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.
Tsunami & storm prone locations scare me, but the sight of those turbines makes me want to vomit.
Figures the DC guy likes wind and solar power, then again I didn't see any IWTs in DC last week when I was there, perhaps because I believe DC gets much of their renewable power from the the ruined ridgetops of WV, although I may be wrong.
Care to enlighten us as to what site that is in Post #160 DC?
EDIT: Should have known, it's the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.....
As I said earlier, there is nothing unsafe with the design, building or operation of nuclear reactors...
I wish DC would make up his mind, one minute the only issue he has is with the location of the reactors the next minute it's not the location but the cost of them, the next minute it's not the cost of them but the radiation hazard to people....
As soon as one of his arguments is pwned he switches gears to another ludicrous argument (and gets pwned again)...
Tsunami & storm prone locations scare me, but the sight of those turbines makes me want to vomit.
Figures the DC guy likes wind and solar power, then again I didn't see any IWTs in DC last week when I was there, perhaps because I believe DC gets much of their renewable power from the the ruined ridgetops of WV, although I may be wrong.
Not to mention the deadly hazard those wind turbines are to birds, but then again the anti-nuclear crowd doesn't give a crap for animals do they?
Care to enlighten us as to what site that is in Post #160 DC?
EDIT: Should have known, it's the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.....
As I said earlier, there is nothing unsafe with the design, building or operation of nuclear reactors...
I wish DC would make up his mind, one minute the only issue he has is with the location of the reactors the next minute it's not the location but the cost of them, the next minute it's not the cost of them but the radiation hazard to people....
As soon as one of his arguments is pwned he switches gears to another ludicrous argument (and gets pwned again)...
~Sheesh~
You get stuffed so you declare victory.
This has to be one of the most moronic statements on the board "there is nothing unsafe with the design, building or operation of nuclear reactors". From Fukushima to Chernobyl to SL-1 there are demonstrably nuclear reactors that have unsafe designs, are not built to reasonable safety standards and are operated in a hazardous manner.
You clearly have no actual experience with nuclear reactors. You should learn to stay silent in the face of criticism by those who have such experience.
Feral and domestic cats Hundreds of millions
Power lines 130 million -- 174 million
Windows (residential and commercial) 100 million -- 1 billion
Pesticides 70 million
Automobiles 60 million -- 80 million
Lighted communication towers 40 million -- 50 million
Wind turbines 10,000 -- 40,000
This has to be one of the most moronic statements on the board "there is nothing unsafe with the design, building or operation of nuclear reactors". From Fukushima to Chernobyl to SL-1 there are demonstrably nuclear reactors that have unsafe designs, are not built to reasonable safety standards and are operated in a hazardous manner.
You clearly have no actual experience with nuclear reactors. You should learn to stay silent in the face of criticism by those who have such experience.
Nothing like bringing up something from 40 - 50 years ago when nuclear reactors were in their infancy....
Using your logic automobiles are death traps that should never have been allowed to mature, same goes for ships, planes etc......
The problem with the Fukushima installation was the lack of foresight in planning for Tsunami's, there was nothing unsafe with the design, building or operation of the Fukushima nuclear reactors...
As far as Chernobyl goes, typical QC by the USSR in the 1980's:
Quote:
The shelter’s poor condition was a result of localized damage, overloading, large displacements, and deviations from the relevant construction codes during its construction.
SL-1? Human error.... (OH, and BTW, SL-1 was a military nuclear reactor manned by military personnel).....
Quote:
The world's first fatal atomic accident occurred on January 3, 1961 when a small, 3MW experimental BWR called SL-1 (Stationary Low-Power Plant No. 1) in Idaho was destroyed after a control rod was removed manually.
"3 January 1961: A reactor explosion (attributed by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission source to sabotage) at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho, killed one navy technician and two army technicians, and released radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The three men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins."
Feral and domestic cats Hundreds of millions
Power lines 130 million -- 174 million
Windows (residential and commercial) 100 million -- 1 billion
Pesticides 70 million
Automobiles 60 million -- 80 million
Lighted communication towers 40 million -- 50 million
Wind turbines 10,000 -- 40,000
Like I mentioned before.......
Quote:
Not to mention the deadly hazard those wind turbines are to birds, but then again the anti-nuclear crowd doesn't give a crap for animals do they?
But I digress, I don't want to hijack this intelligent, enlightening and entertaining thread, apologies to the readers....
I'll ask the same questions I did at the beginning of this thread which up to this point no-one can answer or explain:
France has 78% of their power generated from nuclear plants yet we don't see any abnormalities in their cancer statistics, why is that?
Their first reactor went online in 1964, almost 50 years of non-stop operations and nobody has gotten sick, explanation?
There are over 2.8 million people living within a 50 mile radius of 3 mile island nuclear plant, no sicknesses no increase in cancer rates since 1974... Explain?
Indian Point nuclear reactor on the Hudson river up from NYC, no sicknesses or cancer reported because of it since 1962, explanation?
As the OP stated and asked:
Quote:
There is no doubt in my mind that these plants cause illness / cancer /death (something other countries know), yet I'm baffled as to why no one in this country seems to be concerned.
Let's just face the truth plwhit, you have no background in nuclear. It is glaringly obvious from your posts.
It doesn't take a rocket nor nuclear scientist to see your phobia against nuclear reactors is totally groundless...
Nor could you confirm the OP's fears about nuclear energy with any accredited scientific data other than "I know about nuclear energy so ya'll are stupid to say anything to dispute me"
Have a nice day....
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.
