Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
10-20-2011, 11:38 AM,
#1
Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
The nuclear power plant stands on the border between humanity's greatest hopes and its deepest fears for the future.
Reply
10-21-2011, 12:22 PM,
#2
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
I thought the nuclear power plant mostly stood by a large water mass
Reply
10-22-2011, 10:33 AM,
#3
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
I <3 NUKULAR POWER

It's a damned safe source of power. I don't get what beefs people have with it.
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply
10-22-2011, 12:37 PM,
#4
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-22-2011, 10:33 AM)thokling Wrote: I <3 NUKULAR POWER

It's a damned safe source of power. I don't get what beefs people have with it.

LOL Troll much? Since your opinion goes against that of practically everyone else on the planet, including the NRC and IAEA, maybe you should educate yourself a little.

[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
10-28-2011, 06:45 AM,
#5
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-22-2011, 12:37 PM)yeti Wrote:
(10-22-2011, 10:33 AM)thokling Wrote: I <3 NUKULAR POWER

It's a damned safe source of power. I don't get what beefs people have with it.

LOL Troll much? Since your opinion goes against that of practically everyone else on the planet, including the NRC and IAEA, maybe you should educate yourself a little.

best trolls, admin trolls ...
Reply
10-30-2011, 07:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-30-2011, 07:46 PM by thokling.)
#6
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-22-2011, 12:37 PM)yeti Wrote:
(10-22-2011, 10:33 AM)thokling Wrote: I <3 NUKULAR POWER

It's a damned safe source of power. I don't get what beefs people have with it.

LOL Troll much? Since your opinion goes against that of practically everyone else on the planet, including the NRC and IAEA, maybe you should educate yourself a little.

Rather than do the research again, I refer you to the following thread:

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=39401

You'll notice the following things:

1) No one provided links countering my statements.
2) You never did either, and you had sufficient opportunity as such.
3) I pretty well kicked the collective asses of anti-nuclear paranoids by providing research, links from multiple sources, examples and analyses, unlike the mindless sheep worrying about the sky falling on their heads.

I've educated myself rather thoroughly on this matter. Now, particularly due to your accusation I hadn't researched this, this is your one and only chance to demonstrate a modicum of synaptic management and provide proof that nuclear energy is more harmful than other popular sources of energy. Fail this one, and you're pretty well on my hit list for any other inane remarks you may feel inclined to provide in the future.

It's one thing to quote the names of agencies, and another entirely to provide links demonstrating how dangerous or safe contemporary, properly-maintained and properly-managed nuclear reactors like those at Fukushima and Three Mile Island really are. (Oh yeah, there were no deaths as a result of TMI. Shove that one in your pipe and smoke it.)

As I've noted, just because many other people believe something is true doesn't mean it is. If you had paid any attention to the conspiracy theories running through this site, you'd be aware of how easily the masses are manipulated into believing shit that has no basis on reality. You've fallen for this same tactic, too, and now have the opportunity to take me on.

As you've decided to also refer to me as a troll in the same post as your aforementioned accusation, I'm going to live up to my title and let you know that, if this is a little too much for you, I provided a link to a productivity-enhancing tool in one of my posts on that thread you might find of interest.

So prove me wrong, Yeti. If nuclear power really is dangerous, you'll have no problems with this task.
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply
10-30-2011, 09:36 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 01:03 AM by Bull Medicine.)
#7
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-30-2011, 07:30 PM)thokling Wrote: I pretty well kicked the collective asses of anti-nuclear paranoids by providing research, links from multiple sources, examples and analyses, unlike the mindless sheep worrying about the sky falling on their heads.

The use of the word "Paranoia" is slightly overdone - what happened to "scepticism" ?

Look at it this way : 1954: The world's first nuclear power plant becomes operational in Obninsk, outside of Moscow.

That's only 57 years ago give or take a few months.. In geological time that constitutes essentially nothing.

