Nuclear power issue

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422

The design for Chernobyl was abandoned after that accident, and was never used in the US. Three Mile Island is the only US nuclear accident, and it involved very little actual contamination. The cost of environmental cleanup versus the Exxon Valdez, was minuscule in comparison. You have not made a point....I repeat, NO POINT has been made by YOU!

Read the other posts, the other links, and know this: On Long Island, New York the now defunct Long Island Lighting Company went ahead without public approval to start construction on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Despite the near miss of Three Mile Island, the public was ASSURED that every conceivable contingency was taken into account, and that it was going to be a safe plant. Well, the people weren't buying it, and during the it's construction MANY flaws were discovered thanks to the heightened scrutiny demanded by advocacy groups...such as flawed pipes for coolant water, etc. Thankfully, then Gov. Cuomo pointed out that only an insane person would try to say that in the event of an emergency that major parts of Long Island could be evacuated.....the construction was stopped...but NOT before LILCO irradiated the core to a small degree in a preliminary test to try and insure the plant going on line. So what happened is that the TAXPAYERS, and NOT the investors, ended up paying for the clean up and disposal.

And if you REALLY want an eye opener, do a little honest research on the history of "leaks" from the Indian Point plant in New York. To date, it STILL has no shut down/dismantling procedure despite it being way past it's design warranty.

Radiation is just as deadly as dioxins...with a terribly longer, more immediate, far reaching and/or potent lethal legacy.

There are points...you just refuse to recognize them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422

I'm enjoying watching Mott kick your ass all over on this thread. So much so that I probably won't kick it myself.

Translation: Southie's got nothing, and is hoping to live vicariously through Mott.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Read the other posts, the other links, and know this: On Long Island, New York the now defunct Long Island Lighting Company went ahead without public approval to start construction on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Despite the near miss of Three Mile Island, the public was ASSURED that every conceivable contingency was taken into account, and that it was going to be a safe plant. Well, the people weren't buying it, and during the it's construction MANY flaws were discovered thanks to the heightened scrutiny demanded by advocacy groups...such as flawed pipes for coolant water, etc. Thankfully, then Gov. Cuomo pointed out that only an insane person would try to say that in the event of an emergency that major parts of Long Island could be evacuated.....the construction was stopped...but NOT before LILCO irradiated the core to a small degree in a preliminary test to try and insure the plant going on line. So what happened is that the TAXPAYERS, and NOT the investors, ended up paying for the clean up and disposal.

And if you REALLY want an eye opener, do a little honest research on the history of "leaks" from the Indian Point plant in New York. To date, it STILL has no shut down/dismantling procedure despite it being way past it's design warranty.

Radiation is just as deadly as dioxins...with a terribly longer, more immediate, far reaching and/or potent lethal legacy.

There are points...you just refuse to recognize them.

No, I recognize VALID points, you just haven't made any. In terms of how many accidents and how much environmental cleanup is required, nuclear energy beats the living dog shit out of any other form of (large scale) energy production.... (solar and wind are better for the environment, but they can't supply our needs.) It's one of those arguments like they used to have about air travel, when people were afraid of flying... it was dangerous... but over time, we realized, per capita, it is FAR safer than any other form of transportation. Yeah, bad shit can happen... bad shit can ALWAYS happen, regardless of what kind of energy production you have, the thing about nuclear is how well-regulated and control standardized it is, and this level of safety makes it much more efficient in terms of public/environmental impact.

That said, I am not so sure building a nuclear power plant on Long Island is a wonderful idea. First of all, I would think property values there would prohibit it, but also, it is one of the largest urban population centers in the world. Upstate New York would be a much better location for such a facility, in my opinion.

 

[DamnYankee]

Translation: Southie's got nothing, and is hoping to live vicariously through Mott.

Actually I have plenty, and have argued this subject many times. You see I'm a professional engineer very familiar with waste utilization, disposal, and specifically geologic issues. In fact my son is off to nuclear engineering school this coming fall, interested in the power generation end of the field, and its a decision that I approved after much research. I have a vast arsenal of devastating links to hit you with. But for now I'm happy to watch my friend Mott kick your ass.

 

[Taichiliberal]

No, I recognize VALID points, you just haven't made any. In terms of how many accidents and how much environmental cleanup is required, nuclear energy beats the living dog shit out of any other form of (large scale) energy production.... (solar and wind are better for the environment, but they can't supply our needs.) It's one of those arguments like they used to have about air travel, when people were afraid of flying... it was dangerous... but over time, we realized, per capita, it is FAR safer than any other form of transportation. Yeah, bad shit can happen... bad shit can ALWAYS happen, regardless of what kind of energy production you have, the thing about nuclear is how well-regulated and control standardized it is, and this level of safety makes it much more efficient in terms of public/environmental impact.

