Nuclear Power is NOT the Answer

[makemap]

It's up to the children. That's just fking Impossible. No seriously, Impossibly stupid.

[decycle1]

to put it simply the energy conglomerates have grown int tyrannical narcissistic megalomania and are now acting as such

[sandustanBrasov]

SandustanBrasov

The test for nuclear fusion realisation on Tokamak's installations and with LASER cannot bring anything new for the energetics' future. I bind the thermonuclear controlled reactor schedule by the Sun model , by the reactive electromagnetic motor schedule from Palenque stone's tombe. You see the my project for thermonuclear controlled reactor.

[sandustanBrasov]

• SandustanBrasov

My planetary brethren and you physicists, engineers and men of science let's awaken at reality, at knowledge, at wisdom and let's pass at the construction the thermonuclear controlled reactors, reactors with spherical chamber after Sun model; which can not be dangerous, not even for those which serve these installations.

[milofonbil]

@fpsBeaTt Uranium mining has left behind an entire legacy of death. Many miners went into the mines without respirators and now have lung cancer from the Radon. The families of those who did not survive the effects of prolonged exposure to radiation are not laughing. The dead and dying include miners and mill workers, innocent children who found mill tailings to be an inviting sand box, mothers who swept and dusted the wind-borne radioactive dust that filtered into their homes.

[SniperViper1000]

@milofonbil Millions of people homeless because of hydro dams that had to be relocated. Habitats destroyed. Millions jobless because of renewable energy such solar and wind, millions upon millions dead from coal and hundreds of thousands dead from nuclear. This isn't a laughing matter. You have no prove but a sad, fake made-up sob story to try and make people putty in your hands.

[milofonbil]

@SniperViper1000 What you are doing here is throwing a red-herring into the debate. ... People being relocated due to hydro dams, people losing their jobs due to solar and wind, people dying of coal fumes. Why don't you stay on topic and stick to the facts.

[SniperViper1000]

@milofonbil

1. I was COMPLETELY on topic.

&

2. I can't stick to anything that wasn't provided to me. There was no facts displayed. Only bullshit.

[milofonbil]

@SniperViper1000 no. 1) Throwing a red herring is changing the topic in the middle of the discussion. The topic is Nuclear power is/is not the answer. It has nothing to do with alternative energy or fossil fuels. 2) If there is something that I say that you feel needs to be challenged, just ask me to back it up. Just be specific.

[makemap]

@SniperViper1000 Well You better off Habitat destroyed or Radioactive destroyed, Nuclear power same thing = Mining Uranium. The Rotators needs to be design to catch fishes at the same time instead of just spinning and killing the fishes. Just to allow the fishes cross. It's time for the hydro boys to redesign.

[SniperViper1000]

@milofonbil Sorry, nuclear was supposed to be Natural Gas.

[milofonbil]

@SniperViper1000 Fair enough.

So if the containment did not rupture, then the h2 came from the spent fuel rods which are not being cooled due to LOC. Do you think that none of the highly radio-active spent fuel rods have been compromised?

We have 400 mSv/h recorded outside of the secondary containment building of the Unit 3 reactor at Fukushima. Do you still think that the inner containment has not been compromised?

To me it indicates that it has / a meltdown has definitely occurred.

[waxonwaxoff87]

Sorry candlelight doesn't work any more. You are damn straight that we need electricity. Electricity is keeping your patients alive.

4th generation reactors are in development that can reuse those "worn out rods" since only 5% of their energy has been used. What generation plants are you referring to in your statement? New reactors are also becoming smaller (less materials) and require less enrichment of uranium (less CO2 use).

But nice fear mongering there, no you aren't like Limbaugh at all.

[seriousnews2]

Caldicott's book "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer" is tremendous... very clear, conclusive and comprehensive. Nuclear power should have NO PLACE whatsoever in the world's future and all existing stations should be (carefully) dismantled. The book is about 180 pages of content. Get it.

Go for wind and solar. T Boone Pickens agrees. Get vehicles on natural gas too.

[floorwalker6]

How is nuclear power not the answer learn you fucking facts people.

[morcom2009]

Hopefully the children of all you nuclear power lovers will be the ones to suffer from its wrath. We cant even get rid of the waste yet we produce the suff. Most all countries want to do the same as us so we now have this problem here, but all over the world. No need to worry, its absolutely safe though. Watch a nuclear explosion, or see the effects of radiation. Put waste out of site and out of mind, good enough for you people!

