OMG, Here you are telling us that nuclear energy is the cheapest, but you don't have a clue about the economics about commercial nuclear plants.
Why is the left afraid of nuclear energy?
- Thread starter Tinkerpeach
- Start date
OMG, Here you are telling us that nuclear energy is the cheapest, but you don't have a clue about the economics about commercial nuclear plants.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The Fort Calhoun plant has a secondary containment (the big concrete dome thing). Even if the plant flooded, the reactor wouldn't have been effected. Fukushima failed because it lacked a secondary containment system and the emergency generators on site were situated in a basement so were flooded immediately. It is something of an oddity though using a Combustion Engineering reactor design.
At the time of the flood you cite, the plant was shut down for refueling so flooding would have made zero difference in any case as the reactor was defueled at the time.
The plant was shut down in 2016 in any case so the whole question is moot.
As for the still births, got a citation for that? I studied that incident in great detail and there was no significant release of radiation involved. So, it is likely--almost certainly--that whatever that was wasn't caused by the TMI meltdown.
Nice try, but you overlook a few details: Had those flood waters had gone just a few feet higher, the feed water supply to the cooling system, the auxiliary water supply and main switchgear room would have been screwed. THOSE are crucial regarding maintaining of fuel temperature and such. So regardless of the "refueling" status the shit would have hit the fan, as the back up generators were of the same design as in Fukishima. The NRC put the kibosh on that plant eventually because of those reasons.
I brought this and the other point to put a stop to yet another tired attempt by pro nuke plant wonks to paint a rosy picture that all was well and "nothing to worry about" with out nuke plant history. So like it or not, you can't BS past ALL the facts.
As for 3 Mile Island, seems your study habits lack a broad scope...thus leading to false conclusions. Please note:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/27/cancer-and-infant-mortality-at-three-mile-island/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry, you can't switch the focus of topic because you won't concede a point. The two examples I gave clearly refer to incidences within a decent time frame that demonstrates how NOT safe nuke plants are.
As for deaths due to increasing climate change; please go to the library and look at the reports by reputable newspapers & magazines regarding deaths due to "unprecedented" weather extremes in the last 5 years.
This is not a game of numbers...this is about PREVENTING the need to play such gruesome comparative games.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
What's truly pathetic is that our pro-nuke wonks will desperately try to either minimize, trivialize or just plain dismiss this evidence while repeating the party line.
They operate on this premise...so long as it's not them or their loved ones that are harmed, they'll "take the risk".
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The reactor at the time was defueled for refueling.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Here's some things from your link:
As Gar Smith notes in his 2012 book Nuclear Roulette, public officials issued one false statement after another for days, like: there were no radiation releases; radiation releases were “controlled”; radiation releases were “insignificant”...
Gar Smith's bio. I'm sure his high school diploma qualifies him as an expert...
https://worldbeyondwar.org/garsmith/
David Lochbaum of the Union of Concern Scientists estimates between 40 million curies and 100 million curies escaped during the accident.
He gives no credible, well any, evidence of where he got that number...
Then you have another anti-nuclear activist with no credentials giving his two cents:
Activist Eric Epstein, who chairs the nuclear energy watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert Inc.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/...ans-to-run-for-dauphin-county-controller.html
Even the listed notes are all from radical Leftist anti-nuclear groups and sources.
Your study habits lead to false conclusions.
Tinkerpeach
New member
The fact is that without nuclear energy this gruesome game will continue for a very long time
If we went fully nuclear the game would be over with
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Not quite, when the flood happened the plant was in cold shutdown mode, NOT totally "defueled". That means "the coolant system is typically lowered to pump water at atmospheric pressure, and the reactor vessel remains below 93 °C (200 °F), and water passing through it will not boil."
Still radioactive, son. Still in danger of critical problems had the aforementioned systems were compromised should the water had risen just a few more feet.
In other words, by the Grace of God a bullet was dodged.
