U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho > Idaho Falls
 [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 05-15-2008, 10:03 PM
 
Location: SE Idaho
40 posts, read 203,269 times
Reputation: 33

Advertisements

I'd email your questions, and those the others have which haven't been answered, to the local news stations or newspaper. Sounds like a few things they could follow up on for the greater community.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2008, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,714,342 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke777 View Post
The Snake Rive Alliance consists of a bunch of slightly knowledgeable fear mongers who prefer to adopt a "don't confuse me with the facts" attitude
That sounds like a good general definition of an environmentalist group.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2008, 03:20 AM
 
15 posts, read 88,889 times
Reputation: 16
Default General Definitions are light on details!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan View Post
That sounds like a good general definition of an environmentalist group.
Don't know anything about the Snake River Alliance or much about the uranium enrichment process, so maybe Hayduke777 is right, but anyone who relies on general definitions to lump thousands of groups together doesn't seem to have much interest in looking at the facts either.

Some informed people think nuclear power is the way to go, while other equally informed people see the short and long term hazards as too much. Nuclear power has its benefits, but assuming that all the risks can be removed seems a bit naive to me...I am sure that many of the people who lived in Chernobyl, went to work at the twin towers and boarded the airliners on 9/11 thought that someone knowledgeable was in charge of safety & security.

In the end, it probably comes down to how much risk you are willing to take to get the energy you use in your daily life and how concerned you are about the amount of waste you leave for future generations to deal with.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2008, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,714,342 times
Reputation: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
Hayduke777 is right, but anyone who relies on general definitions to lump thousands of groups together doesn't seem to have much interest in looking at the facts either.
Cite me an instance where an environmental group has ever supported a new power plant, thinning a forest, removing an animal from the endangered list, widening a road, etc.

Environmental groups, by definition, oppose growth. Too many people give them deference and that is the largest single reason why we so dependent on foreign sources of energy.

I'll give you an example. I live in a National Forest in the Southern California mountains. Environmentalists have opposed any thinning of trees in the forests for decades. That opposition, coupled with the suppression of fires that would naturally clear the forest and keep it healthy, has led to an overgrown forest that can't support the number of trees growing. Some of the become weak and the bark beetles come in and kill those trees. So there is a forest of mixed dead and live trees that is a tinder box ready to explode. The government is clearing many dead trees out now but I have yet to hear anyone in a high profile position point out the fact that it was the policy developed at the recommendation / demand of the environmental movement that has not only led to deaths and destruction but also costs. There are timber companies willing to pay for the right to clear the dead trees. But environmentalists pitched a fit at the idea of a company making a profit from public land and so instead the government is paying to have the trees removed. (Ironically, many of the trees are being ground up and shipped across the border to Mexico where the wood chips are burned for electricity that is transmitted back to California.)

The only alternative to thinning is not to live in the forest so that fires could burn naturally. That is what the environmentalists would prefer (except for their offices, of course).

So with that example in mind, my point in this thread is that environmentalists' policy demands are bad for America. The more we listen to them the worse shape America will be in as far as energy dependence.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2008, 03:39 AM
 
10 posts, read 38,277 times
Reputation: 25
Default nuclear waste

...there is no answer to your question as to what they will do with the waste and that is my biggest concern. There does not appear to be a plan to reuse the nuclear waste within the plant. So yes, what are they going to do with it?

As to the issue about jobs vs environmentalists - a job that will put all of our children at risk, is not a job. Why is it that when one raises a concern that affects us all {cancer for example}, labels come up to silence dissent? I want to protect my State from money making destructive people.

For example, there are tons of radioactive waste already in Idaho and more shipped every day, perhaps even near your homes. (See Idaho Statesman, 8 May 08) Some are making a lots of money out of that venture and its not a working person. Who is exposed to that radioactive waste? Check the publication, it appears to have started in the 70's and continues to this day...passing by train right by our homes, every day.

There are alternatives to nuclear energy. Solar, wind are just two. I have seen three wind turbines off I-84W. Idaho could lead on those alternatives. The reason we are not, in my opinion, is that there wont be money made by the same people who are dumping radioactive waste in our back yards.

Senator Craig is pushing to have this French company in Idaho. Some believe, after all, that nobody cares about what happens in Idaho, so lets dump there. Well, I care.

PS: I am NOT with any environmental group, just ONE of many concerned Idahoan.

Last edited by JAJA; 05-24-2008 at 03:47 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 09:00 PM
 
8,440 posts, read 11,965,550 times
Reputation: 6270
Lightbulb Areva --Sources for Answers

I have read the plan for what is "waste" vs. the product to be produced at Areva. Unfortunately, given the restrictions of what we can post here from other sites/sources, I've not felt comfortable trying to link that to this thread.

Areva has a plan. I'd strongly encourage those with questions to:

1. Follow what Idaho mom suggested above: contact the media and request more information.

2. Also, I'd encourage those with questions to check with Areva's main website: AREVA - Solutions for nuclear power generation and electricity transport.

3. Finally, for purposes of this site, please review various posts about INL. A local, Idaho Falls area resident has his own website. He is extremely astute and aware of the issues and answers. Search for INL as your subject and you'll find his url. If I can find it, I'll post it here.

One reason I strongly encourage those who really want to LEARN about Areva, not just repeat something others have said, but reading information from locals who know from their work at INL and elsewhere. I don't know how many people realize INL specialists were sent as the experts to assist with the above-mentioned disasters, including 3 Mile Island. Usually, the INL experts can't talk about their missions when they have been sent to assist local personnel post a nuclear accident.

