post, I mean).

Said the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I don't want to hear that our river's unclean. But the truth's a might different than that.
Vermont Yankee has problems, got a link to a story that tells otherwise? I'd like to see it.

You would? I must have missed the post were you provided evidence for all your accusations about this plants poor operation.

Nonetheless, I looked up the NRC Annual reports on the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. And as I suspected, according to the NRC the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is running safely as of 2003, or as they put it: “No findings of significance were identified.” That’s government-speak for ‘A-OK.’

There was an issue that was described as “very low safety significance,” but this has evidentially been addressed as it does not appear in the latest report I read.

You may still be right. I didn’t review all the reports nor do I have the time or desire, but in general, popular sources of news such as newspapers are frequently very critical of nuclear power, often due to a pervasive ignorance of nuclear technology and a lack of awareness of tradeoffs between nuclear and conventional power generation. I would caution against taking the local newspaper as an accurate portrayal of this plants safety record. The NRC is a much better source for that and even they are over critical due to stringent regulations.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, the grown-up thing- I was pokin' a little at the fact that most 'grown ups' don't understand much of anything they don't directly deal with, like where their energy comes from.

Yeah, I got that part, hence my response.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

RUE

Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:44 AM

Quote:
I looked up the NRC Annual reports

So far as I know, the NRC was created out of industry people to promote nukular power. Can you address its mandate and MO?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:25 PM

The NRC is a government agency whose responsibility it is to regulate the civilian use of nuclear material as provided by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Please pull that pitchfork out of your ass, you play Devil's advocate too much to be taken seriously (on this post, I mean).
Said the self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist.

Touche'
Sorry, I wasn't feelin' so good, and my son was grating on me something awful, hence my crappy mood.
About that facility, they had a rather large fire there a couple years back that was brought under control, then not reported to the public for some months, some got pissed and after an investigation they found stress cracks and poor management and such. I guess it's the kind of thing that happens anywhere, but when you add the word nuclear everyone freaks. I just feel a better educated and informed public would be less quick to sweat the small stuff. I mean, like, Homer Simpson's okay, right? ( damn. I can't stay serious for one paragraph )
Anyway, I'm not diggin' for links to evidence 'cause in all my reading on these threads I've discovered that no one takes that stuff seriously, anyway. 'Questionable source', 'Biased agency', 'Left (or Right) wing paper ( network, author, politician, etc.) - people believe mostly what they want to.
If I learn anything on these threads, it's that words and 'facts' can be twisted around like wheat in a windy field, and all we can do is be flexable enough in ourselves to be prepared to accept being wrong about anything, any time.

In the mean time,
It's possible Global Warming is alarmist chicken little nonsense, but everything I've seen and read and observed has me believin' otherwise.
Subject to change without notice.

Okay, I'm done (I think) Chrisisall

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:41 PM

nothing to offer to either side. I think of this as my own little chautauqua roundtable. It's nice.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:00 PM

What? You can't just pop in without an opinion...well, you can, but, you know, give us one, won't ya? Aww common.

Pretty please Chrisisall

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:07 PM

um, okay, I don't think any of the research has proven one thing or the other. Um, I think pollution is bad. Air quality and such, eh, should be better.

*looks around then makes a break for it before chisisall can catch her...*

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE