Pro Nuclear Rally - All

Rally to support building a new nuclear power plant at the Grand Gulf Nuclear facility in Port Gibson, Mississippi. Rally was on the Mississippi Capitol steps in Jackson.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• nuclear
• energy
• electricity
• clean
• air

[starsalzman]

@MillyVanillification you should educate yourself on nuclear energy alittle more. did you know that after the earthquakes in japan at its highest point being in the irradiated areas for a day was the equivalent of eating 30 bananas? and the thing is that was very short lived it quickly dropped to 1 to 2 bananas. do you know why chernobyl happened it was a test where the scientists shut off all the fail safes and ignored all safety procedures and caused a steam explosion.

[starsalzman]

@MillyVanillification did you know also that the dalai lama is very pro nuclear energy and if someone like that is pro nuclear energy then you need to learn more about it. also nuclear waste goes away unlike chemical wastes and what not produced by many other plants and forms of energy

[MillyVanillification]

@coverchenko

The question isn't if nuclear plants are safe.

The question is can you rule out an accident by 100%.

Its not necessary to risk an accident for nothing. Nobody - except the nuclear mafia - needs NPPs. They are expensive, risky and there is no final deposit for them and the used fuels since 60 YEARS! Pro Nuclear ppl are either ignorant, deluded or crazy.

[coverchenko]

nope sorry you are wrong. they did tests with a fully fuelled 747 jet hitting a containment building head on. in all the tests the plane disintegrated on impact and containment was not breached. todays reactors are so advanced that the possibility of a meltdown is les than .000000001 %.

[coverchenko]

you are wrong. nuclear plants are extremely safe. the reactor vessel is surrounded by a steel zirconium shield 12 inches thick. this is submerged in coolant water which is contained in another zirconium vessel. the structure surrounding the reactor is made of solid reinforced concrete about 1 meter thick. this is enough to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled 747. they are able to withstand any attack short of a direct hit with a nuclear bomb.

[RADS190]

plus, they need to redesign the AGR reactors like our because they are safer than the American PWR's in the fact they cant suffer from fire or a steam explosion.

[RADS190]

you tell em masterseph, i work in a nuclear power station in england. great fun, very safe. they wanted to build a huge wind farm with a 200MW output on our 'C' station site but it blew away because what is the point in this crappy useless form of power trying to supply power in place of a nuclear station with a 1200MW output? its simple maths. nuclear all the way.

[masterseph]

Let me clarify a couple of things about that post:

-When I say radiation, I'm referring to ionizing radiation (including alpha, beta, gamma, neutron radiation).

-Coal contains trace impurities of radiioactive heavy metals, which include uranium and thorium. Unlike nuclear, these radioactive materials aren't contained when coal burns.

-Many of these calculations have been done, and they consistently show the same results.

[masterseph]

I probably should have brought this up earlier, but risk assessments have been done in regard to terrorist attacks for both nuclear power plants and chemical plants, and every one I've seen shows chemical plants to have a much greater risk, some as high as 10 times greater. Once again, the lower risk of nuclear is associated with the safe gauards.

[masterseph]

The point I'm trying to make is that you rarely hear about radiation being associated with coal power, and since even less is associated with nuclear, the public safety impact as a result (with the obvious exception of Chernobyl, which was not a US reactor) is next to nothing.

As for Chernobyl, we've already been over this...it had many design flaws, and was a disaster waiting to happen.