[SniperViper1000]

@morcom2009

A nuclear plant CANNOT explode you fucknig idiot.

[milofonbil]

Pathetic use of an Ad Hominem attack calling him a "fucking idiot". So we are not seeing explosion in the six Fukushima reactors? They're identical to about 1/4 of our reactors here in the US.

[SniperViper1000]

@milofonbil The explosions are because of their RECENT earthquake. The explosions cause no radiation. It's the same as if a Natural Gas Heater blew up. What you guy's are talknig about is a MELTDOWN! Using this recent earthquake as an excuse against nuclear is as bad as using Chernoybl.

The event could have been avoid had it not been in an earthquake prone zone.

[milofonbil]

@SniperViper1000 The explosions were not due to the earthquake or the tsunami directly. The explosions were due to hydrogen gas. Where did it come from? It came from Zirconium cladding from the fuel rods. Why? because of loss of coolant. When zirconium gets above 2200 degrees, it absorbs an oxygen from the cooling water, leaving h2. When h2 catches fire, it blows up. Yes, much like a natural gas heater. Now the fuel rods are in two places - in the containment and in the spent fuel pond

[bimmjim]

Hira: Try doing some forensic engineering. If you do forensic engineering for a while then you will REALISE that very often things break for reasons that nobody predicted. The risk is never zero.

[hiraku0n]

It does not take forensic engineering to know that materials fail. Nor would anyone say the risk is 0 for anything on statistical grounds. To say that risk calculation cannot be done defies understanding. I disagree with your statement "THE RISK CALCULATIONS CAN'T BE DONE" as its is NRC requirement under 10 CFR to assess such risks posed by nuclear power. Perhaps if there is an issue you should confront the NRC. Then of course what "quantity" of risk is "acceptable" is another question.

[bimmjim]

I did metallurgy on parts for Nuclear power plants and as a result of what I learned from that experience I don't want to live in a country next to a country with N-power plants.

The insurance companies won't insure N-plants because the risk calculations don't work.

Leave the shit in the ground.

For info on alternatives, read an article on solar in the Jan. 2008 Scientific American Magazine. Also go to Stanford Univ, find department of civil and enviro eng. See research on wind power.

[hiraku0n]

I would guess you are a metallugical engineer.

So the result must have been that some critical part(s) fails, which would lead to INES level 7?

or You were the consultant to an insurance company? Seems like in any case you failed at it. Just another anti-nuke

[bimmjim]

Hira: When you label me as "Just another anti- nuke" you reveal that you are a polarized thinker. Your black and white veiw of the universe is not capable of considering problems of this magnitude.

Again I say "THE RISK CALCULATIONS CAN'T BE DONE". If we were talking about engineering an airplane or bridge and we ran into a similar problem with the math then we just wouldn't build it

[antshiznet17]

Furthermore, naval reactors are inherently stable. Chernobyl type casualties are not a possibility in these reactors due to their designs which I can not get into specifics about because that information is classified. However you can look at the U.S. Navy's track record in nuclear power. Over 50 years of perfect safety. Point being reactors are designed by people far more intellegent than people debating about it. If the written procedure is not deviated from safety will be maintained.

[antshiznet17]

I hate when people make uninformed decicions about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is clean and reliable. If proper procedures are followed nuclear accidents will not occur. Radiation concerns are not only uneducated but invalid. All U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors. Sailors work, eat, sleep, right next to these reactors and recieve no more than 70 millarem of radiation yearly.

[milofonbil]

If nuclear power were so clean, renewable and ready to drink, then they would offer an option for people to buy 100% nuke power. Nuke tags... my household is 100% nuclear window clings... We are a nuclear family bumper stickers ... Hmmmm.

[NorskeDivision]

Also, currently anyone posting on here who does not support nuclear power is a hypocrite. The servers and infrastructure, the computer you're using were all constructed with energy intensive processes which were primarily powered by coal power (but could have been powered by nuclear).

Do I have a vested interest in promoting nuclear power? Yeah, I breath AIR. Right now thanks the anti-nuclear people we are building 120 coal power plants in the US!! That's insane!

[NorskeDivision]

Nuclear material is dangerous, but France and the US have shown it can be safely used and stored. Chernobyl simply cannot happen in the US as our reactors have multiple levels of containment. Chernobyl was basically a reactor sitting in a brick warehouse! Comparing Chernobyl to the US nuclear industry is like comparing a motorcyclist flying down the highway at 150 in the rain with no helmet, vs. a Cadillac driving down the road at 20mph on a sunny day.

