Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 12:41 AM
Original message |
Rachel Maddow - Spent Nuclear Rods segment - Tuesday, March 15th |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 12:43 AM by Tx4obama
Run time: 15:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXIODVlfXk
Posted on YouTube: March 16, 2011
By YouTube Member: MOXNEWSd0tCOM
Views on YouTube: 301
Posted on DU: March 16, 2011
By DU Member: Tx4obama
Views on DU: 1498 | And here is a link to Maddow's March 14th segment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x563376
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 01:13 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Regarding the 'spent rods', seems like after 9/11 they'd have done something about this |
|
Having the spent rod pools located in the 'top' of the buildings is a disaster waiting to happen here in the USA !!!
|
dencol
(297 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Such a modification would cost money. |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 04:49 AM by dencol
Money corporations are not going to spend. It's far better to take the risk and let the public deal with the costs when everything goes to hell... at least from a capitalistic point of view where the most successful companies are those who can most efficiently externalize costs.
|
chervilant
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I think it's time for you to read "No Nukes" by Anna Gyorgy and Friends, or any number of well-researched anti-nuke books or articles. The nuclear power industry has been "storing" spent fuel rods at various nuclear reactors throughout the US (the WORLD), as a 'temporary' measure (which means--in actuality--for several years), since no long-term containment or storage has been created ("Yucca Mountain," notwithstanding). Long-term storage is now and will continue to be the most expensive aspect of nuclear energy, and one about which we seldom hear accurate information.
Furthermore, we are seldom told when nuclear waste is transported from place to place, and we're seldom made aware when accidents happen to vehicles transporting nuclear waste. The Corporate Megalomaniacs who've made vast fortunes on nuclear power want us to be good little mushrooms--in the dark and fed lots of bullshit.
|
pam4water
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 06:13 AM
Response to Original message |
3. They should have build a robot to do maintenance on nuclear. |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 06:13 AM by pam4water
|
JJW
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 07:48 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Know one should pretend |
|
fire engine pumps can cool down the six reactors. Ignore the lies, and prepare for total melt down.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
bongbong
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 11:15 AM
Response to Original message |
|
They are the same thing. The layman's term "rust" refers to Fe²O³, which is what you get when you let iron (Fe) be exposed to air for any length of time.
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Yeah, but in this case it's zirconium the tubes are made from.. |
|
I think "rust" per se is limited to when iron gets friendly with oxygen.
|
bongbong
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Depends on the chemist |
|
My father would use the term rust as a substitute for the verb "oxidation" if he was in a hurry. I heard other chemists use it too...but you're right, technically the term "rust" as a noun is reserved for ferric oxide.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 09:44 AM
Response to Original message |