Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
nope.
"Right" for the wrong reasons.
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
nope.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Yep. Even the most basic Wiki says so.
In September 1942 Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves Jr. became the director of the Manhattan Project, as it came to be known. The project to build industrial-size plants for the manufacture of plutonium was codenamed the X‑10 project.
The Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, authorized the acquisition of the land on February 8, 1943. A Manhattan District project office opened in Prosser, Washington, on February 22, and the Washington Title Insurance Company opened an office there to furnish title certificates. Federal Judge Lewis B. Schwellenbach issued an order of possession under the Second War Powers Act the following day, and the first tract was acquired on March 10.[34][35] Some 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired, making it one of the largest land acquisition projects in American history.
DuPont advertised for workers in newspapers for an unspecified "war construction project" in southeastern Washington, offering an "attractive scale of wages" and living facilities.
Hanford provided the plutonium for the bomb used in the 1945 Trinity nuclear test (first nuclear bomb detonation, White Sands NM).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You know who runs wikipedia...right?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Who cares? Hanford was set up during WW 2 to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs and for nothing else. Postwar, it continued to produce plutonium for that purpose.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You post it as authoritative and don't give a shit? OK.
How many times do I have to embarrass you?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
1. Again, you open with a moot point. But you can't blather passed the UPDATED FACTS in my link regarding Hanford. No "fallacy" there (and stop misusing that word, that idiot who squawked it constantly has been ignored even by other "conservative" posters). You're just parroting the SOS with insipid stubbornness.
2. Prove it! Post the comparative numbers using valid sources! I dare you! And parroting the company line is just a dumb move on your part.
3. Here's what you looked past: A 2017 study suggesting a correlation between radiation exposure at Three Mile Island and a type of thyroid cancer only heightened the debate. Here's documentation for that: https://www.psu.edu/news/research/s...een-tmi-nuclear-accident-and-thyroid-cancers/
You are quick to call names and negatively label things, but you can't point out exactly what is "full of shit" and biased about a the watch group. Pro-Nuke wonks like you seldom do. Instead, you blow smoke about your alleged educational forays into "studying" the subject, which are exactly the anecdotes you claim aren't evidence.
As usual, your pro-nuke wonk-ism doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Your last two sentences are but mere projections of yourself. Carry on. See ya tomorrow with more of your predictable BS.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The author or owner of the site is irrelevant to the content of the material. Either the material is correct or in error.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You just said Who Cares. Go fuck yourself.
Out of all the Progs and Demons on this site you're worse than all of them.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
TMI cost about $1 billion to clean up.
14-Year Cleanup at Three Mile Island Concludes
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/15/us/14-year-cleanup-at-three-mile-island-concludes.html
The TMI-2 Cleanup: Challenging and Successful
https://wx1.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/cleanup.php
Deepwater Horizon, the oil rig accident in the Caribbean cost is still ongoing and by some estimates over $100 billion
BP's Deepwater Horizon Costs Reach $65 Billion
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/bp-s-deepwater-horizon-costs-reach-65-billion
Deepwater Horizon: The costs continue
https://www.workboat.com/viewpoints/deepwater-horizon-the-costs-continue
Ivanpah solar in California:
With growing fears that the solar plant could be harming tortoise numbers, operators have spent $55m on mitigating the ecological damage.
https://www.theneweconomy.com/energ...pent $55m on mitigating the ecological damage.
Coal mine clean up
The price tag for cleaning up modern coal mines in Appalachia is between $7.5 billion and $9.8 billion—vastly more than the $3.8 billion known to be set aside for the job in bonds, an environmental group estimates
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/envir...s-cleanup-has-big-unbudgeted-costs-group-says
Yakuda
Verified User
We sure as fucking shit knew from just about day one that the old fat and sick were most at risk. I'm sick of the fucking leftist lies about this shit. We.are laying the price for ignoring what we fucking knew.
No need. Nuke power is the answer. Period.
Yakuda
Verified User
Duplicate
Mr Niblick!…You can’t look so logically at a dangerous thing such as a nuclear power plant! Don’t you know they are the spawn of Satanic Desire for cheaper, more efficient energy so we can keep our thermostats set at 72°? Don’t you know it is just waiting to wipe out the population around it? It’s evil!
Seriously, I have dealt with defending nuclear power for a long time. Several of the students I have taught have gone on to work at power plants in different places in the country. My cousin (Phd in nuclear medical) who has just retired worked at plants in Alabama, Tennessee and finally settled in Bay City, TX where he worked until he retired. He was responsible for making sure radiation levels in and around the plant stayed within the norms.
