"Right" for the wrong reasons.

[Taichiliberal]

Here are (just two) pet peeves I have when it comes to the political/ideological fence that separates the "left" and the "right when it comes to two of highly controversial and contentious subjects in current America:

COVID - here's were both groups actually agree on something; the federal gov't and health organizations fucked up. However, both sides resort to tunnel vision when dealing with this subject. The "right" emphasizes individual rights, that "no federal gov't is going to tell me what to do"! The criticism focused on mask mandates and mandatory vaccine shots for various businesses, not to mention the briefly proposed "vaccine status ID cards". What they didn't do was point out in earnest the bad science involved ... Covid test (PCR) that consistently gives false results (as explained years ago by it's inventor, the late Dr. Mullis), nor the plethora of noted scientist in America and around the world explaining that there were other methods to combat the disease, and current protocols by the CDC, AMA and NHI were not adequate, or that the vaccines were completely safe. They did this while being very careful not to lay too much blame on the Trump administration.

By the same token, the "left" emphasized Trump's delayed reaction via federal action (i.e. supplies), bad policies like using retirement & rehab centers to house Covid patients. They condescended to anyone who wasn't "pro-vaccine", ignored or denied contrary facts from various noted doctors and scientists, excused the "bad science" and such (PCR test fallibility). They would then back any and all aspects of the Pro-Vaccine mandates from the CDC, NHI and AMA. They did this while being very careful NOT to give Trump any credit for anything.

WIND ENERGY - the "right" is quite correct that the current instruments used for wind energy pose a major threat to birds of all species (depending on where they are). The left makes all types of excuses for this. The right, and some left, default to nuke energy as "clean"...ignoring all the hazards and impending problems of growing waste storage (no disposal or decontamination in site). What both sides don't see (or are ignorant of) that there are available NON-BLADE systems small enough to fit in a home backyard or atop any commercial or industrial building.


And the band played on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here are (just two) pet peeves I have when it comes to the political/ideological fence that separates the "left" and the "right when it comes to two of highly controversial and contentious subjects in current America:

COVID - here's were both groups actually agree on something; the federal gov't and health organizations fucked up. However, both sides resort to tunnel vision when dealing with this subject. The "right" emphasizes individual rights, that "no federal gov't is going to tell me what to do"! The criticism focused on mask mandates and mandatory vaccine shots for various businesses, not to mention the briefly proposed "vaccine status ID cards". What they didn't do was point out in earnest the bad science involved ... Covid test (PCR) that consistently gives false results (as explained years ago by it's inventor, the late Dr. Mullis), nor the plethora of noted scientist in America and around the world explaining that there were other methods to combat the disease, and current protocols by the CDC, AMA and NHI were not adequate, or that the vaccines were completely safe. They did this while being very careful not to lay too much blame on the Trump administration.

By the same token, the "left" emphasized Trump's delayed reaction via federal action (i.e. supplies), bad policies like using retirement & rehab centers to house Covid patients. They condescended to anyone who wasn't "pro-vaccine", ignored or denied contrary facts from various noted doctors and scientists, excused the "bad science" and such (PCR test fallibility). They would then back any and all aspects of the Pro-Vaccine mandates from the CDC, NHI and AMA. They did this while being very careful NOT to give Trump any credit for anything.

WIND ENERGY - the "right" is quite correct that the current instruments used for wind energy pose a major threat to birds of all species (depending on where they are). The left makes all types of excuses for this. The right, and some left, default to nuke energy as "clean"...ignoring all the hazards and impending problems of growing waste storage (no disposal or decontamination in site). What both sides don't see (or are ignorant of) that there are available NON-BLADE systems small enough to fit in a home backyard or atop any commercial or industrial building.

And the band played on.

I advocate for nuclear because it is relatively clean compared to other generation sources. It is safe, and it provides reliable, cheap, and plentiful power. Of the three major accidents in nuclear power (there have been other smaller ones too I'll acknowledge but I'm focusing on the "big three") the following should be noted:

Chernobyl: An unsafe reactor design using graphite as a moderator. Not used anywhere else in the world for commercial generation because of its design and the fact that it produces weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct of operation. The Chernobyl plant had serious flaws in construction and design as well allowed by a totalitarian government that couldn't be held accountable.
The meltdown and subsequent explosion were due to unsafe operation of the plant in a test where the lead engineer--again unaccountable--ordered the operators to do unsafe things.
This was entirely the fault of selection of a poor and unsafe design and unaccountable government, along with mass corruption by the contractors.

