Guest pod Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 Washington Post editorial...It isn't a puff piece, he pays attention to both sides of the issue and addresses them. However, this is a nice little primer for those of you who think a reactor nearby will cause the birth of three headed babies.For once I agree with something someone in Greenpeace says. Now we just need the kids in the streets who recruit for them to get the memo that nuclear plants are OK.Nuke plants get a bad rap due to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. While Chernobyl was bad and was destined to fail due to the horrid Soviet RBMK reactor design, Three Mile Island was really just a PR disaster. Your average person near the plant took on 8 millirem of radiation that day, which is about the same dosage you get from an X-ray. You take on 300 millirem just being alive for one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest michael^heaven Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 ---Nuclear power is a cleaner source of energy. Interesting....they have a nuclear plant in San Clemente, CA. Before purchasing a house there, you must sign a waiver exempting the city & county of any liable if there was any sort of mishap with the plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pod Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 There's more of a chance of you getting hit by a meteor than dying from a nuke plant accident here in the US. The NRC is one of the few government agencies that does their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest michael^heaven Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 There's more of a chance of you getting hit by a meteor than dying from a nuke plant accident here in the US. ---Oh, I agree completely!! It's not like we have Homer on watch at the plant. I just found that a bit interesting when I was living in Cal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pod Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 Hell, with some future designs, Homer could be on watch and if the reactor goes beyond it's tolerances, it is designed to shut down via physics, i.e. if there isn't human intervention every so often, it simply ceases generating energy...i'm not a physicist, but it is like a nuclear dead man's switch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan2772 Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 there's no way something like chernobyl could happen again. the design they used is waaaaaaaaaaay obsolete. they used a cooling system based on concrete, not water like is used nowadays. and it was staffed by unexperienced commies.i was an enviromental studies major, and i have strong faith in nuclear energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pod Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 The RBMK (reaktor bolshoy moshchnosti kanalniy) design was inherently flawed.The RBMK as designed had a large "positive power coefficient", meaning that an increase in reactor power tends to further increase the rate of reaction. Large positive void and power coefficients can produce runaway conditions and have not been permitted in other reactor designs, but it was not possible to eliminate them from the RBMK if natural uranium fuel was to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 Did you guys also know that Greenpeace's co-founder PRAISED global warming and said the way to save the forests is to use MORE wood? No, I bet you didn't...http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060113/BUSINESS11/601130327/1071 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pod Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 That's funny. But I'm willing to make allowances to get the greenies on the side of being pro-nuclear.If it wasn't for the NIMBY crowd and the greenies, we'd have commercially viable fusion power right now and not be dependent on fossil fuels. BTW, the fuel for fusion power is hydrogen. Which comes from water. Unfortunately, people think nuclear, they think bombs and such. Hell, even the language of nuclear energy scares people. A nuclear tech says "the reactor's critical", he means that the reactor has hit a steady state of operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slamminshaun Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 I think Patrick Moore is a very sensible environmentalist. He cares about the environment, but also realizes that 6 billion people wake up everyday and need food, water, and shelter. He broke ties with his own organization because they became anti-capitalist extremists. He makes ALOT of great points regarding nuclear energy, global warming, melting polar caps (which he also thinks is a GOOD thing), and chopping down trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest coach Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 My uncle is a nuclear scientist. Years ago, he was working on a project to create what is called a breeder reactor that basically recycles the fuel. The waste product is non-radioactive water and some other minor non-toxic chemical. Too bad the gov't pulled the funding on that.Pod, it is not the environmentalists, who have very little pull in congress, that block nuclear fuel. It is the oil, coal, and hydrodynamic companies who stand to lose billions if nuclear takes off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pod Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 That too. ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan2772 Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.