That said, I am not so sure building a nuclear power plant on Long Island is a wonderful idea. First of all, I would think property values there would prohibit it, but also, it is one of the largest urban population centers in the world. Upstate New York would be a much better location for such a facility, in my opinion.

You can't refute or disprove the facts I linked, so what you "recognize" is only what appeases your ideology and beliefs...NOT ALL THE FACTS. Case in point, your statement requiring nuke clean-up...here's just ONE example http://www.tmia.com/nuclearbailout

Now, do your own research regarding the number of nuke plants that are operating well past their design specs longevity....scary stuff.

As I was pointing out to Mott with my links....the "minor" stuff that happens at nuke plants results in cancers and genetic anomolies in the eco-system.....but then you run into the delay game by the accused.

At yes, Long Island was a bone head move for a nuke plant....but the Indian Point power plant is thought to be in an "ideal" location...and it's operating record is abysmal regarding leaks and such.

Thing is, if you look at the maps, a good deal of our nuke plants are located close enough or in populated areas to render any emergency evacuation plans a joke. Personally, I don't like playing the " so far, so good" game with this stuff.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Translation: Southie's got nothing, and is hoping to live vicariously through Mott.

Actually I have plenty, and have argued this subject many times. You see I'm a professional engineer very familiar with waste utilization, disposal, and specifically geologic issues. In fact my son is off to nuclear engineering school this coming fall, interested in the power generation end of the field, and its a decision that I approved after much research. I have a vast arsenal of devastating links to hit you with. But for now I'm happy to watch my friend Mott kick your ass.

Man, you are shoveling SO much BS it's amazing you can sit long enough to type.

No one is buying your BS, Southie....given your history of irrational, illogical and insipidly stubborn actions on various discussions on these boards.

Bottom line: Mott has honestly stated his position in life, and his presence on these boards makes him more believeable....that is why he's able to debate rationally.

You're just blowing smoke, as usual with a childish bluff. My earlier assessment stands valid....carry on.

 

[DamnYankee]

Man, you are shoveling SO much BS it's amazing you can sit long enough to type.

No one is buying your BS, Southie....given your history of irrational, illogical and insipidly stubborn actions on various discussions on these boards.

Bottom line: Mott has honestly stated his position in life, and his presence on these boards makes him more believeable....that is why he's able to debate rationally.

You're just blowing smoke, as usual with a childish bluff. My earlier assessment stands valid....carry on.

Your assessment is based on... your assessment. You fail, as usual.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You can't refute or disprove the facts I linked, so what you "recognize" is only what appeases your ideology and beliefs...NOT ALL THE FACTS. Case in point, your statement requiring nuke clean-up...here's just ONE example http://www.tmia.com/nuclearbailout

Here's the problem, all you ever seem to link us to, is activist political groups, this one is anti-nuke. Of course, anti-ANYTHING activist groups, are going to present only ONE side, THEIR side, no others... any OTHER opinion is going to be disregarded, not mentioned, because they are ACTIVISTS with an AGENDA! Yet, you continue to insist this is legitimate information, when it's merely PROPAGANDA put out by ACTIVISTS with an AGENDA! Is that point registering with you?

 

[Beefy]

Any greenie that opposes nuclear power has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/06/drilling-begins-search-west-virginia-miners/

MONTCOAL, W.Va. -- Rescuers held out slim hope Tuesday that four missing coal miners might have survived when a mine repeatedly cited for improperly venting methane gas exploded, killing 25 people in the country's deadliest underground disaster in a quarter-century.

A day after the blast in southern West Virginia, desperate rescuers began boring into the mine in hopes of releasing poisonous gases so crews could go in search of the men. But Gov. Joe Manchin said it could be midday Wednesday before much progress is made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, as we are discussing the safety aspects of nuclear energy, we have yet another accident involving coal mining... coal used for ENERGY! This one was the worst in a quarter century! It's not a coincidence this happened while this thread was active, there are accidents like this happening all the time in other energy-related industries.

How many people have died in the history of US nuclear-related energy production? NONE... ZERO... NADDA! Hundreds die annually at coal mines, hydroelectric plants, oil rigs, refineries, and other energy-related industries, compared with NONE for nuclear power. As I stated before, it is the SAFEST of ALL forms of energy production.