Fukushima: The plant was overwhelmed by an unprecedented tsunami. The mistake in design here was, there was no secondary containment like the US requires. The reactors were housed in what amounted to fancy big tin sheds. Even so, nobody directly died as a result of the meltdowns. Evacuations, as with TMI (see below) were done out of an abundance of caution. The plant is being cleaned up and that will eventually mitigate the problem entirely.

Three Mile Island: What amounted to a worse case scenario for the US nuclear industry. Just to note, a nearly identical incident happened at the Davis Bessie plant in Ohio that was a duplicate of the TMI plant. There operators recognized the issue and shut the plant down safely with no further issues. At TMI the operators did just about everything they could do wrong. The reactor in question suffered a partial meltdown. There was no accidental release of any radiation from the plant as the secondary containment worked as intended.
No one died. No one got so much as cancer as a result of the accident. It's since been cleaned up. Of note, compare that to the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform accident in the Caribbean. That conventional oil drilling rig accident cost nearly ten times as much to clean up, over a dozen people died as a direct result of the accident, more were harmed, not to mention the widespread environmental damage. But we are still using lots of oil...

The problem for nuclear can be summed up in one word: Ignorance. Even on this board, other than maybe a couple of people besides me, no one can adequately explain how a nuclear power plant works right off the top of their head, if at all. Radiation and its effects are equally not understood. The result is fear of the unknown compounded by massive lies, particularly from the radical leftist greentard / envirotard front.

 

[Lightbringer]

Here are (just two) pet peeves I have when it comes to the political/ideological fence that separates the "left" and the "right when it comes to two of highly controversial and contentious subjects in current America:

COVID - here's were both groups actually agree on something; the federal gov't and health organizations fucked up. However, both sides resort to tunnel vision when dealing with this subject. The "right" emphasizes individual rights, that "no federal gov't is going to tell me what to do"! The criticism focused on mask mandates and mandatory vaccine shots for various businesses, not to mention the briefly proposed "vaccine status ID cards". What they didn't do was point out in earnest the bad science involved ... Covid test (PCR) that consistently gives false results (as explained years ago by it's inventor, the late Dr. Mullis), nor the plethora of noted scientist in America and around the world explaining that there were other methods to combat the disease, and current protocols by the CDC, AMA and NHI were not adequate, or that the vaccines were completely safe. They did this while being very careful not to lay too much blame on the Trump administration.

By the same token, the "left" emphasized Trump's delayed reaction via federal action (i.e. supplies), bad policies like using retirement & rehab centers to house Covid patients. They condescended to anyone who wasn't "pro-vaccine", ignored or denied contrary facts from various noted doctors and scientists, excused the "bad science" and such (PCR test fallibility). They would then back any and all aspects of the Pro-Vaccine mandates from the CDC, NHI and AMA. They did this while being very careful NOT to give Trump any credit for anything.

WIND ENERGY - the "right" is quite correct that the current instruments used for wind energy pose a major threat to birds of all species (depending on where they are). The left makes all types of excuses for this. The right, and some left, default to nuke energy as "clean"...ignoring all the hazards and impending problems of growing waste storage (no disposal or decontamination in site). What both sides don't see (or are ignorant of) that there are available NON-BLADE systems small enough to fit in a home backyard or atop any commercial or industrial building.


And the band played on.

Do you even pay attention to the world around you? I know plenty of GOP people who freaked out because of covid so they got their shots and wore the masks. The people I saw fighting mandates were split between conservative and liberal. The only people trying to make that a right/left thing were the people who intended it to be so in the first place.