Here's a map of worldwide operational reactors in combination with earthquake zone activity since 1974:

[Image: global-earthquake-activity-vs-nuclear-po...ations.jpg]

I think we could both agree that should there be any major unpredicted tectonic activity, alongside "the ring of fire", for example, it could/would prove to have terrifying consequences to the biosphere no matter how well designed and maintained the current designs of reactor vessel are. Utterly insurmountable consequences possibly.
Why are we to assume that clusters of nuclear reactors constructed on fault lines being fatally vulnerable to major fault line activity or a consequent reaction, like a tsunami, for instance, is beyond the realms of possibilty?

(10-30-2011, 07:30 PM)thokling Wrote: <snip> demonstrate a modicum of synaptic management and provide proof that nuclear energy is more harmful than other popular sources of energy.

The consequences of a major disaster would be and already are proving to be far more long reaching and catastrophic. The time scale needed for ecological recovery.

Even the "caskets" of radioactive waste with contiguous half lives of innumerable thousands of years, deeply buried and allegedly "safe" are not immune from widespread major geological activity WHEN it once again occurs.

We have a civilisation of 2000 years give or take and we are burying timebombs that will outstrip that timespan by unfathomable magnitudes.

How is that safe, responsible or even sane actually?


For whatever reason this mind wanders at this point to thinking about how the most prominent and well heeled population reductionists are essentially the same brood who brought us such popular hits as the green revolution that has doubled the global population in less than half a century. soz. i am sure we are in the hands of good shepherds Barf

(10-30-2011, 07:30 PM)thokling Wrote: It's one thing to quote the names of agencies, and another entirely to provide links demonstrating how dangerous or safe contemporary, properly-maintained and properly-managed nuclear reactors like those at Fukushima and Three Mile Island really are.

the nuclear reactors of Fukishima have been proven by the planet itself to be less than safe, if you think about it.

(10-30-2011, 07:30 PM)thokling Wrote: As I've noted, just because many other people believe something is true doesn't mean it is.

I concur.

"Progress" is a double bind obviously.

Reply
10-30-2011, 10:05 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 01:29 AM by p4r4.)
#8
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
fukushima disaster was due to the tsunami and not the earthquake.

This is the moment the Japanese tsunami destroyed a sea wall designed to protect the Fukushima nuclear plant and surged towards reactors.
Tons of water can be seen destroying the wall and sweeping away reactor equipment, cars and other machinery in pictures released by plant owners.
The tsunami knocked out cooling systems at the plant, causing the reactors to melt down and numerous explosions as engineers tried to release a build up of radioactive hydrogen gas.


[Image: article-0-0C24BC9100000578-311_964x387.jpg]

[Image: article-1388629-0C24BACC00000578-632_964x549.jpg]



- Japanese, and most other, nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earth movement, to shut down safely.
- In 1995, the closest nuclear power plants, some 110 km north of Kobe, were unaffected by the severe Kobe-Osaka earthquake, but in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings.
- In 1999, three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during the devastating Taiwan earthquake, and were restarted two days later.
- In March 2011 eleven operating nuclear power plants shut down automatically during the major earthquake. Three of these subsequently caused an INES Level 7 Accident due to loss of power leading to loss of cooling(damaged by the tsunami) and subsequent radioactive releases.


Nuclear facilities are designed so that earthquakes and other external events will not jeopardise the safety of the plant. In France for instance, nuclear plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as the 1000-year event calculated for each site. It is estimated that, worldwide, 20% of nuclear reactors are operating in areas of significant seismic activity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a Safety Guide on Seismic Risks for Nuclear Power Plants. Various systems are used in planning, including Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA), which is recommended by IAEA and widely accepted.

Because of the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in Japan, particular attention is paid to seismic issues in the siting, design and construction of nuclear power plants. The seismic design of such plants is based on criteria far more stringent than those applying to non-nuclear facilities. Power reactors are also built on hard rock foundations (not sediments) to minimise seismic shaking.

Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion. These used to be specified as S1 and S2, but now simply Ss, in Gal units. The plants are fitted with seismic detectors. If these register ground motions of a set level (formerly 90% of S1, but at Fukushima only 135 Gal), systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown. The logarithmic Richter magnitude scale (or more precisely the Moment Magnitude Scale more generally used today) measures the overall energy released in an earthquake, and there is not always a good correlation between that and intensity (ground motion) in a particular place. Japan has a seismic intensity scale in shindo units 0 to 7, with weak/strong divisions at levels 5 & 6, hence ten levels. This describes the surface intensity at particular places, rather than the magnitude of the earthquake itself.

Japan's revised Regulatory Guide for Reviewing Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities in September 2006 increased the Ss figure to be equivalent to an earthquake of 6.7 on the Richter or Moment Magnitude scale directly under the reactor - a factor of 1.5 (up from magnitude 6.5). PGA or Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is measured in Galileo units - Gal (cm/sec2) or g - the force of gravity, one g being 980 Gal.
Reply
10-30-2011, 10:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-30-2011, 10:30 PM by Bull Medicine.)
#9
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
Good point. Yes, aside from meltdowns and 100,000+ year half lifes, geological activity, such as when tectonic plates buckle, resulting in such things as tsunamis, does indeed incontrovertibly prove nuclear power is inherently unsafe.
Reply
10-30-2011, 10:39 PM,
#10
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-30-2011, 10:26 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Good point. Yes, aside from meltdowns and 100,000+ year half lifes, geological activity, such as when tectonic plates buckle, resulting in such things as tsunamis, does indeed incontrovertibly prove nuclear power is inherently unsafe.



[Image: death-rate-per-watts.jpg]

[Image: w-japanhealth.jpg]
Reply
10-30-2011, 11:28 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 01:13 AM by Bull Medicine.)
#11
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
Nice graphics. Simple and to a point. but Geothermal energy would be better all round.

My point, which seemingly is elusive, is that no matter how operationally "cleaner" nuclear power posits to be, the practically immortal and seriously dangerous byproducts and the inherent, ever present potential for precipitating a global disaster on a scale previously unknown, negate the starkly positive appraisal as shown in your graphs imho.

Geothermal energy makes more sense than any conventional means of energy production. I don't think that can be seriously argued against by anyone with a sane view on the topic.
Reply
10-31-2011, 12:56 AM, (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 01:14 AM by thokling.)
#12
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: The use of the word "Paranoia" is slightly overdone - what happened to "scepticism" ?

The word "sceptical" and its variants disappear from my posts when anti-nuclear proponents and other fear-feeding do-no-gooders decide they're going to rely on half-truths and manipulation by the real fearmongers instead of conducting some actual footwork and research this stuff with rational, methodical minds.

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Look at it this way : 1954: The world's first nuclear power plant becomes operational in Obninsk, outside of Moscow.

That's only 57 years ago give or take a few months.. In geological time that constitutes essentially nothing.

Another fine example of responding unnecessarily to fear. Italy went and shut down reactors based on this nonsense. I'm not sure what the point you're making is by quoting that link. How about elucidating on this a touch?

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: I think we could both agree that should there be any major unpredicted tectonic activity, alongside "the ring of fire", for example, it could/would prove to have terrifying consequences to the biosphere no matter how well designed and maintained the current designs of reactor vessel are. Utterly insurmountable consequences possibly.

There was a major, unpredicted tectonic event earlier this year on the Pacific Ring of Fire. Remember Fukushima? And there have been no deaths due to the nuclear accident (except perhaps the death of sane rationality, so no human deaths) due to the Daiichi reactor problems, even accounting for the messy reaction and cleanup. (Note also that the other three reactors shut down automatically at the time as they have in the past.)

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Why are we to assume that clusters of nuclear reactors constructed on fault lines being fatally vulnerable to major fault line activity is beyond the realms of possibilty?

