So you PRO Nuke people don't think some company will bypass safety to make a buck???

[KansasVoter]

It is amazing how willing so many are to move to Nuke power.

While everyone complains that BP did not have safety measures in place.

Is everyone so naive that they assume the nuke industry will all be much better and not try to save money and lobby congress to get more lax regulations?

Every industry is full of lobbyist's that will do their best to stop regulation. And congress will be very happy to change votes based on donations!

So if you think the nuke industry will be above bypassing safety to make more money then please list why they will be any different.

[villager]

1. a lot of unreccing this morning from pro-nuke, pro-oil factions

...on various posts.

The energy cartel message board spammers out in force?

[G_j]

6. I'm just quessing that a few weeks ago

they were making similar arguments for off-shore drilling.

[Echo In Light]

17. And the same ones are 100% pro National Biometric ID cards

[Turborama]

10. If this makes it to the top tens we'll be able to work out exactly how many of them there are.

:kick: & R

[Echo In Light]

50. If you saw a list of user names it would immediately strike you as obvious

Just look for the same ten-or-so who DU allows/directs toward bullying/harassing anyone clearly to-the-left

[Turborama]

66. Current amount is 14

Comparing the Greatest Page: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads

To the "Just Recs' in Top Tens: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

[FreeJG]

69. No, They won't to make a buck. That's why we need seroious REGULATION!!

[bridgit]

2. You're right shut it all down - unplug the frig there'll be no need for that either

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansasVoter]

23. That other industries can't accidentally kill 5,000 people in a weeks time.

[SidDithers]

35. More than 12,000 people have died in airline crashes in the last 10 years...

and that doesn't include the almost 3,000 killed on 9/11.

http://www.baaa-acro.com/

How many has nuclear power killed in the last 10 years?


An estimated 1.2 million people are killed in auto accidents, worldwide, in every year
That's 23,000 per week.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/RoadTrafficAccidentsIncreaseDramaticallyWorldwide.aspx

And the auto industry surely has their own lobbyists arguing agains regulation. Should cars also be banned?



Sid

[Statistical]

39. Also the largest loss of life in an energy disaster was 171,000 people dead

Not nuclear, hydro-electric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Nope lets ban the one thing that HASN'T killed people in the US because it "might someday in the future" as opposed to the thousands of things with proven track record of killing people every single year, year after year after year.

[Donnachaidh]

42. and then there's this --

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated

Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.
Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.


But those figures are tossed aside by pro-nuke dweebies who fail to acknowledge the potential lethality of a nuclear incident in this country........

[Chulanowa]

49. Key difference...

Chernobyl was set off because the people working there were bored and went "Hey, what happens if we let the reactor overheat? Oh, COOL! I'm glowing!"

In other words? Chernobyl's meltdown was a consequence of amazing stupidity and asinine behavior on the part of its operators, not a "feature" of the plant itself.

[ljm2002]

54. But that is exactly the point...

...you cannot eliminate the human factor. Human beings make errors, and sometimes behave stupidly, and they will continue to do so, even when running nuclear power plants.

I will admit to being torn on the subject, since the things do run cleanly. Well, if you leave out the nuclear-waste thing. And the worst-case-scenario thing.

But factor in things like: earthquakes, human error, structural problems, materials stress, not to mention acts of terrorism, and I'd have to say there are real risks in the technology. And that worst-case scenario thing: the thing about it is, the radioactive contamination lasts not a hundred, not a thousand, but 10,000 years and more.

Finally: are there any private insurers who are willing to insure the things? No? Thought not.

We can create lots more jobs by jumping on wind, solar, tides and biomass as sources of power. Nothing is without issues, that is for sure. But we need to factor in both short- and long-term considerations. And if there is one thing this BP oil spill proves, we must also factor in worst-case scenarios.

[Chulanowa]

62. Of course there are risks

Honestly? There is absolutely no way to meet our energy demands without risk. Even "clean" energy sources have risks, largely relating to the materials used to build them. Granted, the toxicity and waste of solar panel manufacture isn't in the same scale as nuclear meltdown, but it's still a risk.

[ljm2002]

68. My point is this:

There are unavoidable risks, including human error and malicious acts. With nuclear power plants, the worst-case scenario is catastrophic indeed, with after effects that last for millenia. Ergo, more care must be taken in the case of nuclear energy because the downside is so massive and long-lasting.

[Chulanowa]

74. Meanwhile, the Palin Sea continues to grow...

And what happened with that Coal Ash flood in... where was it, Kentucky, Tennessee? Kinda dropped out of the news, that one.

More care must be taken. No freakin' argument there, see my post downthread; This stuff needs to be regulated beyond imagining and removed from the hands of profit-motive industry.