 

[Yakuda]

Here are (just two) pet peeves I have when it comes to the political/ideological fence that separates the "left" and the "right when it comes to two of highly controversial and contentious subjects in current America:

COVID - here's were both groups actually agree on something; the federal gov't and health organizations fucked up. However, both sides resort to tunnel vision when dealing with this subject. The "right" emphasizes individual rights, that "no federal gov't is going to tell me what to do"! The criticism focused on mask mandates and mandatory vaccine shots for various businesses, not to mention the briefly proposed "vaccine status ID cards". What they didn't do was point out in earnest the bad science involved ... Covid test (PCR) that consistently gives false results (as explained years ago by it's inventor, the late Dr. Mullis), nor the plethora of noted scientist in America and around the world explaining that there were other methods to combat the disease, and current protocols by the CDC, AMA and NHI were not adequate, or that the vaccines were completely safe. They did this while being very careful not to lay too much blame on the Trump administration.

By the same token, the "left" emphasized Trump's delayed reaction via federal action (i.e. supplies), bad policies like using retirement & rehab centers to house Covid patients. They condescended to anyone who wasn't "pro-vaccine", ignored or denied contrary facts from various noted doctors and scientists, excused the "bad science" and such (PCR test fallibility). They would then back any and all aspects of the Pro-Vaccine mandates from the CDC, NHI and AMA. They did this while being very careful NOT to give Trump any credit for anything.

WIND ENERGY - the "right" is quite correct that the current instruments used for wind energy pose a major threat to birds of all species (depending on where they are). The left makes all types of excuses for this. The right, and some left, default to nuke energy as "clean"...ignoring all the hazards and impending problems of growing waste storage (no disposal or decontamination in site). What both sides don't see (or are ignorant of) that there are available NON-BLADE systems small enough to fit in a home backyard or atop any commercial or industrial building.


And the band played on.

The covid thing was made far more complicated than it needed to be which makes me wonder it's appearance in the world. We knew right from the beginning who was most vulnerable to the virus. Instead of focusing on them and getting them treatment the focus was on everybody and we all paid a price and for nothing. That was the single most stupid move in the whole debacle.

Nuclear is the best possible solution to our long term energy needs.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I advocate for nuclear because it is relatively clean compared to other generation sources. It is safe, and it provides reliable, cheap, and plentiful power. Of the three major accidents in nuclear power (there have been other smaller ones too I'll acknowledge but I'm focusing on the "big three") the following should be noted:

Chernobyl: An unsafe reactor design using graphite as a moderator. Not used anywhere else in the world for commercial generation because of its design and the fact that it produces weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct of operation. The Chernobyl plant had serious flaws in construction and design as well allowed by a totalitarian government that couldn't be held accountable.
The meltdown and subsequent explosion were due to unsafe operation of the plant in a test where the lead engineer--again unaccountable--ordered the operators to do unsafe things.
This was entirely the fault of selection of a poor and unsafe design and unaccountable government, along with mass corruption by the contractors.

Fukushima: The plant was overwhelmed by an unprecedented tsunami. The mistake in design here was, there was no secondary containment like the US requires. The reactors were housed in what amounted to fancy big tin sheds. Even so, nobody directly died as a result of the meltdowns. Evacuations, as with TMI (see below) were done out of an abundance of caution. The plant is being cleaned up and that will eventually mitigate the problem entirely.

Three Mile Island: What amounted to a worse case scenario for the US nuclear industry. Just to note, a nearly identical incident happened at the Davis Bessie plant in Ohio that was a duplicate of the TMI plant. There operators recognized the issue and shut the plant down safely with no further issues. At TMI the operators did just about everything they could do wrong. The reactor in question suffered a partial meltdown. There was no accidental release of any radiation from the plant as the secondary containment worked as intended.
No one died. No one got so much as cancer as a result of the accident. It's since been cleaned up. Of note, compare that to the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform accident in the Caribbean. That conventional oil drilling rig accident cost nearly ten times as much to clean up, over a dozen people died as a direct result of the accident, more were harmed, not to mention the widespread environmental damage. But we are still using lots of oil...

The problem for nuclear can be summed up in one word: Ignorance. Even on this board, other than maybe a couple of people besides me, no one can adequately explain how a nuclear power plant works right off the top of their head, if at all. Radiation and its effects are equally not understood. The result is fear of the unknown compounded by massive lies, particularly from the radical leftist greentard / envirotard front.

