View Poll Results: Are nuclear energy plants just too dangerous, worldwide?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • They are too dangerous, do not build any more and shut down the ones currently in operation.

    4 18.18%
  • They are dangerous, do not build more but it is OK to keep using the ones already built.

    3 13.64%
  • The risks are worth it, keep expanding nuclear energy.

    12 54.55%
  • Other opinion (add your details in a posting on this thread)

    3 13.64%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 62 of 62

Thread: Nuclear energy - safe?

  1. #51

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    I agree Kalalau, I believe the problems will become even more recognizable as time passes. (My point was that the news media sometimes tosses in a "panic" angle, which serves no helpful purpose to the worried parents.)
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Centered - sides are for suckers
    Posts
    1,527

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by timkona View Post
    When speaking of Nuclear Energy.......

    there is simply no humanitarian, defensible position for the tragic, LONG TERM consequence of an accident, regardless if the source/cause of the accident is tsunami, human error, design flaw, locational ignorance, Act of God, Mother Nature, Father Time, Zeus, Mohammed, or yo Momma!!!!!!

    The alternatives are....

    TOO NUMEROUS
    TOO PERFECTLY SUITED TO THE INDIVIDUAL LOCATOINS
    EXCEPTIONALLY VARIETAL FROM SUN, WIND, WATER, MAGNETICS
    FAR LESS GOVERNMENTALLY INTRUSIVE
    COMPLETELY SMALL SCALE PORTABLE AND LARGE SCALE INDUSTRIAL

    The Grid will die a slow death in MY lifetime.
    From my Summer of Love perspective, I'd bet the farm on it.
    Too bad you'll be dead before it happens [and lose the farm, bet or no bet].
    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

  3. #53

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    From the StarBulletin (this free "breaking news" link is only temporary):

    In a jolt to the nation's nuclear power industry, Southern California's San Onofre plant was shut down for good today after its owners surrendered in a costly and drawn-out fight over whether it was too damaged to operate safely. The twin reactors — situated along the Pacific Coast in the densely populated corridor of millions of people between San Diego and Los Angeles — are the largest to shut down permanently in the U.S. in the past 50 years, federal officials said.
    Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, welcomed the news. "This nuclear plant had a defective redesign and could no longer operate as intended. Modifications to the San Onofre nuclear plant were unsafe and posed a danger to the 8 million people living within 50 miles of the plant," she said.

    The problems center on four new, much-heavier steam generators that were installed during a $670 million overhaul in 2009 and 2010. Just a few years later, tests found some generator tubes so badly eroded that they could fail and possibly release radiation, a startling finding for nearly new equipment.
    Nuclear energy - safe? Not if the tubes are eroded.
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  4. #54

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    So Cal Edison has decided not to restart San Onofre nuclear generators. Its at the extreme south end of Orange County, between LA and San Diego, right on I 5. A few years after the plant went on line a small fault line was discovered about a half mile up the beach. The announcement of its approval for construction was a tiny little story on one of the back pages of the Tribune the day President Kennedy was killed, 1963. I guess the real problem will be keeping the used fuel rods cool for the next few decades. It will cost money, tax money, and nobody is anxious to spend that.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    This source seems maybe a bit extreme but there may be some truth in their report on the latest news from Fukushima:

    http://www.popularresistance.org/fuk...to-horrendous/

  6. #56

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Thanks, it is an interesting article, and it has points for consideration. [But, some of the comments head off into .... dumbness .... such as this comment about radiation exposure: "lets hope some of us build up immunity in the process". Of course, for dumb postings one needs to go no further than the comments left on SA online articles!]
    Now run along and play, but donít get into trouble.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Groan. I just happened on the most depressing article so far on Fukushima but I am not going to put it up, for now, because it is so depressing. And alarming. You might want to consider not eating fish for a while.

  8. #58

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?


  9. #59

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    There's a radioactive water leak inside the containment building at a 40 year old nuke plant in So. Carolina. Less than a tenth of a gallon a minute since Friday night. 1440 minutes a day, 5 days, =7200 minutes = 720 gallons. Its confined inside the containment building. 720 gallons doesn't seem like a lot. The reactor has been shut down for safety. Everything will probably be just fine.

  10. #60

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    An article in the paper yesterday detailed problems at the Hanford site in Washington State. Waste storage tanks are leaking, its feared the waste might migrate to the Columbia River. Technology for solidifying waste into a form of glass, for permanent storage, seems to have problems as in plutonium clumping producing a potential critical mass.

    I am over 60 now and realistically a lot of the problems that places like Hanford and Fukushima will be producing I won't be around to see. I feel sorry for future generations but to tell the truth kind of relieved for myself. We tried. Nobody listened. Nobody listened about Vietnam or Bush, either.

  11. #61

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    http://thetruthwins.com/archives/36-...the-west-coast

    This seems a bit extreme but it does raise legitimate questions about the long term effects from Fukushima. Something to think about. Oh, Happy New Year !

  12. #62

    Default Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

    Another extreme report. Hope its not trueÖ

    http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/01/01...ting-down-now/

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •