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.
you are simply playing along for polticians who are against nuclear power for their own corrupt reasons. what do you know about the dangers of nuclear waste? nothing but scare tactics.
Sure and I know where to put it... Newark, Port Elizabeth, East Orange, Irvington are a few excellent sites. All near water for the cooling process and all places pretty run down and can only stand to build a stronger local economy and offer a few pretty good jobs.
I'll vote for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by topster7
Just read an ongoing thread over energy bills in New Jersey. Ain't much better here in California. But I do know that New Jersey made some really principled stands on preserving open spaces and other environmentally sound decisions in the past few decades. Quality of life I think is even more imperative given New Jersey's small size and population density.
In California, we haven't allowed any energy development in nearly 30 years, so we must import much of our energy. Some have even called for shutting down existing nuclear plants. I'm old enough to remember the scare over "Three Mile Island" during the Carter Administration. But this isn't the 1970's anymore. The technology has evolved, and even France derives a lions share of their electical output from nuclear generation.
As New Jersey residents, what do you say to building a nuclear power plant in the Garden State?
you are simply playing along for polticians who are against nuclear power for their own corrupt reasons. what do you know about the dangers of nuclear waste? nothing but scare tactics.
Oh, I cannot dignify that with an answer. Delusional, and totally out of touch with reality.
There is no guaranteed safe way of doing anything in life. It doesn't mean we stop doing things.
There are many remote areas of the globe where bunkers can be built to accomodate the waste. In the event of failure, which won't happen, nobody would be harmed save for a few isolated animals.
Or, we could launch the waste into space, never to be seen or heard from again. It could be aimed at a black hole where it wouldn't even be noticed given the amounts of native ambient radiation.
-Marc
I like the black hole idea. When we are prepared to take that step, I am all for it. I will even contribute, and if you knew what a cheap s.o.b. I am, you'd be impressed.
its probably the least costly and least dangerous.
in reality, the reason your liberal polticians are opposed to it has everythign to do with who is lining their pockets and nothing to do with safety, cost effectiveness and national security.
Only a guy who once supported W would have the brass to think people would believe that doublespeak.
You know it is the Republicans who are the conglomerate-supporting fascists. How a person could go through 8 years of that farce and still have his head in the sand is beyond me.
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.
Sure and I know where to put it...