We're not expected to assume that reactors on fault lines are invulnerable to disasters. We're to assume, based on:

- prior evidence (Three Mile Island and Daiichi);
- the fact that nuclear safety regulations result in restrictions well below what has been classified by the scientific community as safe;
- the facts involving how messy and inadequate the response and cleanup to the reactor disaster really was;
- the crazy notion that a technology 40 years old could withstand the absolute mayhem of two types of disasters, one of which was well beyond what the reactor was designed for, and the other which the reactor was not designed to withstand;
- the fact that there have been no reported deaths due to the Daiichi accident;
- and the fact that levels of radiation in soils, while above what industry regulations require (due to prior propagation of fear by anti-nuke creeps), are well below what good old science has determined as maximum safe levels;

that nuclear power is, without a shadow of a doubt, highly reliable, stable and safe.

This is the primary reason I have zero problems with nuclear energy. It's not just safe - it's fucking safe. Smile

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote:
(10-30-2011, 07:30 PM)thokling Wrote: <snip> demonstrate a modicum of synaptic management and provide proof that nuclear energy is more harmful than other popular sources of energy.

The consequences of a major disaster would be and already are proven to be far more long reaching and catastrophic.

Suggestions and proof are completely different birds. Where's this proof you speak of? Links please. It's up to you anti-nuke people to provide backing for your statements, and I haven't seen anything whatsoever to challenge the evidence any of us nuclear energy supporters provided so thoroughly.

(I don't intend to drag those who are undecided onto "our side" by any means, by the way. I have more respect for those who sit on the fence than those who react emotionally and irrationally.)

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Even the "caskets" of radioactive waste with contiguous half lives of innumerable thousands of years, deeply buried and allegedly "safe" are not immune from widespread major geological activity WHEN it once again occurs.

We have a civilisation of 2000 years give or take and we are burying timebombs that will outstrip that timespan by unfathomable magnitudes.

How is that safe or even sane actually?

Try an hour or two worth of reading when you look up "spent nuclear fuel reprocessing" and see what kind of developments (green rust anionic clay, which is easy to make and converts toxic Chromium 6 to non-toxic and even nutritional Chromium 3; Closterium moniliferum, an algae for handling Strontium 90; opalinus clay as a potential candicate for Neptunium; copper hydroxide ethanedisulfonate (i.e. SLUG-26) for general, all-purpose negative-ion absorption; the list goes on, and on) have taken place.

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: For some reason my mind wanders at this point to thinking about how the most prominent and well heeled population reductionists are essentially the same brood who brought us such popular hits as the green revolution that has doubled the global population in less than half a century. my apologies.

What are you going on about? This has nothing to do with nuclear power, unless you're stating that population reductionists plan to use nuclear power to reduce the population. (This is a new one. I'd sooner believe HAARP was being used for such things over nuclear reactors strategically positioned on fault lines.)

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: the nuclear reactors of Fukishima has been proven to be less than safe, if you think about it.

Clearly, it won't matter to you how many links I provide to the contrary. Me and those like p4r4 have laid considerably more brain power on this than any of you, and you're suggesting we think about it? How have the Daiichi nuclear reactors been proven unsafe to humans at this point? Do you have any links, or are you just going to rely on your News Media Gods to point you the way to salvation?

(10-30-2011, 09:36 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote:
(10-30-2011, 07:30 PM)thokling Wrote: As I've noted, just because many other people believe something is true doesn't mean it is.
I concur.

No you don't. You're siding with the same people who believe this horseshit. You had your opportunity to shine and failed miserably.

Nuclear energy is far safer than any viable alternative energy source, and we have provided links and data proving this. If it weren't for these scare tactics (and that's all they are), we'd have technology advanced enough by now that there'd be zero question as to the safety of nuclear power.

Meanwhile, far more people are continuing to kick the bucket due to the dangers of mining and extracting resources you rely on to type your attempts at composing coherent, clinical conversations about matters you clearly have no clue about.

The last hope for your team is Yeti. But really, why go through the trouble of being proved wrong again, and again, and again?

Please, for the sake of our race, get over these unjustified fears. Stop watching the evening news, and nod and smile when your coworkers and/or friends start worrying about stuff that has no basis for concern.

I would gladly accept the dangers of nuclear energy if someone, even one person, could provide proof of its dangers over other well-developed energy sources.