1. while Chernobyl was Russian and not American design, that does not guarantee our safety: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-26/thinking-the-unthinkable-can-chernobyl-happen-here

And nuke power ain't cheap....never was: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-staggering-cost-of-new-nuclear-power/

2. Nature has a way of being "unprecedented". Case in point: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/flood-risk-nuclear-power-plants
https://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/nebraska_nuclear_plant/index.htm

3. The accident at Three Mile Island was caused by a combination of equipment failure and the inability of plant operators to understand the reactor’s condition at certain times during the event. Cancer rates rose after the accident, animal miscarriages and such. Hell of a "coincidence".

The problem with nuke power can be summed up by the following: greed, stubborn pride, willful ignorance.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The covid thing was made far more complicated than it needed to be which makes me wonder it's appearance in the world. We knew right from the beginning who was most vulnerable to the virus. Instead of focusing on them and getting them treatment the focus was on everybody and we all paid a price and for nothing. That was the single most stupid move in the whole debacle.

Nuclear is the best possible solution to our long term energy needs.

1. "We" didn't know a damn thing, but as I said both sides chose to ignore what didn't jibe with their beliefs and convictions...and the general population is STILL paying the price.

2. See my answer to TA Gardner regarding nuke power.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

1. while Chernobyl was Russian and not American design, that does not guarantee our safety: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-26/thinking-the-unthinkable-can-chernobyl-happen-here

And nuke power ain't cheap....never was: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-staggering-cost-of-new-nuclear-power/

2. Nature has a way of being "unprecedented". Case in point: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/flood-risk-nuclear-power-plants
https://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/nebraska_nuclear_plant/index.htm

3. The accident at Three Mile Island was caused by a combination of equipment failure and the inability of plant operators to understand the reactor’s condition at certain times during the event. Cancer rates rose after the accident, animal miscarriages and such. Hell of a "coincidence".

The problem with nuke power can be summed up by the following: greed, stubborn pride, willful ignorance.

In rebuttal:

1. A Chernobyl type accident is impossible in the US since we don't operate graphite moderated fast fission reactors any more. The article you cite talks about the Hanford site. It, like Rocky Flats Colorado, and Savanah River Georgia have been closed for quite a while.

Today the Hanford site encompasses 586 square miles. Over time, the plutonium production complex grew to nine reactors, all now closed.
https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/c...complex grew to nine reactors, all now closed.

Thus, there are no operating graphite moderated reactors in the US, thus a Chernobyl cannot happen.

Nuclear power isn't cheap, but it produces plentiful amounts reliably and almost continuously. That results in it being cheaper over the life of the plant--by far--compared to wind and solar.

The articles on flooding you cite are nothing but simplistic "What-if's" that never really address things realistically. Because in the US reactor plants have that secondary containment, it is possible to flood the reactor space submerging it and making a melt down again impossible simply because the flood water now cools the reactor while keeping things contained.

3. I had to study the TMI accident in detail. There is no evidence that any rise in cancer occurred, and most studies dismiss the possibility because of the lack of release of any significant quantity of radioactive material. Even a simplistic source like Wiki covers that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three...he accident with cancer is difficult to prove.

The problem with solar and wind can be summed up as, stupidity, willful ignorance of engineering and science, and a religious belief in Gorebal Warming. On the other hand, nuclear power when looked at rationally, makes sense from virtually every angle.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I owned a large beach house until I was no longer physically able to maintain it.
From one side, you could see the magnificent Atlantic.
From the other side, you could see the bay, with the huge nuclear power plant practically in the middle of it.

The power plant's local taxes paid for

a new town water supply [you could still run your wells concurrently],
and the town repaired your lawn and/or pavement after it was connected to your house.

Storm drains on the streets.

Town sewage--no more septic tanks--and they paid to fill the latter with concrete.
This was done in conjunction with the water lines so that all the post-hookup repairs could be done at once.

A new police station.
A new fire station.
A new public library.
A new town hall.
Two new playgrounds.
A new elementary school.
A new community center.
Expanded trash pickup services.
Free emergency ambulance service.

All because of the nuclear power plant.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the whole project was constructed with union labor.

If there was an accident, yes, we were all dead
because leaving the area all at once
was a clusterfuck you could witness every summer Sunday night.

Nobody cared. The nuclear power plant was and is appreciated.
Based on personal experience, I have to vote yes on them.

 

[Lightbringer]

I owned a large beach house until I was no longer physically able to maintain it.
From one side, you could see the magnificent Atlantic.
From the other side, you could see the bay, with the huge nuclear power plant practically in the middle of it.

