R
rdean
Guest
According to Rdean, Democrat scientists were responsible for the leak
No, Republican businessman using sub-standard material for building while trying to "cut costs". It's obvious.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
According to Rdean, Democrat scientists were responsible for the leak
When dealing with Nuclear Power or anything that can result in a massive scale disaster, contingency is part of the equation. It is the responsibility to be prepared. The excuses get old. Think Fail-Safe, multi-backup. Stop with the false claims.
Agreed but there is never 100% guarantees. In the case of 2-mile Island the backups worked and averted disaster. The first line of defense may have faulted but the backups got it done and with no harm outside that to the reactor itself.
The very concept of redundancy and backups is in case the first lines fail. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a necessity for either. But its not a perfect world so they are required. And in 3 mile the first line failed but the back ups worked...
I don't think making more of it than it actually was like has been the case in the media, helps anyone at all...
Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.
Nuclear energy is one of the few areas where the French run circle around us.
Agreed but there is never 100% guarantees. In the case of 2-mile Island the backups worked and averted disaster. The first line of defense may have faulted but the backups got it done and with no harm outside that to the reactor itself.
The very concept of redundancy and backups is in case the first lines fail. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a necessity for either. But its not a perfect world so they are required. And in 3 mile the first line failed but the back ups worked...
I don't think making more of it than it actually was like has been the case in the media, helps anyone at all...
Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.
I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....
Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.
I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....
Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".
It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.
Much has changed and improved since then. the one constant should be improvement. Why aren't the Vermont Yankee pipes better protected, double hulled, with a triggered alarm? Just a thought. It seems to be a wide spread issue. Again, is the design short a minimum of one safety level? Bringing the lines above ground seems an improvement, yet why not further protect against a known vulnerability, especially in future construction.
I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....
Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".
It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.
Meanwhile, plant officials acknowledged they had misled state regulators and lawmakers regarding whether the plant had underground pipes that carried radioactive substances. The radioactive tritium was found in an underground pipe.
I agree 100% with improvement, I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible....[/QUOTE]
Only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% consider themselves as "conservative".
It's conservatives who push such nonsense as "voluntary compliance" from OSHA and the EPA. Can you imagine if speed limits were all "voluntary compliance"? Would you put your family in a car build with "voluntary compliance" safety regulations? That's what Republicans want. Hint - it's "good" for business.
Rdean that is not at all what I was saying... And frankly thats what really pisses me off when there is a discussion like this.. There is always one polarized thinker who has to take a careful and realistic view of regulation and try to turn it into some kind of claim about no regulation or very little...
if you cannot respond to what I say and not what you want it to mean or what your party goggles twist it to look like, than you aren't really being honest and certainly not wanting logical and reasonable discourse...
You were saying?
Rdean that is not at all what I was saying... And frankly thats what really pisses me off when there is a discussion like this.. There is always one polarized thinker who has to take a careful and realistic view of regulation and try to turn it into some kind of claim about no regulation or very little...
if you cannot respond to what I say and not what you want it to mean or what your party goggles twist it to look like, than you aren't really being honest and certainly not wanting logical and reasonable discourse...
You were saying?
Read it then ....
You cited it so read it... It says "I just don't agree with the liberal way of legislating until the legislation makes enforcement impossible...."
pretty clear to me what i said and what you claimed are not the same at all... you made the claim I am for no regulation or self regulation, and that was not what I said at all...
Now you can make a couple words red all you want but it will not change what I said or its meaning....
Skull, it is not me you have to convince. It is the American Public. The Nuclear Industry created this situation, not I. Here in the Pacific Northwest, WHOOPS is still a bitter taste in the mouth.
You want nuclear? Address the failings of the Nuclear Industry. Too many instance like the one Intense has pointed out. Then you add BP into the mix, and you can see how much the Public as reason to trust the large corperations involved in these kinds of projects.
Windmills, solar, and geothermal do not have the potential for catastrophic failure that poisons hundreds to thousands of square miles of our nation.
Nuclear energy is one of the few areas where the French run circle around us.
Yeah, I wonder what they do with their waste though... Never hear about it at least i don't...