Oh, Bull Medicine, as for your quip about geothermal energy, have any proof that it's cheaper than other energy sources?
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply
10-31-2011, 06:41 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 07:02 PM by Bull Medicine.)
#13
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: The word "sceptical" and its variants disappear from my posts when anti-nuclear proponents and other fear-feeding do-no-gooders decide they're going to rely on half-truths and manipulation by the real fearmongers instead of conducting some actual footwork and research this stuff with rational, methodical minds.

Ah..



(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: Another fine example of responding unnecessarily to fear. Italy went and shut down reactors based on this nonsense. I'm not sure what the point you're making is by quoting that link. How about elucidating on this a touch?

What I said was self evident. I was stating that nuclear power has only been around for 57 years; in what has been rapid exponential growth since the industrial revolution.

(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: There was a major, unpredicted tectonic event earlier this year on the Pacific Ring of Fire. Remember Fukushima? And there have been no deaths due to the nuclear accident (except perhaps the death of sane rationality, so no human deaths) due to the Daiichi reactor problems, even accounting for the messy reaction and cleanup. (Note also that the other three reactors shut down automatically at the time as they have in the past.)

Yes, I heard about the as yet ongoing Fukishima Daiichi disaster - am I to assume irony is wasted on you?

The rapid increase in infant mortality across the west coast of North America as the radiation from Japan arrived we can, I assume put down to pure coincedence?

Besides, what controls are you applying to make the statement ? Is decades of ocean dumping of radioactive waste figured into your calculations?

[Image: radioactivesomalia.jpg]

If you are exposed to a massive dose of radiation and do not die immediately but nonetheless a little later need to have your Thyroid gland removed but to no avail and still subsequently die from cancer then it has nothing to do with the initial exposure. Perhaps an argument that could be used in conjunction with use of DU munitions.


(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: We're not expected to assume that reactors on fault lines are invulnerable to disasters. We're to assume, based on:

- prior evidence (Three Mile Island and Daiichi);
- the fact that nuclear safety regulations result in restrictions well below what has been classified by the scientific community as safe;
- the facts involving how messy and inadequate the response and cleanup to the reactor disaster really was;
- the crazy notion that a technology 40 years old could withstand the absolute mayhem of two types of disasters, one of which was well beyond what the reactor was designed for, and the other which the reactor was not designed to withstand;
- the fact that there have been no reported deaths due to the Daiichi accident;
- and the fact that levels of radiation in soils, while above what industry regulations require (due to prior propagation of fear by anti-nuke creeps), are well below what good old science has determined as maximum safe levels;

that nuclear power is, without a shadow of a doubt, highly reliable, stable and safe.

This is the primary reason I have zero problems with nuclear energy. It's not just safe - it's fucking safe. Smile

Industrial regulations and safe exposure limits were rapidly raised in the advent of Fukishima. The nuclear industry has a vested interest in declaring nuclear power as safe.

Your abject faith in a corrupt industry is remarkable.



(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: Suggestions and proof are completely different birds. Where's this proof you speak of? Links please. It's up to you anti-nuke people to provide backing for your statements, and I haven't seen anything whatsoever to challenge the evidence any of us nuclear energy supporters provided so thoroughly.

(I don't intend to drag those who are undecided onto "our side" by any means, by the way. I have more respect for those who sit on the fence than those who react emotionally and irrationally.)

Okay, as you like. The feeling's mutual then.

(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: Try an hour or two worth of reading when you look up "spent nuclear fuel reprocessing" and see what kind of developments (green rust anionic clay, which is easy to make and converts toxic Chromium 6 to non-toxic and even nutritional Chromium 3; Closterium moniliferum, an algae for handling Strontium 90; opalinus clay as a potential candicate for Neptunium; copper hydroxide ethanedisulfonate (i.e. SLUG-26) for general, all-purpose negative-ion absorption; the list goes on, and on) have taken place.

And Plutonium? And you are simply stating advances made at the high end. Am I to assume that you have unwavering faith also that every single country in the world with access to nuclear technology has such high standards and never cuts corners? Beautiful.

