Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2014, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,977,918 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
And how many nuclear disasters have we had in the U.S?

At least 3, The partial meltdown of the Enrico Fermi Reactor near Detroit MI, The partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor near Harrisburg PA, and The loss of control accident (Fire burned the control cables workers took radiation doses in turning off the reactor by manually inserting the control rods and opening or closing valves to cool the reactor) at the Browns Ferry Power Plant in TN (run by TVA). The failure of liquid nuclear waste storage tanks at the Hanford Site and the contamination of the Columbia River might count as an accident or at least an oops.

Fortunately none of our disasters approached the 1957 British Winscale (now called Sellafield) reactor fire, The 1987 Chernobyl reactor explosion and fire, the 1958 explosion of nuclear waste storage tanks at the Soviet Mayak (Chelyabinsk 40) plant in the Urals, or the large scale radioactive contamination due to nuclear materials and weapons production near Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk in Russia (one of the contaminated areas is as big as the entire state of TN) .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2014, 12:07 AM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,977,918 times
Reputation: 2479
Another hurdle to the public acceptance of nuclear power has the name Dai-ichi where 6 reactors have suffered meltdowns and explosions due to the flooding of the reactor site by salt water on the Pacific shore line when a 15 m Tsunami hit the site after the Tohoku Earthquake in March 2011. Elevated levels of radioactivity are now be seen in waters off the Pacific coast of the USA and Canada as debries from Japan still washes ashore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
7,010 posts, read 11,935,871 times
Reputation: 5813
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Just like the title of the thread states: If it weren't for liberals and liberalism, America would have a vast and expansive nuclear power infrastructure, renewable for infinity, more efficient than fossil fuels, less damaging to the environment than scavenging for coal, oil and natural gas, and more economically efficient than high-cost wind and solar farms.

For the past 40 years, America could have been building upon a tried and true energy infrastucture. But, no. We can't have that here in America. Liberals just won't allow it. And because of that, America missed the boat.

In essence, no one should listen to any liberal anywhere when it comes time to have a thoughtful discussion on energy policy. They screwed America royally on the nuclear power issue. And now they have the gall to tell us how bad coal, fracking, and oil is?

How they learned to stop worrying and love nuclear | New York Post

The Breakthrough Institute - Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear
As a democrat, I absolutely agree with you. The far left tree hugging liberals who are SO against Nuclear Power without realizing that we have had the technology for sometime to conduct EXTREMELY safe and carbon free Nuclear Power, are still against it. France has this system in place already and it is serving their country well, America could have done better. The far left really is to blame for this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 06:32 AM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,092,933 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Already linked and commented on this, if you want you can find that information on Wikipedia.

Thankfully it has been a long time since our last big disaster. I would never want to see any place have to deal with what Japan had to deal with, would you?
False claim. MAYBE if Japan had the same regulations as we do, the disaster would NOT have been as bad.

Some people like you say we should be like other countries when it comes certain issue like health care, then when other countries a re lax on regulations and enforcing them you try to say we should NOT be like them.

It is called "cherry picking"

If you want you can find that information on Wikipedia.

"Thankfully it has been a long time since our last big disaster"
OK, I looked it up.
According to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage). The most serious of these was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.[1] Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2]

"At least 56 nuclear reactor accidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities

Id' say you are grossly exaggerating!
Not ONE is described as a "DISASTER". "Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 07:24 AM
 
Location: NC
11,208 posts, read 8,263,272 times
Reputation: 12412
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
This dog won't fight. We have nuclear power plants in America. When's the last time we had a nuclear accident?
One and only one in the USA. THANK YOU "LIBERALS". Your argument that we don't need the regulations because we don't have any accidents is like arguing that you shouldn't maintain your car, because after 10 years and 250,000 miles it hasn't broken down.


On the other hand, take Fukishima. They did not follow standards which were developed in the USA, and look what happened. Facts, they are a pesky little thing, aren't they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,351 posts, read 6,504,570 times
Reputation: 5164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
One and only one in the USA. THANK YOU "LIBERALS". Your argument that we don't need the regulations because we don't have any accidents is like arguing that you shouldn't maintain your car, because after 10 years and 250,000 miles it hasn't broken down.


