Nuke power plant question raised again.

[taichiliberal]

Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.

 

[rightwinger]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

 

[Trajan]

wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

Actually, that's incorrect.

 

[Trajan]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

becasue no one is going to wait 50 years or more for a return on the money it takes and even then, in the end, they may just not operate it due to regulatory strictures driven by insane energy policy....then what?

 

[rightwinger]

wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.

I have no problem with nuclear being part of our energy solution. How many Americans have died mining coal? Just need to be sure it is safe and evacuation is feasible. A nuclear accident is very low probability but very high potential casualties

 

[Midnight Marauder]

wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.

I have no problem with nuclear being part of our energy solution. How many Americans have died mining coal? Just need to be sure it is safe and evacuation is feasible. A nuclear accident is very low probability but very high potential casualties

One of the main problems getting better and even safer nuclear plant technology online is regulatory red tape and flaming hoops. Have you seen the "Nuclear Battery?" Can't do them, they are mired in so much red tape and utter crap, we'll probably never see these in production.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.

Why do ignorant people thing nuclear power is unsafe?

Since you are obviously an expert, can you tell me how large of an area will be contaminated as a result of the accident?

 

[taichiliberal]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved. But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

That's several decades of nuke waste, man. Not good!

And you're right about accidents.....case in point here on Long Island, New York investors footed the bill for the failed Shoreham Plant, but eventually the taxpayer got stuck with the clean up and shut down!

And of course, if there are no immediate deaths or illnesses, the State and the company go into overdrive to deny cancers and deaths of surrounding residents years later.

I really feel for the people of Japan, because for a lot of folk their hell is just beginning.

 

[taichiliberal]

wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.

I have no problem with nuclear being part of our energy solution. How many Americans have died mining coal? Just need to be sure it is safe and evacuation is feasible. A nuclear accident is very low probability but very high potential casualties

One of the main problems getting better and even safer nuclear plant technology online is regulatory red tape and flaming hoops. Have you seen the "Nuclear Battery?" Can't do them, they are mired in so much red tape and utter crap, we'll probably never see these in production.

The "red tape" is born out of the nuke plant companies fudging facts and cutting corners when it suits them. Case in point: in New York, the Indian Point power plant has had so many violations over the years that it should have been shut down decades ago! And if it weren't for people being more involved after 3 mile Island and a Gov. who was realistic about evacuation plans, the flaws in the Shoreham plant would have never come to light, and it would have gone on line with them!

And thern there is the case regarding a few decades of nuclear waste that no one knows how to decontaminate.

I say, just have a few experimental facilities to work out all the kinks, then you can use them for public service.

 

[westwall]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved. But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

That's several decades of nuke waste, man. Not good!

And you're right about accidents.....case in point here on Long Island, New York investors footed the bill for the failed Shoreham Plant, but eventually the taxpayer got stuck with the clean up and shut down!

And of course, if there are no immediate deaths or illnesses, the State and the company go into overdrive to deny cancers and deaths of surrounding residents years later.

I really feel for the people of Japan, because for a lot of folk their hell is just beginning.

Yes, it is. However radiation is not the killer lurking in the shadows, it is disease from all the bodies contaminating the water all over the place. Cholera is a very real possibility along with a whole host of other nasty diseases.

 

[rdean]

Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes. Put it at sea level on the coast.

Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place? This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".

Now we know. We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast. Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.

 

[dilloduck]

Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes. Put it at sea level on the coast.

Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place? This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".

Now we know. We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast. Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.

Did you get the political leanings of the scientists who put it there yet ?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I have no problem with nuclear being part of our energy solution. How many Americans have died mining coal? Just need to be sure it is safe and evacuation is feasible. A nuclear accident is very low probability but very high potential casualties

One of the main problems getting better and even safer nuclear plant technology online is regulatory red tape and flaming hoops. Have you seen the "Nuclear Battery?" Can't do them, they are mired in so much red tape and utter crap, we'll probably never see these in production.

The "red tape" is born out of the nuke plant companies fudging facts and cutting corners when it suits them. Case in point: in New York, the Indian Point power plant has had so many violations over the years that it should have been shut down decades ago! And if it weren't for people being more involved after 3 mile Island and a Gov. who was realistic about evacuation plans, the flaws in the Shoreham plant would have never come to light, and it would have gone on line with them!

And thern there is the case regarding a few decades of nuclear waste that no one knows how to decontaminate.