Skull, it is not me you have to convince. It is the American Public. The Nuclear Industry created this situation, not I. Here in the Pacific Northwest, WHOOPS is still a bitter taste in the mouth.
You want nuclear? Address the failings of the Nuclear Industry. Too many instance like the one Intense has pointed out. Then you add BP into the mix, and you can see how much the Public as reason to trust the large corperations involved in these kinds of projects.
Windmills, solar, and geothermal do not have the potential for catastrophic failure that poisons hundreds to thousands of square miles of our nation.
Wind and solar also cannot be turned on and off when the whim strikes you. Geothermal can but is limited to specifc sites.
The difficulty is explaining nuclear power is that most people are really not familiar with the concept of risk and risk mitigation. I agree that the nuclear industry could handle this stuff better, but when your oppositon has no qualms with blowing any incident out of proportion you tend to get a wee bit defensive.
The article you posted just says "radioactive." It gives no mention of dose, isotopes (well it did say tritium), or even when it happened. I remember giving a tour of the sub critical reactor my school had onsite during a visit day for high schoolers. People walked into the room and once you said "nuclear reactor" you saw people get squirrely. Trying to explain that they were sub critical and that they could barely power a lightbulb had an effect on only some. Just saying "nuclear" sent people to the exit.
Nuclear power?
Nothing can go worng!
Trust us....with your lives.
Nuclear energy is one of the few areas where the French run circle around us.
Yeah, I wonder what they do with their waste though... Never hear about it at least i don't...
The French recycle their nuclear waste. Very little is left to store.
There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com
Skull, it is not me you have to convince. It is the American Public. The Nuclear Industry created this situation, not I. Here in the Pacific Northwest, WHOOPS is still a bitter taste in the mouth.
You want nuclear? Address the failings of the Nuclear Industry. Too many instance like the one Intense has pointed out. Then you add BP into the mix, and you can see how much the Public as reason to trust the large corperations involved in these kinds of projects.
Windmills, solar, and geothermal do not have the potential for catastrophic failure that poisons hundreds to thousands of square miles of our nation.
Wind and solar also cannot be turned on and off when the whim strikes you. Geothermal can but is limited to specifc sites.
The difficulty is explaining nuclear power is that most people are really not familiar with the concept of risk and risk mitigation. I agree that the nuclear industry could handle this stuff better, but when your oppositon has no qualms with blowing any incident out of proportion you tend to get a wee bit defensive.
The article you posted just says "radioactive." It gives no mention of dose, isotopes (well it did say tritium), or even when it happened. I remember giving a tour of the sub critical reactor my school had onsite during a visit day for high schoolers. People walked into the room and once you said "nuclear reactor" you saw people get squirrely. Trying to explain that they were sub critical and that they could barely power a lightbulb had an effect on only some. Just saying "nuclear" sent people to the exit.
The new small reactors being designed now are self limiting and a meltdown is impossible. In fact some of them will only need to be refueled every 20 or thirty years. People have not been told that nuclear energy can be just as safe as hydro electric power.
Our nuclear technology is decades old because we have turned an ignorant eye to the possibilities in favor of huge government subsidies for wind farms that will clog our landscape and that will on average produce one third of their rated output.
Tell me would you spend millions of your own money to build a power plant that can't run at full capacity?
Would you pay that kind of money for anything knowing that 70% of the cost is virtually wasted? It would be like hiring 1000 people and only having 300 of them do any work.
But then again that's efficient by government standards.
nuclear energy is our best hope for emission free power. Period.
Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.
Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.
What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.
Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.
Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.
What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.
You call windmills and solar farms cluttering up untold acres of our land as minimal impact?
Skull, nuclear has proven itself, through the shortcuts taken by those in the industry, to be very expensive, and dangerous. Until the people within the industry take the steps to prevent problems such as we see at the Vermont facility, it will remain a pariah.
Alternative energy, wind, solar, thermal solar, and geo-thermal are all on a very rapid decrease in costs per kw. All have minimal impact on the environment, and no danger of catastrophic failure. Even better, all spread the profits out. Solar even to the individual home owner.
What we lack to take advantage of the new technology is distributed grid.
You call windmills and solar farms cluttering up untold acres of our land as minimal impact?
There is a point when it is functional, as a back up or reserve.