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.
I agree with you when you said that the level of radiation is causing cancer. We can find several such carcinogens present which can result in cancer. Even our food which is treated by chemicals, like pesticides, color, preservatives are all not good for health. Why not we are taking it seriously and eliminating Adulterated food, where in lieu of that we can have organic food to eat. And the nuclear power plants have certain guidelines, which the engineers must take seriously, while building nuclear power stations. Certainly this is an issue to concern about.
I did a Wiki search on EBR-II and related reactors. This is an entire technology we have failed to continue to research and commercialize. Some of these designs are nearly self contained and small enough to suitable for distributed nuclear power with full fuel recycle and breeding.
I suppose we can blame Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Gas for our failure to pursue these alternatives to a permanent electrical supply independent of foreign sources.
Nuke plants are bad news. I worked at one for a couple of years and did not feel safe. They may be efficient and clean but what about after they have to change all of those fuel rods out. Everything removed is highly radioactive and they stick it in the ground for God knows how long because of the high levels of radiation. SO now we are polluting the earth with highly contaminated radiological garbage for generations to come. These rods have to be changed out quite often as well.
They also cause a threat for terrorists, natural disasters, etc..if you take a nuke plant out, you take out everyone in a hundred mile radius.
At the University of Chicago run EBR-II reactor, it is well known the White House shut it down as a feel good measure. Costs were not an issue at the time.
Today, unless the project involves waste clean up, government funding is again impossible. There was some hope to fund a high temperature reactor that produces hydrogen, but today, that would not, again, feel good to the current White House dwellers and supporters.
I'm completely supportive of capitalistic endeavors, but since the government licenses plants, drawing up another research reactor is next to impossible if not done in house.
We can install wind and solar capacity much more quickly than nuclear and without the cost and safety problems. We can have a Fukushima type accident in the US.
OK you twos. Other than my opinion on feeling sorry funding was cut to the integral fuel cycle reactor, what have I said was not from actual experience? Do you just want to continue throwing passionate responses using your own opinions, or should ee continue to share knowledge of the opened Pandora's Box that is nuclear fission. Title of the thread is concern. Education breeds confidence. Shark experts swim with those fishes, but until I'm educated they usually don't eat divers under water, I'd be concerned to have an unexpected encounter.
Your choice if you want to have a heart attack when another reactor breech occurs. My choice to calmly leave the area.
At the University of Chicago run EBR-II reactor, it is well known the White House shut it down as a feel good measure. Costs were not an issue at the time.
Today, unless the project involves waste clean up, government funding is again impossible. There was some hope to fund a high temperature reactor that produces hydrogen, but today, that would not, again, feel good to the current White House dwellers and supporters.
I'm completely supportive of capitalistic endeavors, but since the government licenses plants, drawing up another research reactor is next to impossible if not done in house.
It was modified in the mid 60s and then ran for 30 years proving the technical feasibility of the concept. What it lacked was commercial interest among vendors and potential owners.
Nuke plants are bad news. I worked at one for a couple of years and did not feel safe. They may be efficient and clean but what about after they have to change all of those fuel rods out. Everything removed is highly radioactive and they stick it in the ground for God knows how long because of the high levels of radiation. SO now we are polluting the earth with highly contaminated radiological garbage for generations to come. These rods have to be changed out quite often as well.
They also cause a threat for terrorists, natural disasters, etc..if you take a nuke plant out, you take out everyone in a hundred mile radius.
I am against nuke power...
Thank you. I live about 10 miles from a nuclear reactor. I can see it on the beach. (Thanks for the great view. Not.) There is no route of escape around here if anything goes wrong as this is a rural area with small, narrow roads. It's a great target for terrorists and you know, of course, the 911 terrorists came in through Canada and went down through this area to get to Boston where the planes were waiting.
If I lived any closer I'd be a lot more concerned about the radiation. We hear things.....but things are hushed up. This reactor just got its license renewed again amid a multitude of protests.
Home prices are cheaper here due to the nuclear plant and I live here to save money but I've never trusted nuclear plants. Ever.
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.
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.
Ebr-ii
