Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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 10-27-2012, 06:08 PM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,227,543 times
Reputation: 7693

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
In the USA's continuing effort to make more Nuclear Power Plants did anyone else pay any attention to the USS Minnesota SSN-783 being christened today?

USS Minnesota to be Christened Saturday | Military.com

Gotta love how we keep making more nucs
How many accidents have occurred with nuclear submarines that resulted in radiation leakage since the first nuclear sub was christened in 1954?

How many accidents have occurred with nuclear aircraft carriers that resulted in radiation leakage since the first one was christened in 1961?

Be afraid, be very very afraid of what might happen at some place some time to something....

Talking about nuclear power plants......... Still have not seen one answer from anyone on these observations.....

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2012, 06:19 PM
 
317 posts, read 577,219 times
Reputation: 404
No, cause nuclear power is safe and clean, Just wish they'd develop a Lage scale Fusion Plant instead
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 06:23 PM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,227,543 times
Reputation: 7693
Using the logic I see displayed here with Chernobyl (a first generation nuclear reactor)...

When the astronauts were burned to death in their space capsule why didn't America stop with the space program because we saw just how dangerous space capsules were to a persons health....

Think about it.....

Obviously we didn't stop, we re-engineered and made it safer/better....

We are now on 3rd generation nuclear reactors...

As I said before, Fukushima was a massive screw-up on the location of the reactor, not of the reactor itself....

Be afraid, be very very afraid of what might happen at some place some time to something....

Sooner or later a massive meteor will impact the Earth and wipe out humanity or a super volcano will erupt destroying all plant life on Earth, just what will we do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,138 posts, read 11,049,019 times
Reputation: 7808
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
The Hiroshima bomb was detonated at <2,000 ft.

You do realize that constantly smacking yourself would be more appropriate in an S&M forum?



Yes it surely does look like a radioactive wasteland......

Are you in total denial? Watch this video and pay particular attention to the last words this the reported says. "This land will never be inhabited again."


Ghost Town of Pripyat - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,848,649 times
Reputation: 7801
The beautiful facet of nuclear power is that they don't/won't do anything with the spent rods. Therefore we have approx. 104 swimming pools of spent nuclear rods sitting around the country. Lovely. Spent fuel pool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thanks to this genius administration it won't be going here any time soon. Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 08:13 PM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,227,543 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzelogik View Post
The beautiful facet of nuclear power is that they don't/won't do anything with the spent rods. Therefore we have approx. 104 swimming pools of spent nuclear rods sitting around the country. Lovely. Spent fuel pool - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thanks to this genius administration it won't be going here any time soon. Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Put them in a Saturn V, target the Sun.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Berwick, Penna.
16,215 posts, read 11,366,279 times
Reputation: 20833
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
I presume that by "were located", you mean on the ocean near an earthquake fault, just like the San Onofre Nuclear Plant between San Diego and LA? Which in a disaster could easily cause 10 million people to get cancer.
Your senseless, ungrounded hype/tripe is precisely why all anti-nuclear rants are consigned to the trash basket in these parts. In case you forgot (or were just too lazy and too biased to inquire), two nuclear bombs were detonated in Japan, and the vast majority of the survivors exposed lived to a normal old age.

This is not to downplay the risks -- most of us realize they're present. But the worst case to date involved Chernobyl -- where a nuclear-armed absolutist Marxist regime held power while the "peace" movement in our midst did everything in their power to sustain it.

Now let's talk a little about alternatives: Solar power is totally unsited for the continuous flow and ability to meet demand peaks that an industrialized society requires; wind power does somewhat better, but some of the greenies are so spolied that they whine about the esthetics of the turbines. Geothermal is a godsend -- if you're lucky enough top live in one of the handful of places where the surrounding environment is stable -- like Iceland.

That leaves only the mainstream sources: Oil is finite in supply, expensive, and likely to become moreso; coal is on the present Administration's enemies list, and natural gas might involve (Horrors! ) fracking -- another one of those ideas the greenies are seeking to tie to every evil imaginable, simply because it matches their prejudices.

Nuclear power has regained ground in the thirty-years-plus since Three Mile Island precisely because it has strengthened and secured its own safety record. The suprisingly little attention paid to Fukushima once things stabiliszd are simply further evidence in its favor.

I've lived within five miles (and as close as one mile) to a 2MW nuke (PP&L Susquehanna) since its completion in 1982, BTW.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-27-2012 at 10:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 12:00 AM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,750,732 times
Reputation: 13892
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyTXsmile View Post
People aren't responding because you're so far off base that to explain it to you would be as pointless as explaining astrophysics to a four year old.

Like I said, come here with knowledge on the topic (or at least a better attitude), or go away. Since you've done neither, I'll have to do it for you via the cozy ignore list so we adults can continue the conversation.
That's all you can do....I did it long ago.

Good thread....I'm with you 110% and have been since long before Three Mile Island. Some people are gung-ho on nuclear because they're convinced that fossil fuels are the ultimate evil and some people just don't get it and never will. If you can't see it, smell it, or touch it and it doesn't kill you instantly, it's harmless in their simple minds.

Thank you for speaking up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 12:07 AM
 
1,824 posts, read 1,725,393 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
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?

Should our knees tremble in fear at everything that might cause death and destruction?


Cancer deaths in US have doubled In the last 40 years. 85,000 toxins have been approved for our air, soil, food & water. 30% of Americans die from cancer. Govt corp alliance keeps upping our odds with more approved toxins & gives us false medical advice &/or keeps silent on dangers.

Probably most cancers are caused by environmental toxins of some sort. A nuclear plant with no problems might not kill anyone, but how can anyone say a nuclear meltdown never caused a death, or even serious health problems? I'd guess the issue is politicized by both sides, Wikipedia might know.

One thing not often brought up is some people can live after being exposed to 100 times the radiation that killed someone else. I hope they can find out why the difference & how to boost up our radiation tolerance if we ever have a leak near us. Best wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2012, 11:43 AM
 
15,912 posts, read 20,227,543 times
Reputation: 7693
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJJG2012 View Post
Cancer deaths in US have doubled In the last 40 years. 85,000 toxins have been approved for our air, soil, food & water. 30% of Americans die from cancer. Govt corp alliance keeps upping our odds with more approved toxins & gives us false medical advice &/or keeps silent on dangers.
In fact cancer deaths have tripled since 1900 but the cause is not nuclear reactors....

Too bad nothing you posted addresses any of the questions I brought up....

Quote:
Probably most cancers are caused by environmental toxins of some sort. A nuclear plant with no problems might not kill anyone, but how can anyone say a nuclear meltdown never caused a death, or even serious health problems? I'd guess the issue is politicized by both sides, Wikipedia might know.
So you are absolutely clueless as to the topic of this thread and are talking from an ignorant standpoint.....

*FAIL*

Quote:
One thing not often brought up is some people can live after being exposed to 100 times the radiation that killed someone else. I hope they can find out why the difference & how to boost up our radiation tolerance if we ever have a leak near us. Best wishes.
Thanks for contributing zero to this topic.....
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 > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 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