|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is nuclear power safe?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
I proffered the excellent idea of mini nuclear power plants (and micro hydro-power plants) in the Japan thread. Sadly, no one remarked about that particular post:
Small Town Nukes
National Geographic Magazine
Small reactors can't address all the problems standing in the way of more nuclear investment, but they can address the biggest barriersthe economic ones, Besides costing less to build, some small reactors could be inherently SAFER, . . .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
"Dam" interesting about Banqiao. Nope, I never heard about it even though I researched visiting Henan Province the previous year (visited Guizhou Province instead). Will google about, wiki doesn't seem to have any photos linked.
thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
For the past two years, the Grand Canyon has been protected from Uranium mining. But now, the temporary mining moratorium is set to expire . . .
quote: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/grand_canyon_mining/?...
quote: Opinion | The Grand Canyon Uranium Rush - The New York Times
quote: Resources Archive - Earthworks As long as the actual direct deaths per TWh are kept low, I suppose SOME people MIGHT think that uranium mining in the Grand Canyon is a GOOD policy. I'd disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Rahvin writes: Do you suppose that supporters of nuclear power because it is the safest method of power generation Still waiting for SOLID numbers that include cancer illnessES.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Rahvin writes: If you want to dispute those numbers, provide your own source. Until and unless you can give an independently-sourced casualty number that records a higher death toll than what I found, you have no evidence to support your argument. End of fucking story. Though your death toll numbers MAY be correct, I have not been debating the death tolls that you keep harping on. (I haven't seen such an unwavering and peremptory stance since Kenner Toys introduced GI Joe's Kung Fu Death Grip action doll.) However, I AM repeatedly harping on the cancer/radiation sickness tolls. OK, here AGAIN are some cancer numbers I have submitted before.
quote: To paraphrase your argument: If you want to dispute these cancer numbers, provide your own source. Until and unless you can give an independently-sourced casualty number that records a LOWER CANCER toll than what I found, you have no evidence to support your argument. End of fucking story. Incidentally, if all you have is a "general sense" that nuclear power generation causes insignificant cancer illness, and not any real numbers, that's rather strong evidence that you are currently holding a belief that is not based on any real-world evidence. Edited by dronester, : clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
Hey Mister Rhavin,
It seems you’ve been giving my posts the short thrift. I am often needing to remind you of my previous posts or point out strategic words used. Dronester sad. 1. When you gave pro-nuclear stats from a questionable propaganda site, I called you on it. You replied unless I have my own stats, I should stay quiet, Fucking end of story. Ok, precedence was set. 2. So when I gave you SELF-ADMITTED DUBIOUS cancer numbers, instead of replying with your own stats as you have directed me, you dismissed ALL of my stats. Doesn’t seem fair. 3. You want to restrict the numbers to actual deaths because there can never be SOLID cancer illness numbers. This doesn’t sound like an accurate way to determine the safety of nuclear power. 4. You want to only use the death per TWh as indicative of nuclear power safety. I think this marginalizes too many other current serious problems with nuclear power. As Fukishima showed, nuclear power plants shouldn’t be built near populous zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed on fault zones. They are. Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They aren’t. Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They don’t. Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are. Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are. You may only want to use death tolls, but that wouldn’t accurately show the true on-going risk of nuclear power. Indeed, I am asserting, we’ve been lucky so far. Consider, if a highly technologically advanced nation like Japan could have so many glaring serious problems, what can we expect when a third world nation, banana-republic, wants to build /operate nuclear powerplants? I think future catastrophes are inevitable. 5. The costs of nuclear power plants is extraordinary. Why not spend the money towards alternate power sources. I mentioned hydro before. I am starting to conclude the real reason hydro power (ocean wave or mini-river) isn’t pushed is because it simply isn’t as profitable as nuclear. 6. I am not fully against all nuclear power. I have already stated I think the mini nuclear power plants a good idea. Unfortunately, industry wants massive sized nuclear power plants because of the huge profit margin and because the risk, if something catastrophic happens, is capped. 7. I am not fully against all nuclear power. But I do want the concerns addressed. Perhaps the shrill and hyper-vigilance of the anti-nuclear crowd will somewhat cause advances in safety. But if we simply leave it to industry and government, we are not being very good parents to our children or stewards of the earth 8. Lastly, just a plea towards a healthy earth. I am trying to contain the epidemic, and others seem to be driving the infected monkey to the airport. I love tuna, but health officials urge women and children to restrict their consumption because of the mercury poisoning we have poisoned our waters with. I love safe drinking water, but industry wants to increase pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to release gas/oil. The government works against us by implementing standards that allow manufacturers to pollute the earth. Government reduces funding for regulations and monitoring and then the industry is not adequately policed or fined. And America is a first world nation. What about third world nations where industrial toxic sludge is directly pumped into rivers? You can say, currently, that nuclear power is the cleanest or safest, but really, is this the best we can do? Our standards continue to slip, indeed, do we really NEED to fight against mining in the GRAND CANYON? It’s amazing that this is even contemplated in the first place. Can you concede our national, and more pressing, global safety net is swinging haphazardly? Rhavin, this is a somewhat rambling post. But in it, can you at least see my aggravation/frustration that the earth will be in a much worse condition than when I inherited it? Often, when an eco-system is once changed, there is never going back to replace it. I am urging everyone to re-think how best to maintain a fragile planet's health.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Short SHRIFT.
Err, kinda explains the little attention or consideration my posts are getting. Thanks Theo.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024