The particular plant he retired from, 80 or so miles south of Houston, was closed enough that many young men from our area went down there and helped to build it. The surrounding community is helped tremendously because of taxation. (We have a coal operated electric generating power plant in our county and believe me, it has helped every public school in the county) The environment around it is pristine, probably more pristine than it would have been without the plant because of the efforts of the STP. Lots of jobs are provided at that plant as well. Lots of public works like you mentioned were supported as well. If a person isn’t careful, and looks at it logically like you are, he’d think it was a good thing.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
The plant has already outlasted its initial longevity plan. It was supposed to be decommissioned by now, but it was running so well that they kept it going.
A few cracks in the concrete is just the dort of thing that's going to eventually happen.
I don't know how you can call the benefits received from the building of the power plant to be 'hollow."
They were life changing for the community.
The tax revenue from a powerplant to a little seaside town like Seabrook is a bit more impactful
than it would be to a slightly larger seaside town like, say, New York City.
Yes, there was no feasible escape plan in the event of an accident.
One has to weigh the risks against the rewards. The rewards were significant. The risks were what they were.
Also, the Soviet Union was still in existence in the early 1970s.
We all expected to be nuked eventually, anyway.
New Englanders are a very fatalistic people.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
See, this is what I was saying in the OP. Rather than recognize and accept the common goals and admitting to errors and problems with one's own belief system, people on both sides just dig in their heels, put on blinders, cover their ears and just parrot the myopic views that suit them.
What you did here was:
- try to make the comparison of the cost of clean up of failures with several energy sources as to justify the continuation of nuke plants and minimize their inherent/current/documented problems. That's apple and oranges, as drilling for oil in the ocean is a whole other smoke from firing up a nuke plant. You should note that the costs for Deepwater Horizon incorporate their legal claims suit with the actual clean up costs (all by BP estimates and such). Here's what your link left out about TMI:
Three Mile Island Unit-2 was built at a cost to ratepayers of $700 million. The plant was over budget and behind schedule. The planned operating life of the plant was 40 years. At the time of the core melt accident on March 28, 1979, TMI had operated for just 90 days. There were no decommissioning funds set aside.
In 1982, Gov. Richard Thornburgh cobbled together a $1 billion fund to pay for the removal of the damaged fuel. But funding problems did not go away.
Following the accident at TMI-2 , the NRC created the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel met 78 times in the vicinity of TMI-2, and met regularly with NRC commissioners. Inadequate funding for TMI-2’s future closure was a constant concern expressed by the advisory panel.
These concerns have become reality. On March 26, 2018, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the decommissioning price tag for TMI-2 to be $1.266 billion. The cost to clean up TMI-2, based on FirstEnergy’s most recent estimates, is $1.4 billion. That amount doesn’t cover the cost to remove radio*active waste from the island. https://triblive.com/opinion/eric-epstein-three-mile-island-cleanup-must-be-fully-funded/
- Now concerning your link regarding Ivanpah solar in the Mojave desert, you make the case against your initial assertions. Remember, the 55million is put to adjust the system as to not harm the native wildlife, NOT because it is a threat to humans, the water system, the air. And NOT because solar produces deadly waste that cannot be adequately rendered harmless. Given that the TMI clean-up is in the BILLIONS (and still growing) that does not include waste removal and containment, solar energy wins out as the logical and sane alternative.
- As for coal ... I agree that it's a nasty, dirty and EXPENSIVE mess to clean up. BUT your comparison of SEVERAL coal mines to ONE nuke plant makes my point and severely dilutes yours.
NOW I APPLAUD YOU FOR ACTUALLY TAKING THE TIME AND EFFORT TO BRING SOME FACTS AND RATIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC. Unfortunately for you, what you've done is inadvertently supported any and all aspects of the OP. But that's what a real discussion is all about, someone's wrong, someone's right or both can be right to a degree....or even agree on some points.
Thanks T.A., I knew you had it in you!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Who is this "we" your so full of invective about? Please post the sources that gave press releases EXACTLY AS YOU SAY. If you can't, then you're wrong. If you insist on repeating something that you cannot prove, that makes you a liar.
Your last sentence is yet another example of proud, willful ignorance...something that rational, logical and mature adults tend to avoid attempting a debate with. Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Seriously, how many professions that you had does this one make?
So you're now a professor/teacher that involves nuclear power? And one of your students worked until retirement age? So that makes you what, between 70 and 100 yrs. old?