[Image: Greenpeace%20documenting%20Russian%20ship.jpg]


(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: What are you going on about? This has nothing to do with nuclear power, unless you're stating that population reductionists plan to use nuclear power to reduce the population. (This is a new one. I'd sooner believe HAARP was being used for such things over nuclear reactors strategically positioned on fault lines.)

ah, blue pill then.

(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: Clearly, it won't matter to you how many links I provide to the contrary. Me and those like p4r4 have laid considerably more brain power on this than any of you, and you're suggesting we think about it? How have the Daiichi nuclear reactors been proven unsafe to humans at this point? Do you have any links, or are you just going to rely on your News Media Gods to point you the way to salvation?

Nope. Btw, I found a picture illustrating the extent of your brain power, enjoy:

[Image: rusting-barrels-of-nuclear-was.jpg]

(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: No you don't. You're siding with the same people who believe this horseshit. You had your opportunity to shine and failed miserably.


Nuclear energy is far safer than any viable alternative energy source, and we have provided links and data proving this. If it weren't for these scare tactics (and that's all they are), we'd have technology advanced enough by now that there'd be zero question as to the safety of nuclear power.

Meanwhile, far more people are continuing to kick the bucket due to the dangers of mining and extracting resources you rely on to type your attempts at composing coherent, clinical conversations about matters you clearly have no clue about.

Plastics are made from Uranium?

(10-31-2011, 12:56 AM)thokling Wrote: The last hope for your team is Yeti. But really, why go through the trouble of being proved wrong again, and again, and again?

Please, for the sake of our race, get over these unjustified fears. Stop watching the evening news, and nod and smile when your coworkers and/or friends start worrying about stuff that has no basis for concern.

I would gladly accept the dangers of nuclear energy if someone, even one person, could provide proof of its dangers over other well-developed energy sources.

Oh, Bull Medicine, as for your quip about geothermal energy, have any proof that it's cheaper than other energy sources?

Your appeals of rhetoric are cheap..

Nuclear power is cheap now - Geothermal power is essentially inexhaustible and when developed to the same extent would clearly be as "cheap" as Nuclear power.

Reply
10-31-2011, 11:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011, 04:24 AM by thokling.)
#14
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: I was stating that nuclear power has only been around for 57 years; in what has been rapid exponential growth since the industrial revolution.

Amazing growth and development have occurred in nuclear energy technology indeed.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Yes, I heard about the as yet ongoing Fukishima Daiichi disaster - am I to assume irony is wasted on you?

In that case, it wasn't irony - it was sarcasm.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: The rapid increase in infant mortality across the west coast of North America as the radiation from Japan arrived we can, I assume put down to pure coincedence?

Yep. You have to determine what the statistical variance is with infant mortality rates at equal locations along the west coast of North America before making a decision on whether or not a single increase represents a trend.

As I've noted in prior responses to the topic of nuclear energy safety, even when radiation levels outside of the three Daiichi reactors were at their maximum, the amount of radiation detected was well below the safety limits determined by industry and scientists.

So, yes, you can chalk that one up to coincidence.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Is decades of ocean dumping of radioactive waste figured into your calculations?

Sure is. Nuclear energy is still safer than older technologies. Trends are directing countries toward implementing stronger policies. Until then, clean-up operations are continuing (for all types of toxic waste).

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: If you are exposed to a massive dose of radiation and do not die immediately but nonetheless a little later need to have your Thyroid gland removed but to no avail and still subsequently die from cancer then it has nothing to do with the initial exposure. Perhaps an argument that could be used in conjunction with use of DU munitions.

The two or three workers who were taken to a hospital for radiation burns haven't died. Even if they do, compare that number to the number of deaths caused by other energy industries, and nuclear power is still safer, even after two disasters hit Daiichi. Nice, eh?

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Industrial regulations and safe exposure limits were rapidly raised in the advent of Fukishima. The nuclear industry has a vested interest in declaring nuclear power as safe.

Everyone has a vested interest in declaring nuclear power as a safe form of energy, industries and regular citizens alike.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: And Plutonium? And you are simply stating advances made at the high end.