Got that?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Insipid stubbornness on your part. I put refer to current facts and information that you blithely ignore. Then you make an irrational claim on top of that...a claim that "assumes" all nuke plant problems will eventually be solved (waste, plant safety and security) in the near future, and all deaths, contaminations, failures and near misses are just trivial.
Sorry, but just because it's not happening to me doesn't mean I wish it upon others so that I may be comfortable. You do, but I don't.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Nope, because you're full of shit. The plant was shut down, just as reactor 1 at Fukushima was. Neither reactor 1 at Fukushima, nor the one in Omaha would have melted down or released radiation. The water itself is barely radioactive. Of course, since you know nothing about nuclear physics and radioactivity beyond "It's bad!" you buy into the radical Leftist envirotard bullshit about things nuclear and gobble it down whole.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So now you deny the information FROM THE VERY SITE YOU USED AS A REFERENCE because it contradicts your narrative? Then you blather on with your typical revisionist rhetoric, insinuating that YOU have some type of "expertise" or above average knowledge of the subject. Newsflash genius, Fukishima shut down operations, BUT IT DID NOT/COULD NOT REMOVE THE FUEL RODS OR EMPTY THE COOLING TANK OF CONTAMINATED WATER. WTF do you think they're STILL flushing contaminated water into the ocean. Jeezus, get educated man!
If I had a dime for every time you right wing/corporate MAGA wonks claimed expertise or "professional" knowledge on a subject, I could've paid off my taxes each year I was on this site.The wheels have come off your wagon again, bunky. I don't deal with that type of BS, which quickly dissolves to troll tactics. You can rehash your guff for a last word/retort, or declare victory, etc.. See ya on the next topic
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank There have been lots of "incidents". I suppose we remember Kerr McGee in Oklahoma faking safety requirements for profits. They exposed workers to high radiation and tried to cover it up. Many other incidents were ascribed to poor or no training. Corporations will increase profits, even if it endangers workers or the surrounding areas.
Tinkerpeach
New member
There is no such thing as risk free energy production so you look at which systems are the safest and that is nuclear by far
Tinkerpeach
New member
Some guys were just repairing a windmill somewhere and it caught fire and they all died
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
That looks like a damn good industry record to me. Take coal plants, oil and gas production, or for that matter, even wind and solar. They all have issues and safety violations. Here in Arizona the Solana solar array got hit with the biggest environmental fine in Arizona history--a solar array.
On the whole, the nuclear industry is very tightly regulated and has an excellent safety record. Is it perfect? No. But it's a damn sight better than many other industries have.
Tinkerpeach
New member
The left are just idiots
Of course, you are as usual, lying badly. The list of "accidents" at nuke plants is long and we have gotten lucky a few times. The luck will run out. Fukushima was a result of the corporation building and running it, to overpower the regulators and build it for a smaller earthquake and tidal wave than was needed. Japan has had a higher level of earthquakes off shore than they built for. They fought the government and the people lost.
Let's make it simple, simple enough for you to understand. The regulations will protect the people. Rightys like you want regulations gone. Corporations want them gone. During Clinton;'s presidency he tried to clean up coal plants. There were, and still are, huge pockets of illnesses surrounding coal plants. Clinton fought to get better emissions standards so they would not atomize pollution into the air. The repubs added a break for them into the bill. If a plant was being modernized, it would have to build pollution restraints only if a plant was rebuilding at 30 percent or more. After that, every plant that did work claimed it was under 30 percent. So another regulation to help the people was gutted.
You have no idea how stupid you are. That is a special kind of ignorance.
Last edited:
Here is a more comprehensive accident report on Nuke plants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Your source lists just 6 "accidents" in the last 25 or so years. Of those, only the ones in Japan could really be characterized as "accidents," while the rest were equipment failures and the like, all of which were handled without any casualties.
That suggests an outstanding record of safety--Japan possibly being an exception--rather than a danger.