The power plant's local taxes paid for

a new town water supply [you could still run your wells concurrently],
and the town repaired your lawn and/or pavement after it was connected to your house.

Storm drains on the streets.

Town sewage--no more septic tanks--and they paid to fill the latter with concrete.
This was done in conjunction with the water lines so that all the post-hookup repairs could be done at once.

A new police station.
A new fire station.
A new public library.
A new town hall.
Two new playgrounds.
A new elementary school.
A new community center.
Expanded trash pickup services.
Free emergency ambulance service.

All because of the nuclear power plant.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the whole project was constructed with union labor.

If there was an accident, yes, we were all dead
because leaving the area all at once
was a clusterfuck you could witness ever summer Sunday night.

Nobody cared. The nuclear power plant was and is appreciated.
Based on personal experience, I have to vote yes on them.

So your beach house was in Erie, Michigan or near it?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I happened to see Guille's question when I wasn't logged in.

Is Michigan on the Atlantic?

It was in Seabrook Beach, NH, just an hour or so up the coast from Boston, also on the coast.
On a national map, New Hampshire's ocean coast line is just a tiny spot separating Massachusetts and Maine.
Our summer home was on that spot, just two or three hundred yards past the Massachusetts border.

 

[Lightbringer]

I happened to see Guille's question when I wasn't logged in.

Is Michigan on the Atlantic?

It was in Seabrook Beach, NH, just an hour or so up the coast from Boston, also on the coast.
On a national map, New Hampshire's ocean coast line is just a tiny spot separating Massachusetts and Maine.
Our summer home was on that spot, just on the Massachusetts border.

Bullshit. You weren't logged in so you could justify not quoting me. I've said it once I'll say it again, you're a fucking coward, and an idiot.

See moron, you had to log in to post this, you could have quoted me once you logged in. You didn't. That's on you cowardly asswipe.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I see the idiot Guille is still trying to talk to me.

You're welcome for my answering your question, assclown.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. while Chernobyl was Russian and not American design, that does not guarantee our safety: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...yl-happen-here

And nuke power ain't cheap....never was: https://www.americanprogress.org/art...nuclear-power/

2. Nature has a way of being "unprecedented". Case in point: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/flo...r-power-plants
https://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/new...lant/index.htm

3. The accident at Three Mile Island was caused by a combination of equipment failure and the inability of plant operators to understand the reactor’s condition at certain times during the event. Cancer rates rose after the accident, animal miscarriages and such. Hell of a "coincidence".

The problem with nuke power can be summed up by the following: greed, stubborn pride, willful ignorance.

In rebuttal:

1. A Chernobyl type accident is impossible in the US since we don't operate graphite moderated fast fission reactors any more. The article you cite talks about the Hanford site. It, like Rocky Flats Colorado, and Savanah River Georgia have been closed for quite a while.

Today the Hanford site encompasses 586 square miles. Over time, the plutonium production complex grew to nine reactors, all now closed.
https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/c...complex grew to nine reactors, all now closed.

Thus, there are no operating graphite moderated reactors in the US, thus a Chernobyl cannot happen.

Nuclear power isn't cheap, but it produces plentiful amounts reliably and almost continuously. That results in it being cheaper over the life of the plant--by far--compared to wind and solar.

The articles on flooding you cite are nothing but simplistic "What-if's" that never really address things realistically. Because in the US reactor plants have that secondary containment, it is possible to flood the reactor space submerging it and making a melt down again impossible simply because the flood water now cools the reactor while keeping things contained.

3. I had to study the TMI accident in detail. There is no evidence that any rise in cancer occurred, and most studies dismiss the possibility because of the lack of release of any significant quantity of radioactive material. Even a simplistic source like Wiki covers that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three...he accident with cancer is difficult to prove.

The problem with solar and wind can be summed up as, stupidity, willful ignorance of engineering and science, and a religious belief in Gorebal Warming. On the other hand, nuclear power when looked at rationally, makes sense from virtually every angle.

1. You open with a moot point that the article covered. Also, Hanford was 1 in 5 type plants, and the article pointed out how the major problem was containment structures, NOT the other design flaws that were in Chernobyl (i.e., graphite). Yes, since 2016 all the reactors were closed by 1987....BUT clean up and containment (similar but way less elaborate than what was done to Chernobyl) is still ongoing. And brother, it ain't "clean" by a long shot! https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dir...site can,burials were not accurately recorded.