Why would I answer this for you? I've already given you examples to go on for research. It takes more than posting a bunch of pictures and making stuff up to educate yourself.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Am I to assume that you have unwavering faith also that every single country in the world with access to nuclear technology has such high standards and never cuts corners? Beautiful.

You're clearly willing to assume many things, and then formulate responses based on those assumptions. I have not indicated the level of faith I have in industries that cut corners.

If you're so concerned about it, what are you doing to push industries to better control their waste management systems?

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote:
thokling Wrote:What are you going on about? This has nothing to do with nuclear power, unless you're stating that population reductionists plan to use nuclear power to reduce the population. (This is a new one. I'd sooner believe HAARP was being used for such things over nuclear reactors strategically positioned on fault lines.)

ah, blue pill then.

I didn't state I believed that HAARP was being used for disasters - I said I'd sooner believe it than believe nuclear power was used to reduce the planet's population. Please reread your responses before posting them, or you'll end up looking like a complete shithead.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Plastics are made from Uranium?

Nope. Sometimes radionuclides are used to increase the durability of materials mixed with plastic, but plastics aren't made of them.

(10-31-2011, 06:41 PM)Bull Medicine Wrote: Nuclear power is cheap now - Geothermal power is essentially inexhaustible and when developed to the same extent would clearly be as "cheap" as Nuclear power.

Geothermal is certainly a promising alternative to nuclear energy. Until that happens, what would be the purpose of stifling a perfectly good technology using fear? It's all politics that's dragging the nuclear energy industry down.

The one aspect of this conversation that's annoyed me the most is the amount of time and effort we pro-nukers have made with regards to conducting research into this compared to the lack of research by those of you too scared into submission. The reason it's annoyed me is there are numerous people who believe that spouting nonsensical drivel is better than actually reading up on and understanding the details behind nuclear energy. You'd rather follow than lead.

Even when we prove you wrong time and time again, you still come up with unjustified, baseless fears about nuclear energy technologies. You're helping to perpetuate the downfall of an energy industry that has been proven safer and more cost effective than all others without exception. This attitude across such a large expanse of humanity will end up holding humanity back, and you haven't been aware of this during your posts.

(Edit: quick spelling correction.)
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply
11-01-2011, 02:02 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-01-2011, 02:30 AM by Bull Medicine.)
#15
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
"So, yes, you can chalk that one up to coincidence."

I stopped reading at that point - chalk it up to ignorance if you like __ i am being ironic

enjoy the thread

"A snapshot of the interior of a 34th century Neutron Drive. Particles
flit in magnetically-induced orbits around the central core, providing
awesome power for any luxury spaceliner or interstellar battleship. "

http://thok.ca/artwork.php?series=polychase&index=6

ah, luxury spaceliners-- Rolleyes -- and "interstellar battleships" Rolleyes:cuckoo:
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gaza ‘miracle baby’, born after mother’s death, dies of complications amid power cuts bristopen 0 239 08-01-2014, 09:38 AM
Last Post: bristopen
  Something tells me we're not going to have any planes flying into THIS NYC building h3rm35 0 380 09-19-2012, 10:59 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Power of Reverse Speech - Please Stay Stupid Yakhont26 28 3,869 12-10-2010, 03:10 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Wink the power of Bob Marley drummer 3 855 12-08-2010, 07:10 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  After enrichment, Iran in pursuit of nuclear fusion joeblow 0 395 10-27-2009, 11:20 PM
Last Post: joeblow
  Ron Greenslade, The Daily Express, Deadly Cancer Jabs And How Global Warming Triggers Nuclear War --- 0 479 10-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Last Post: ---
  L.A. Federal Building Standoff April 7 1,256 08-14-2009, 07:44 AM
Last Post: mastermg
  The power of technology - such as blogs - meant that the world could no longer be run by &quot;elites&quot; mexika 1 530 07-22-2009, 08:01 AM
Last Post: mexika
  67 US nuclear computers 'go missing' TriWooOx 0 443 02-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse hilly7 9 1,433 02-13-2009, 04:55 PM
Last Post: ---

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)