[NorskeDivision]

Bimmjim and others, you are obviously using electricity and modern equipment which requires massive amounts of electricity to produce. Despite all the hype, solar and wind can't replace coal and nuclear as base load sources (Germany and Denmark have discovered this, despite tens of Billions invested). Thanks to women like this one, we are now saddled with hundreds of coal power plants which spew radioactive materials into the environment, along with dioxins.

[bimmjim]

They said that the Titanic was unsinkable and they were wrong.

[milofonbil]

One minor deviation out of the safe operating envelope ... hitting an iceberg. It's the same with all these big nuclear titanics. One little trip outside of the safe operating envelope, and it will sink. All it takes is a small deviation in judgment. It's not if, but when.

[videosphere]

usbiker133t

I am getting tired of your ranting and I am thinking of taking you off.

You don't care for a serious discussion.We need total disclosure and not your brainwashed beliefs.

[usbiker133t]

wow dude, how would you describe my ideas as brainwashed? have you had a formal education in nuclear power? i do appologize for posting so much but on this topic theres is much to be said, instead of threatening to qwell my voice why not post a counter argument. i do not rant, i merely point out the falsehoods of what i see. if you really are in search of the truth and not a goal, then please feel free to either email me privately or research for yourself. btw did you give me neg feedback?

[bimmjim]

usbiker: I have done engineering for a living and I have studied forensic engineering as a hobby. For you to say that another Chernobel can't happen is absurd. In Engineering one calculates the risk and the magnitude of the down side. With such a big downside the numerical risk must be very low. I am simply saying "Apply the engineering method"

[milofonbil]

Just think of the complexity of a nuclear power plant. Complexity and reliability are pretty much inversely related. Overly complex systems are often unreliable. Just think of all the things that cannot be tested in a nuclear power plant, all the indeterminate states the machine can get into, all the operating regions where the behavior of the reactor is unknown. One little human mistake. One dial looks like another. Every day is another dice throw.

[usbiker133t]

someone should tell this woman that you have to mine coal too, and proccess it and rarify it and recombine it. a LARGE reactor has at most serveral thousand pounds of fuel in it. which will last the plant at LEAST 2 years at full power. HOw many tons of fuel are burned every day in a coal plant??? alot more mining there dont ya think? USE YOUR BRAINS.

[milofonbil]

News for you. Mining uranium leaves tons and tons of tailings dust and radon gas right next to the mine. The dust plume from that mess can be seen for miles and people die from cancer by the masses. The tons of uranium oxide it takes to run your reactor recovered at the mill and purification plant is only a small fraction of the thousands of tons of tailings left behind. Your clean, white control room is a bit far from the mine, mill and purification plant where all the mess is being made.

[SniperViper1000]

@milofonbil Little amount of people die from uraninum mines dumbass.

[milofonbil]

@SniperViper1000 Pathetic use of an Ad Hominem attack calling me a "dumbass". Loads of people have died mining and milling uranium. You know nothing about uranium mining do you? I bet you have never been near one, have you.

[fpsBeaTt]

@milofonbil Hmmm, funny; you've provided no evidence to support this. Show your references if you please, or stop spouting the ignorant scare campaign based on a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear physics.

[usbiker133t]

please take credence to what i say, i operate a plant myself. i am not biased, i dont get anything if more plants are built. i just know the truth of it. And im no bullshitter, just last week i was in our reactor compartment doing clean and inspects. WE watch dog ourselves so much its not even funny, i hate reading all this rhetoric from people who don't know and were never trained on this stuff. it's not for the laymen, leave it to ppl who are in the community...

[milofonbil]

great ... another of the thousands of Homer Simpsons on here that can barely spel wirth beins. Pathetic.

[milofonbil]

@usbiker133t So you went to tech school for a couple of years. You have never been to a uranium mine in your life.

[johnpaulinjapan]

her own agenda. neurotic/paranoid. severely flawed assumptions. talks about nuclear waste and nuclear bombs as if they r same. talks about electricity over-consumption as a con 4 nuclear (not related). her conclusion about 2020 said nuclear would generate as much CO2 as coal firing generation - ABSOLUTELY unfounded. nuclear generates far less CO2 than nuclear.writing book called "why men kill". take bitter feminist agenda elsewhere. lets find a multi-dimensional green plan

[bimmjim]

feffhoteling says Nuclear energy costs 1.4-1.9

cents/kWh. This dose not include the cost of safely storing the waste products for 200,000 years. It also dose not include the cost of the risk of another Chernobel. These risks are calculable by standard engineering methodes.