2. Essentially you repeat company dogma, which requires one to ignore what my article details about costs (long and short term). When all is said and done, the costs are passed on to the consumer. Case in point, look into South Carolina Electric & Gas about less than a decade ago. Again, it was NEVER "cheap electricity" https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/12/false-promise-nuclear-power-past-present-and-no-future

3. What's simplistic is your painfully inadequate study habits. Here, a primer for your education: https://whyy.org/articles/the-three...-enduring-questions-of-ties-to-cancer-deaths/

Your last 2 sentence are just a regurgitation of anti-alternative energy wonk-ism. Already addressed, already validated against your sources and conclusions. You fit two of the three points in my previous last sentence. Carry on.

 

[Lightbringer]

1. You open with a moot point that the article covered. Also, Hanford was 1 in 5 type plants, and the article pointed out how the major problem was containment structures, NOT the other design flaws that were in Chernobyl (i.e., graphite). Yes, since 2016 all the reactors were closed by 1987....BUT clean up and containment (similar but way less elaborate than what was done to Chernobyl) is still ongoing. And brother, it ain't "clean" by a long shot! https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dir...site can,burials were not accurately recorded.

2. Essentially you repeat company dogma, which requires one to ignore what my article details about costs (long and short term). When all is said and done, the costs are passed on to the consumer. Case in point, look into South Carolina Electric & Gas about less than a decade ago. Again, it was NEVER "cheap electricity" https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/12/false-promise-nuclear-power-past-present-and-no-future

3. What's simplistic is your painfully inadequate study habits. Here, a primer for your education: https://whyy.org/articles/the-three...-enduring-questions-of-ties-to-cancer-deaths/

Your last 2 sentence are just a regurgitation of anti-alternative energy wonk-ism. Already addressed, already validated against your sources and conclusions. You fit two of the three points in my previous last sentence. Carry on.

How was he wrong?

 

[Taichiliberal]

I see the idiot Guille is still trying to talk to me.

You're welcome for my answering your question, assclown.

I don't understand it. If you are on someone's ignore list and you try to post a reply to them, you get a notice telling you that they won't see it because you are on that list. Yet our resident MAGA mooks and conservative wonks keep at it. I figure that they do this on the gamble that someone on that thread who is not on the ignore list will respond to them, and thus you will inadvertently see there post.

Obviously, these jokers need another hobby....that and see a therapist about this obsession with contrary opinions and the need to always be right.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I owned a large beach house until I was no longer physically able to maintain it.
From one side, you could see the magnificent Atlantic.
From the other side, you could see the bay, with the huge nuclear power plant practically in the middle of it.

The power plant's local taxes paid for

a new town water supply [you could still run your wells concurrently],
and the town repaired your lawn and/or pavement after it was connected to your house.

Storm drains on the streets.

Town sewage--no more septic tanks--and they paid to fill the latter with concrete.
This was done in conjunction with the water lines so that all the post-hookup repairs could be done at once.

A new police station.
A new fire station.
A new public library.
A new town hall.
Two new playgrounds.
A new elementary school.
A new community center.
Expanded trash pickup services.
Free emergency ambulance service.

All because of the nuclear power plant.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the whole project was constructed with union labor.

If there was an accident, yes, we were all dead
because leaving the area all at once
was a clusterfuck you could witness every summer Sunday night.

Nobody cared. The nuclear power plant was and is appreciated.
Based on personal experience, I have to vote yes on them.

Mind giving the location? Because it sounds like a fairy tale. Did anyone ever questioned where all the waste went? Did it flush the used cooling water back into the eco-system? Any gaseous venting?

I'm really fascinated by the lackadaisical of the residents regarding evacuation procedures. About 40 years ago here on Long Island, NY....a local power company did a fast shuffle to construct a nuke plant (Shoreham) to the point were it was almost ready for operation. Then Mayor Mario Cuomo went over all the details and publicly told them, "If you think I'm going to be responsible getting several million people off that island should those emergency sirens sound when we can't normally guarantee commuters getting to work on time without traffic jams and railroad delays, YOU'VE GOT TO BE OUT OF YOUR MIND!