But I digress....regardless of your teaching and opinion, EVERYTHING I posted and link demonstrates that nuke power is NOT the completely safe, problem free and cheap energy source that the company line says. Sorry, but all who inadvertently or directly make their living from nuke power are insipidly stubborn (or genuinely naive) about the ramifications and history of nuke power in America. Look at the information I put forth in various discussions on this thread and tell me different.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You've got nuke wonk myopia, my friend. From one of my links:
.... In addition, steel rods designed to support the containment wall were improperly severed at the second storey level. In 1984 – during the construction process – an NRC report talks about groundwater infiltration into cracks affecting concrete and rebar, and stated a water-proofing membrane had not accomplished its purpose. Cracking of concrete could be heard by workers between the waste recessing building and the Diesel generator building, but this area was not inspected by the NRC. The cooling tower concrete was poured in 2 layers which are not connected to each other. The buildings have contained flaws and damages since before the plant went online, providing grounds for serious concern about the integrity and safety of the building and about the extent to which Seabrook’s owners care about the quality of the structure.
... In 1999 a leak in the spent fuel pool caused a build-up of radioactive water in the space between the containment building and the containment enclosure building.
In 2005, concrete degradation was first identified at the Seabrook nuclear power plant. 84 areas requiring engineering evaluation were listed by the NRC. Below and above grade cracking was identified.
The groundwater was determined to be “aggressive” by testing results in 2008-9.
Heavy corrosion of the containment liner plate was determined in 2009.
In 2009 the NRC sent a relicensing team to Seabrook who evaluated the structures. Visual inspection revealed signs of alkali-silica reaction (ASR). Core samples were evaluated at a lab in Illinois, which confirmed ASR.
In 2010, the NRC reported they were without a technical basis or regulatory basis for ASR, the industry had no experience or knowledge of ASR concrete degradation, and ASR research was limited and no long-term studies on nuclear plants exists.
In 2011, the NRC reported that industry inspections must determine the extent and rate of ASR concrete degradation as it was an active, on-going form of degradation that was also not self-limiting and would continue to fail indefinitely.
What you express is the attitude, "well, nothing bad happened yet so it's all good".
Jeezus.Yeah, the shareholders, owners and such like that attitude. With no evacuation plan, you guys seriously lucked out!
And no mention of the bill for clean up and decontamination.
I for one, would not want to live like that...life is filled with enough inherent worries and such.
No. Re-read the post. Everyone here knows that I teach math from 7th grade Math through Calculus, depending on the year. The only connection is that math is used extensively in some jobs at Power Plants, nuclear ones included. (I haven’t mentioned the directional drillers I have taught and the math they use). I have several (4 to be exact … may not seem like “several” but consider the average number in a graduating class is about 15-17 here it’s an apt modifier) former students who work at the power plants.
My cousin, who retired from STP is like 74 (I’m 57) lives where I live now. He wasn’t a “former student” obviously.
And no, I probably can’t satisfactorily (for you anyway) refute how safe they are…but with anything there is risk. You know I argue for gun ownership with very little restriction. I recognize the risk involved with that stance as well. They are “cheaper” than other ways of producing electricity from everything I have studied. And yes, people who make a living at something are stubborn about it. My cousin surely is. Have you ever talked with a coal miner? They are too, for the most part.
Back to my statement about my former students… As a math teacher I am extremely proud to talk about my students who find success that comes a lot from the foundation they got in mathematics in my classroom. One grows weary of hearing, “When are we ever going to use this.” So I love to keep track of my kids who pursue STEM jobs and in a small school like ours I can answer that stupid question with something like, “Do you remember so-and-so? He’s making X dollars a year working for TVA.”
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
My man, YOU stated that one of your students retired. Retirement usually is in either mid to late 50's or 65. So if you taught a 7th grader, and he went on to work at the plant until retirement, that would put you in your 70's or early 80's, NOT 57...even if you started teaching in your mid 20's. Yeah, doing the math cast serious doubt on your story.
And no, you can't satisfactorily refute what I posted throughout this thread...you can't do it logically or factually. And NO, the risks that are entailed with nuke plants and their waste is NOT necessary. I already posted FACTS that nuke power is not "cheaper" despite years of propaganda by the industry. And stubborn pride combined with willful ignorance and denial are deadly combinations. Just as a coal miner's widow trying to sue the company for criminal negligence.
And why the hell should I have to live with a potentially deadly risk because you believe otherwise? Especially when the documented evidence is on my side.
Here's the thing: this is NOT about your students. This thread is about how people not seeing a common goal or enemy due to partisan, near tribal stubbornness and ingrained beliefs. Some folk took up the nuke power issue because they felt comfortable in their dogma. I proved otherwise.
And the band played on.
This is why I never engage you. We aren’t going to see eye to eye on anything. But this is about defending what I said…or did NOT say. Nowhere in any of what I posted did I say “one of [my] students retired.” I simply did not say that.