 

[christiefan915]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/06/drilling-begins-search-west-virginia-miners/

MONTCOAL, W.Va. -- Rescuers held out slim hope Tuesday that four missing coal miners might have survived when a mine repeatedly cited for improperly venting methane gas exploded, killing 25 people in the country's deadliest underground disaster in a quarter-century.

A day after the blast in southern West Virginia, desperate rescuers began boring into the mine in hopes of releasing poisonous gases so crews could go in search of the men. But Gov. Joe Manchin said it could be midday Wednesday before much progress is made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, as we are discussing the safety aspects of nuclear energy, we have yet another accident involving coal mining... coal used for ENERGY! This one was the worst in a quarter century! It's not a coincidence this happened while this thread was active, there are accidents like this happening all the time in other energy-related industries.

How many people have died in the history of US nuclear-related energy production? NONE... ZERO... NADDA! Hundreds die annually at coal mines, hydroelectric plants, oil rigs, refineries, and other energy-related industries, compared with NONE for nuclear power. As I stated before, it is the SAFEST of ALL forms of energy production.

These coal deaths happen because of the unbounded greed of the coal companies. The owner had a dismal safety record and paid many, many fines for its illegal practices. They violate up the wazoo and the poor schmucks who work there pay the price with injuries and lives lost. A pox on these greedy pigs.

MONTCOAL, W.Va. — Rescue workers continued the precarious task early Wednesday of removing explosive methane gas from the coal mine where at least 25 miners died two days before, but they had not received any signs of life from the four people still missing.

The mine owner’s dismal safety record, along with several recent evacuations of the mine, left federal officials and miners suggesting that Monday’s explosion might have been preventable.

In the past two months, miners had been evacuated three times from the Upper Big Branch because of dangerously high methane levels, according to two miners who asked for anonymity for fear of losing their jobs. Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat whose district includes the mine, said he had received similar reports from miners about recent evacuations at the mine, which as recently as last month was fined at least three times for ventilation problems, according to federal records.

The Massey Energy Company, the biggest coal mining business in central Appalachia and the owner of the Upper Big Branch mine, has drawn sharp scrutiny and fines from regulators over its safety and environmental record.

In 2008, one of its subsidiaries paid what federal prosecutors called the largest settlement in the history of the coal industry after pleading guilty to safety violations that contributed to the deaths of two miners in a fire in one of its mines. That year, Massey also paid a $20 million fine — the largest of its kind levied by the Environmental Protection Agency — for clean water violations.
(Article continues)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/us/08westvirginia.html

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

These coal deaths happen because of the unbounded greed of the coal companies. The owner had a dismal safety record and paid many, many fines for its illegal practices. They violate up the wazoo and the poor schmucks who work there pay the price with injuries and lives lost. A pox on these greedy pigs.

Well it doesn't matter WHY they died, the fact is they died. Nuclear industries are much more rigorously regulated and monitored for safety, and that was my point. In terms of safety, as well as risk versus benefit, nuclear energy beats everything else hands down. You can argue otherwise, but you will never see a news story about 25 people who died at a nuclear power plant because of lax safety measures.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Well it doesn't matter WHY they died, the fact is they died. Nuclear industries are much more rigorously regulated and monitored for safety, and that was my point. In terms of safety, as well as risk versus benefit, nuclear energy beats everything else hands down. You can argue otherwise, but you will never see a news story about 25 people who died at a nuclear power plant because of lax safety measures.

Yes, you'll never see that story because people dying of radiation poisoning are stone walled and stalled in courts.....with the nuke plant industry stance that all those cases of increased cancers and such are just coincidences. Essentially, we're looking at immediate vs. long term...but the culprit is still the culprit.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, you'll never see that story because people dying of radiation poisoning are stone walled and stalled in courts.....with the nuke plant industry stance that all those cases of increased cancers and such are just coincidences. Essentially, we're looking at immediate vs. long term...but the culprit is still the culprit.