I met the man years later by chance on the street going to work, thanked him and shook his hand on that. He said to me (true story) "Wasn't that crazy? They had to be out of their cotton picking minds!"

Just saying.

 

[Lightbringer]

I don't understand it. If you are on someone's ignore list and you try to post a reply to them, you get a notice telling you that they won't see it because you are on that list. Yet our resident MAGA mooks and conservative wonks keep at it. I figure that they do this on the gamble that someone on that thread who is not on the ignore list will respond to them, and thus you will inadvertently see there post.

Obviously, these jokers need another hobby....that and see a therapist about this obsession with contrary opinions and the need to always be right.

This isn't true. If I'm on your iggy list I won't get a message telling me that. And, Nifty is a coward because he claimed he posted because of something he saw when he wasn't logged in but he had to log in to post.

You people are fucking cowards.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Mind giving the location? Because it sounds like a fucking fairy tale.

Seabrook Beach, New Hampshire--our summer home was a few hundred yards north of the Massachusetts border. just over an hour north of Boston.
The New Hampshire Atlantic coastline is a tiny dot between Massachsuetts and Maine. We lived on it.

It's all true. The plant was built in the early 70s, if I recall correctly, and went up quickly for a nuclear plant.
No local protests. We got a heads up on the benefits that would come.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Seabrook Beach, New Hampshire--our summer home was a few hundred yards north of the Massachusetts border. just over an hour north of Boston.
The New Hampshire Atlantic coastline is a tiny dot between Massachsuetts and Maine. We lived on it.

It's all true. The plant was built in the early 70s, if I recall correctly, and went up quickly for a nuclear plant.
No local protests. We got a heads up on the benefits that would come.

Yeah, benefits. Hollow benefits given what went (is going) down with that place. Good thing you got out when you did. Check it out.

https://www.wmur.com/article/nuclear-watchdog-concrete-cracks-seabrook-plant/42247240

https://www.c-10.org/seabrooks-concrete

 

[T. A. Gardner]

1. You open with a moot point that the article covered. Also, Hanford was 1 in 5 type plants, and the article pointed out how the major problem was containment structures, NOT the other design flaws that were in Chernobyl (i.e., graphite). Yes, since 2016 all the reactors were closed by 1987....BUT clean up and containment (similar but way less elaborate than what was done to Chernobyl) is still ongoing. And brother, it ain't "clean" by a long shot! https://www.icanw.org/hanford_s_dir...site can,burials were not accurately recorded.

Hanford was set up during WW 2 to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Your sources, and you are using the Historian's fallacy of putting current standards on a site that never had them when it was operating because it did so previous to those standards.

2. Essentially you repeat company dogma, which requires one to ignore what my article details about costs (long and short term). When all is said and done, the costs are passed on to the consumer. Case in point, look into South Carolina Electric & Gas about less than a decade ago. Again, it was NEVER "cheap electricity" https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/12/false-promise-nuclear-power-past-present-and-no-future

The cost of clean up was still lower than with many conventional sites. Even with it, nuclear still provided cheaper power than solar or wind.

3. What's simplistic is your painfully inadequate study habits. Here, a primer for your education: https://whyy.org/articles/the-three...-enduring-questions-of-ties-to-cancer-deaths/

Over the years, their initial reports about having experienced nausea, vomiting, hair loss, and skin rashes as a result of radiation exposure have led to more compelling stories of serious health issues, cancer rates and aberrations in the plant and animal world. Those stories have endured in defiance of the official conclusions.
From your source. Unsourced, anecdote isn't evidence.

I remember, taking a class on nuclear power in college, the professor read a quote about a hausfrau that was hysterically saying on some national news program "I could feel the radiation!" He had us calculate what amount of gamma radiation at the average energy for each particle it would take to raise her body temperature one degree which he set as the condition to "feel the radiation." It came out to well over a million REM which would have killed her instantly.
She was full of shit, your article's one source is a horribly biased anti-nuclear one: https://www.tmia.com/taxonomy/term/...Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations.
https://www.tmia.com/about

Three Mile Island Alert is anti-nuclear and pro solar and wind. Of course, they spin things for their chosen advocacy. They're full of shit.