I say, just have a few experimental facilities to work out all the kinks, then you can use them for public service.

The red tape is born out of fear and ignorance caused by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

To get "experimental facilities" approved would require the removal of tons of the red tape, as I said. Unless you want to wait another 30 years for those.

 

[taichiliberal]

Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.

Why do ignorant people thing nuclear power is unsafe?

Since you are obviously an expert, can you tell me how large of an area will be contaminated as a result of the accident?

For a Windbag who has demonstrated his stupidity and dishonesty many times over, it's comical for YOU to accuse anyone of being ignorant.

Here's one reason why people don't like nuke plants:

Nuclear power plant accidents: listed and ranked since 1952
Nuclear power plant accidents: listed, visualised and ranked since 1952 | World news | guardian.co.uk

And since I never claimed to be an expert, I'll just let the reporters educate your Windbagged brain:


Radioactive cloud spreading in Japan nuclear crisisRadioactive cloud spreading in Japan nuclear crisis | The Australian

 

[taichiliberal]

One of the main problems getting better and even safer nuclear plant technology online is regulatory red tape and flaming hoops. Have you seen the "Nuclear Battery?" Can't do them, they are mired in so much red tape and utter crap, we'll probably never see these in production.

The "red tape" is born out of the nuke plant companies fudging facts and cutting corners when it suits them. Case in point: in New York, the Indian Point power plant has had so many violations over the years that it should have been shut down decades ago! And if it weren't for people being more involved after 3 mile Island and a Gov. who was realistic about evacuation plans, the flaws in the Shoreham plant would have never come to light, and it would have gone on line with them!

And thern there is the case regarding a few decades of nuclear waste that no one knows how to decontaminate.

I say, just have a few experimental facilities to work out all the kinks, then you can use them for public service.

The red tape is born out of fear and ignorance caused by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

To get "experimental facilities" approved would require the removal of tons of the red tape, as I said. Unless you want to wait another 30 years for those.

That is your OPINION, NOT FACT. You can't ignore my previous examples. And Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were a matter of fact and history....precautions and due diligence were enacted so that nonsense like that wouldn't happen here.....and yet things still go wrong.

Nuclear power plant accidents: listed, visualised and ranked since 1952 | World news | guardian.co.uk

What you call unecessary red tape, I call necessary reviews, as we're dealing with material that is a like a bad oil spill/fire/explosion to the nth degree.

 

[taichiliberal]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved. But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

That's several decades of nuke waste, man. Not good!

And you're right about accidents.....case in point here on Long Island, New York investors footed the bill for the failed Shoreham Plant, but eventually the taxpayer got stuck with the clean up and shut down!

And of course, if there are no immediate deaths or illnesses, the State and the company go into overdrive to deny cancers and deaths of surrounding residents years later.

I really feel for the people of Japan, because for a lot of folk their hell is just beginning.

Yes, it is. However radiation is not the killer lurking in the shadows, it is disease from all the bodies contaminating the water all over the place. Cholera is a very real possibility along with a whole host of other nasty diseases.

I see it as adding insult to injury......those clouds from reactor explosions are going to be a real bitch to the public health down the road that can't be ignored, and have yet to come to full and terrible fruition.

 

[JBeukema]

Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things?

Okay, we promise we won't build them on the Ring of Fire...

Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

And petroleum has had no negative impact, right?

What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world ….

Numbers? How many are operating? What are their operating costs compared to other sources?

like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….

By whom?

or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

Who denies that disposing of the waste is the biggest hurdle?

Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius,

If that's your point, why'd you not get right to it?

People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.

Devotion to nuclear?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved. But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

That's several decades of nuke waste, man. Not good!

And you're right about accidents.....case in point here on Long Island, New York investors footed the bill for the failed Shoreham Plant, but eventually the taxpayer got stuck with the clean up and shut down!

And of course, if there are no immediate deaths or illnesses, the State and the company go into overdrive to deny cancers and deaths of surrounding residents years later.

I really feel for the people of Japan, because for a lot of folk their hell is just beginning.

So I can count you as an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power now? the only reason we have a problem with nuclear waste in the US is that people like you stopped us from building newer reactors that recycle it. France gets 17% of its electricity from recycled nuclear fuel, and is building the first generation 3 reactor now.

Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy

 

[JBeukema]

My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill

I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved. But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

A good start is sending it to breeder reactors