[usbiker133t]

yucca mountain, learn yourself some info. also, chernobyl used the rbmk 1000 design( i.e. shitty) one of russias 1 1/2 gen plants. That accident was caused by an idiot engineer running a non-approve test, violating all safety requirements, physically overiding safety features and operating illegaly. btw coal plants send over 2.2million curies of rad-contaminants into the air every year, the nuke total? ya try less than 2, yes i said 2! not million, just 2. shut up with the waste thing.

[bimmjim]

If you work in the nuclear industry then you are an advocate for N-power, correct? The word advocate comes from the same rout as the word advertize. You are advertizing. Another word for your information is spam.

[jeffhoteling]

Cost of Electricity Generation Below is a chart of the California Energy Commission's estimate of the cost of electrical energy. Cost of Electricity Generation Technology Current Cost of Electricity (2003 data, cents/kWh) Hydroelectric 0.25 to 2.7 Nuclear 1.4 to 1.9 Coal 1.8 to 2.0 Natural Gas 5.2 to 15.9 Solar 13.5 to 42.7 Wind 4.6

[Veggiety]

It is not hysteria to try to NOT poison ourselves. Wind, Solar, thermal & hydro powers are the way to go. But wait...how would Bushy's & Cheney's buddies all stay filthy rich? hmmm I know, I know ... lies! Its worked so far.

[Worsthoofd]

Also, all that is without the radioactive waste, without the massive complexity and cost of monitoring, without the risks and hazards of a nuclear meltdown, and without the massive additional costs of transport/extraction of uranium/security/careful demolition once the plant is obsolete/storage of radioactive waste. Also, I don't see some whimsy terrorist sparking a disaster using wind mills.

[Worsthoofd]

All you nuclear power worshippers and wind farm haters should consider this: with the time and money it takes to build an average nuclear power plant, we can build enough wind farms to deliver on average more than 1.3 times the power equivalent.

[Hottides]

Wind farming's impractical in areas without much wind. Anyway, we need nuclear energy for space travel, which will insure the survival of humanity.

[Worsthoofd]

Indeed it is, and we will still need nuclear power to provide power during times when solar power (at night) and wind power (areas without wind) can't operate. Still, those are the ONLY moments where nuclear power should be used. It has no future as our main energy source.

[videosphere]

Do you know what you are talking about? Settlement in deep space? Have you any idea of the UFO wars cover up? Nuclear is not the answer, noty just because Helen is saying so, many know it. Only the fools how believe the big lie will think like you.

[Hottides]

There is no UFO cover-up (read the works of Carl Sagan). Space settlement is necessary for ensuring the survival of humanity. As long as we are confined to one planet, we risk extinction through a single Shoemaker - Levy type impact (read Neil Tyson's Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist). Nuclear power is indispensable to this effort. Survival is promoted by progress, not by technological retreat.

[Aureus82]

AdamWhistle, this woman is a medical physician, not an idiot. She is far more versed in the causes of cancer than you will ever be.

[AdamWhistle]

This women is an idiot or mere support of the hysteria movement or just trying to sell her book. Cancer can and is induced by radiation, but it is also induced by chemicals you eat, breath and drink.

Nuclear power has its flaws, but if you look at the alternative, they are much smaller flaws then otherwise.

[jasbcor]

This woman is a fear monger first of all. The pre and post processing of uranium's associated C02 output is drastically insignificant compared to a coal plant and the amount a nuclear plant saves the environment from excess CO2.

[voodoo1948]

she's great.

[andresfusion]

I agree with you mark, nuclear power technology has improve a lot.

we need nuclear power to combat global warming.Third generation reactors are way more efficent and safe.Thats more than wishful thinking.

[masterseph]

I've heard these arguments before...they're nonsensical at best (except that exposure to large doses of radiation can cause cancer).

By the way, per kilowatt hour generated, solar energy contributes several times more to global warming than nuclear (4 to 20 times, depending on the set of data used), so the argument that it's a significant contributor to global warming is absolute nonsense.

[masterseph]

And if you'd like me to address the CFC "issue" (or any others associated with nuclear energy) I'd be glad to.

[eseus]

thank you so much for uploading this.