As for the Idaho Falls website focused on the appropriate nuclear energy work in Idaho, this is a great resource. Dan (the gentleman who maintains the site), has posted in the Idaho Falls/INL threads here. So I'd recommend trying to find his comments and/or website to learn more.

Perhaps someone could invite him to write a guest opinion for this thread.

For the record, I'm perfectly comfortable having Areva in Idaho.

Oh, to address the question about being a potential threat for terrorist action etc., first - did others read the article about Boise being the west coast city least prepared for a terrorist attack? (I'm not trying to pick on Boise, simply stating what was printed, given the vulnerabilities found upon review by the national agency conducting the study.)

INL use to post numbers of how many attempts of hackers they dealt with daily. Maybe that is one reason one of their national missions, as a National Science Lab, is Cyberspace Security. The Cyberspace training with other nations the last two years probably is best discussed in an INL forum or a new forum.

I strongly believe those at INL are totally aware they could be a site of terrorist activity. They simply don't share their plans, personnel etc. with the public.

I see Areva as even a better deal for Idaho Falls, than I originally did. News is starting to spread to other states and interest in either working at Areva or being involved in building the facility etc. is only growing.

People are either comfortable or not with nuclear energy. If not, and open minded, I strongly encourage reading and learning more.

MSR
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2008, 05:00 PM
 
5 posts, read 24,408 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident View Post

2. Also, I'd encourage those with questions to check with Areva's main website: AREVA - Solutions for nuclear power generation and electricity transport.

MSR
I'm sorry, but I checked the AREVA site, and there is no information (that I could find) on where AREVA is going to store the Nuclear Waste from the new Idaho project?

I also did an online news search and couldn't find the answer. Has anyone else found anything? Idaho Statesman articles, or other sources?

All I want to know is... Will the Nuclear Waste be stored in Idaho? If so, where and how will it be stored?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:23 AM
 
Location: ABQ
634 posts, read 2,165,948 times
Reputation: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoiseIdahoNative View Post
I'm sorry, but I checked the AREVA site, and there is no information (that I could find) on where AREVA is going to store the Nuclear Waste from the new Idaho project?

I also did an online news search and couldn't find the answer. Has anyone else found anything? Idaho Statesman articles, or other sources?

All I want to know is... Will the Nuclear Waste be stored in Idaho? If so, where and how will it be stored?
It's very possible (actually, likely) that the waste will be housed on-site by AREVA, so yes, it would be in Idaho, but it wouldn't be on public land. This is pretty typical of other nuclear facilities as well. Most waste that gets shipped off-site has been held on-site for years (if not decades) until it has cooled off, or until a more permanent home for it can be found/made.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 08:19 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 11,965,550 times
Reputation: 6270
Lightbulb A Resource About Nuclear Energy at INL/Areva and Nationally/Globally

Quote:
Originally Posted by breer23 View Post
It's very possible (actually, likely) that the waste will be housed on-site by AREVA, so yes, it would be in Idaho, but it wouldn't be on public land. This is pretty typical of other nuclear facilities as well. Most waste that gets shipped off-site has been held on-site for years (if not decades) until it has cooled off, or until a more permanent home for it can be found/made.
Nice to see you here, breer23! Good answer.

Areva is still the the stages of getting their license granted. However, I have heard of different options for the waste.

If you have read any of the INL-based threads, a local Idaho Falls gentleman, who is very generous with both his understanding of nuclear matters and answering questions from others, has actually posted here (INL Thread). He has his own website/blog: djysrv.blogspot.com. He follows matters from GNEP to the IVth Generation of Nuclear Reactor, plus what intrested me in reading through again.

I was greatly surprised when I saw how many other countries/private businesses want in on the Uranimium enrichment, or other Nuclear work. Read his articles about the plant headed for western CO, the Emery County Utah investment/project, the Canadian company looking at WY etc.

I believe Dan discussed some in his thread months again about where nuclear energy would be buried. However, it may have been on a different website instead of his own blog.

Check out some of the information he has written or contact him directly. If nothing else, read how many states are now thinking nuclear.

The reality is we probably don't know the answer to the question yet. I read, on another website, an INL employee say point blank: "if you are worried about nuclear in eastern Idaho, you have 2 options. Move (or don't move to Idaho), or get educated."

I'm not going to quote that person's name to protect their privacay. However, I do wonder if there is a point that some who fear the most have read the least? I don't know the answer, but those who aren't comfortable with nuclear power need to identify which states won't have plants in the next 5-10 years (if not already). We're all different. There are businesses I would want to live by, so I don't.

Don't hear you aren't welcome in Idaho Falls because you are. Just hear the eastern Idaho population as a group is very pro-nuclear. You may want to add that to your mix of whether it is a good place for you to live, invest in, or to enjoy during vacation.

Certainly, the media could help educate.

I hope this resource helps some.

MSR
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 08:26 AM
 
8,440 posts, read 11,965,550 times
Reputation: 6270
Lightbulb Looking From a Different View

I've had these articles published by the AP to be interesting. Some are not happy about Areva being in Idaho Falls.

Dozens to 100s of Washington State residents are not happy Areva didn't select the Richland/Tri-States area. The Seattle Times, Seattle P.I. etc. all have articles asking essentially what went wrong so that Idaho and Idaho Falls won this lucrative plant.

Many in WA state would like to be contemplating the problems those in Idaho Falls are thinking about. Several blame Gov. Gregoire. Here is one link to read an outside perspective of what 4 other states lost, and Idaho won.: Herald investigates: How Washington lost the $2 billion Areva plant and at least 400 jobs to Idaho - Mid-Columbia News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

MSR
Rate this post positively 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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > U.S. Forums > Idaho > Idaho Falls

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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