On the other hand, take Fukishima. They did not follow standards which were developed in the USA, and look what happened. Facts, they are a pesky little thing, aren't they?
One plant out of a hundred had a significant accident, and none have caused civilian fatalities and none have caused civilian damage. Can the fossil fuel industry say the same? No. I think our regulations work just fine thank you very much. Facts, they are a pesky little thing, aren't they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:17 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,482 posts, read 18,618,666 times
Reputation: 22375
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
If you drive in a car on public roads, you don't have room to talk.
My care is nuclear powered?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 01:30 PM
 
Location: MA
865 posts, read 1,484,546 times
Reputation: 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Just like the title of the thread states: If it weren't for liberals and liberalism, America would have a vast and expansive nuclear power infrastructure, renewable for infinity, more efficient than fossil fuels, less damaging to the environment than scavenging for coal, oil and natural gas, and more economically efficient than high-cost wind and solar farms.

For the past 40 years, America could have been building upon a tried and true energy infrastucture. But, no. We can't have that here in America. Liberals just won't allow it. And because of that, America missed the boat.

In essence, no one should listen to any liberal anywhere when it comes time to have a thoughtful discussion on energy policy. They screwed America royally on the nuclear power issue. And now they have the gall to tell us how bad coal, fracking, and oil is?

How they learned to stop worrying and love nuclear | New York Post

The Breakthrough Institute - Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear
Something that is so rare....rarer than most earth metals

A liberal who has taken SCIENCE classes!

But they certainly have a lot of opinions about science, energy, etc. without knowing any facts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
One just has to "recycle" those fuel rods in drums off our cost lines that will eventually rot away and contaminate the oceans. I think the OP doesn't know what the word "sustainable" means.
Science Fail.

Technology Fail.

Nuclear Fail.

IQ Fail.

Ignorant narrow-minded people lacking common sense don't understand the difference between nuclear reactor types. Oddly, it was Liberals who dumbed everyone down.

Fission reactors generate hazardous waste which must be disposed, and is quite costly.

Breeder reactors generate no waste. In fact, breeder reactors generate fuel for breeder reactors.

In other words, I take the "waste" from a breeder reactor and put in right back into the reactor, or into another breeder reactor, and burn it up.

How is that not sustainable?

The Environmentally-challenged Duo of Clinton/Gore cancelled funding for the IFR, which is a special type of breeder reactor.....it renders the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation almost nil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperthetic View Post
All of the nuclear power plants are nuclear bomb targets.
Tactical Fail.

Strategy Fail.

Nuclear Weapons Fail.

Common Sense Fail.

IQ Fail.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
Another hurdle to the public acceptance of nuclear power has the name Dai-ichi where 6 reactors have suffered meltdowns and explosions due to the flooding of the reactor site by salt water on the Pacific shore line when a 15 m Tsunami hit the site after the Tohoku Earthquake in March 2011.
You live on an island....it is volcanically active...it sits on fault/fold and suffers repeated earthquakes.....there are sea-quakes that have repeatedly caused tsunamis....and there's a potential for cyclones (hurricanes).

What moron would be stupid enough to build nuclear reactors that could be flooded?

That's like a Geology Fail, Engineering Fail, Common Sense Fail, IQ Fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
All this other blather about the length of time it takes to get nuclear infrastructure approved and running is just that....blather. 40 years is plenty of time to get many more plants than we currently have up and running. That's 40 years of wasted time.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree, I would just suggest that fission reactors are antiquated. You need to be using breeder reactors.

I've mentioned before that policy changes permitting open inspection would go a long, long way to appeasing the uneasy.

The Department of Energy notifying a nuclear power plant 6 months in advance that it intends to conduct an inspection defeats the whole purpose of having inspections.

You need open inspection. Any municipality, county, State or federal agency, plus any approved private groups (like Green Peace) can walk up to the gate and announce an inspection.

Those gates and turnstiles had best be open within 30 seconds...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,351 posts, read 6,504,570 times
Reputation: 5164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
My care is nuclear powered?
No, but it's far more unsafe than nuclear power. How many people does nuclear power kill every year in this country? Maybe a handful of old folks from 50s-60s era of experiments due to cancer. How many people do cars kill every year in this country? Over 34,000. So if you oppose nuclear on risk, then you should be far more strongly opposed to cars as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top