Perhaps they are stalling in courts because they don't really have a case because they can't really prove their cancer was caused by radiation poisoning? And what radiation poisoning are you talking about here? The IAEA the EPA, and at least a half dozen other agencies, are constantly monitoring every nuclear power facility for leaks of ANY kind! You want to pretend that every nuke plant is some rusty old Soviet clunker, spewing all kinds of shit out left and right, and that is just not an accurate depiction of US nuclear power facilities, or the regulatory process in place to monitor them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You can't refute or disprove the facts I linked, so what you "recognize" is only what appeases your ideology and beliefs...NOT ALL THE FACTS. Case in point, your statement requiring nuke clean-up...here's just ONE example http://www.tmia.com/nuclearbailout

Here's the problem, all you ever seem to link us to, is activist political groups, this one is anti-nuke. Of course, anti-ANYTHING activist groups, are going to present only ONE side, THEIR side, no others... any OTHER opinion is going to be disregarded, not mentioned, because they are ACTIVISTS with an AGENDA! Yet, you continue to insist this is legitimate information, when it's merely PROPAGANDA put out by ACTIVISTS with an AGENDA! Is that point registering with you?

Here's YOUR problem....you can't logically or factually disprove or refute any of the FACTS presented in the link I provided.....so in typical neocon fashion you AVOID discussing the FACTS and opt for attacking the source with nothing more than a collage of generalized accusations, slogans and mantras.

When you are ready to actually discuss the CONTENT of the link I provided, then we'll have basis for rational discussion on the topic.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yes, you'll never see that story because people dying of radiation poisoning are stone walled and stalled in courts.....with the nuke plant industry stance that all those cases of increased cancers and such are just coincidences. Essentially, we're looking at immediate vs. long term...but the culprit is still the culprit.

Perhaps they are stalling in courts because they don't really have a case because they can't really prove their cancer was caused by radiation poisoning? And what radiation poisoning are you talking about here? The IAEA the EPA, and at least a half dozen other agencies, are constantly monitoring every nuclear power facility for leaks of ANY kind! You want to pretend that every nuke plant is some rusty old Soviet clunker, spewing all kinds of shit out left and right, and that is just not an accurate depiction of US nuclear power facilities, or the regulatory process in place to monitor them.

Evidently, you are not aware of what's been happening over the years. Observe and learn:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13825

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, you'll never see that story because people dying of radiation poisoning are stone walled and stalled in courts.....with the nuke plant industry stance that all those cases of increased cancers and such are just coincidences. Essentially, we're looking at immediate vs. long term...but the culprit is still the culprit.

People get cancer all the time Libbie. Just because they live ten miles from a nuke plant that emits less radiation than they get from the sun doesn't mean that the nuke plant caused it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here's YOUR problem....you can't logically or factually disprove or refute any of the FACTS presented in the link I provided.....so in typical neocon fashion you AVOID discussing the FACTS and opt for attacking the source with nothing more than a collage of generalized accusations, slogans and mantras.

When you are ready to actually discuss the CONTENT of the link I provided, then we'll have basis for rational discussion on the topic.

The content of the link is representation made by activists with a mission. I have no way of verifying their "facts" or the accuracy of them, I have to take them for their word, which is probably worth very little, since they have an agenda. The actual facts I pointed out, are not something published by activist groups or biased opinions from people with an agenda, they are a matter of public safety records kept on file for anyone to review. No slogan, no mantra, just raw data from OSHA, EPA, IAEA, and the NRC. Not something that is being pitched by an activist trying to sell me on an idea, just the basic safety stats which I can interpret on my own.

 

[Taichiliberal]

People get cancer all the time Libbie. Just because they live ten miles from a nuke plant that emits less radiation than they get from the sun doesn't mean that the nuke plant caused it.

Spoken like a true corporated ass kissing dupe, Southie. Jeezus, you just threw yourself over the chair and pulled your pants down without even being asked, didn't ya?

But hope springs eternal.....here's something for you to chew on:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=631075&postcount=96

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here's YOUR problem....you can't logically or factually disprove or refute any of the FACTS presented in the link I provided.....so in typical neocon fashion you AVOID discussing the FACTS and opt for attacking the source with nothing more than a collage of generalized accusations, slogans and mantras.

When you are ready to actually discuss the CONTENT of the link I provided, then we'll have basis for rational discussion on the topic.

The content of the link is representation made by activists with a mission. I have no way of verifying their "facts" or the accuracy of them, I have to take them for their word, which is probably worth very little, since they have an agenda. The actual facts I pointed out, are not something published by activist groups or biased opinions from people with an agenda, they are a matter of public safety records kept on file for anyone to review. No slogan, no mantra, just raw data from OSHA, EPA, IAEA, and the NRC. Not something that is being pitched by an activist trying to sell me on an idea, just the basic safety stats which I can interpret on my own.

You're a lying SOS, you know that? The link contains documentation from reputable sources.....So spare me the usual regurgitation of your supposition and conjecture dodge...TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT IS NOT TRUE AND PROVE IT SO, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=631075&postcount=96