[leveymg]

53. Shhh! Chernobyl doesn't really count. 100,000 Ukrainian lives = 1 American.

Don't confuse them.

[Pavulon]

58. The navy has run 5700 reactor years without incident

so what does that mean to you?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

56. How many have died in the US from nuclear power?...nt

Sid

[Pavulon]

61. No you have a choice Coal, Nukes, or kneepads

because it will take lots of prayin to generate the baseload required to run us industry and cities with turbines and solar technology now OR even with technology 5 years from now.

[Pavulon]

57. Sure they can. Doctors do every years. Especially sleepy ones(nt)

[Teka]

76. And that has not happened here, nor will it ever

Western designs are safe. Everything that could go wrong at TMI did, yet no one was killed.

LEARN THE FACTS

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

3. Maybe because nuclear industry is actually regulated unlike oil/gas industry?

Maybe the fact that the NRC has on-site inspectors. On-site as in work onsite and live (with your family) downrange of the plant.

If you were an on-site inspector would you look the other way so you kill yourself and your family.

Let me know when offshore rigs have on-site inspectors.
Let me know when offshore rigs have redundant safety equipment.
Let me know when offshore rigs are built using laws of physics that make it impossible for oil to flow once an emergency happens.
Let me know when offshore rigs have independent primary and emergency systems.
Let me know when offshore rigs have containment building over the rig.

Once that happens and oil/gas industry is subject to the massive amounts of oversight the nuclear industry has been and that regulation has been in place for a couple decades then you can say the two industries are comparable.

[KansasVoter]

11. So they have never had a intentional violation? Please say they haven't!!! :-)

[Statistical]

16. Of course they have.

And then have been caught by onsite inspectors, fined, and corrective action taken.

fossil fuels kill milions of people a year.
natural radon gas (radiatioactive) kills millions of people a year.
automobiles kill millions of people a year.

However nobody is talking about banning fossil fuels or automobiles no we must ban the form of power which hasn't killed a single member of the public in 50+ years.

Yeah that makes sense. :rofl:. Start with the one that hasn't kill anyone but could maybe kill someone someday. Ignore the ones the kill millions of people a year.

[KansasVoter]

41. How do autos kill millions of people a year in the US?

And how will nukes stop that?
And there is NO solution to the waste generated. Still ponds full of waste not dealt with.

[Statistical]

47. Well if you want to look at US fatalities only is roughly 42,000 per year.

Since nuclear power inception that is about 2 million fatalities (actually higher because automobile fatality rate use to be much higher).

You seem to want to ban anything that is dangerous. Autos have killed a magnitude more people than nuclear power.

You want to ban one because it is scary and don't see the fallacy of not banning things with a proven track record of killing millions of people.

As far as waste (seems like you are jumping topics) there is a solution:
Deep Geological Repository. Other countries are building them ours is held up by politics.

[underseasurveyor]

71. And doctors mis-diagnose and mis-dose patients

to the tune of 100 thousand+ deaths every year. So doctors, along with cars and airplanes would be banned too.
Ban health care-it kills, but nukes are totally and completely safe.

Your logic has serious flaws.

Alcohol kills people. Drinking too much water kills people. Illegal AND legal drugs kill people. Eating kills people. Lack of eating kills people. Dogs kill people. Bugs kill people. Bacteria kills people. Avalanches, hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning kills people. Lions and tigers and bears kill people. Actually bears are the number one threat but that's another topic:evilgrin:


Almost every freaking thing in and of this earth can and does kill people, man-made or natural, yea we get that, however it is beyond me how anyone can advocate that nuclear energy is completely safe just because no one has been killed by it in the last "50+ years." So says you anyway. Never mind all those affected with cancers so many years after the fact. Their lives must not count for anything. Asbestos was thought safe too at one time. Great product that asbestos stuff. It didn't kill anyone for years either.. then one day.

You know statistically speaking most statistics are wrong anyway.

[T Wolf]

15. Explain the great power of regulators and whistle-blowers to Karen Silkwood. nt

[underseasurveyor]

75. I'm really surprised someone hasn't yet said

in their most sincere valley-girl voice....

Like ohmiGAHD, like that was just a movie. Gahd:eyes:

[makokun]

52. MMS routinely sends on-site inspectors to offshore rigs...

All offshore rigs have multiple layers of redundant safety equipment. Multiple shut down mechanisms including automated "deadman" systems that require power to remain open, meaning that if power is disrupted then BOPs (blow-out preventers), and SSCSVs (sub-surface controlled safety valves) automatically close.

As far as spill protection goes the biggest problem occurred once the rig sank, b/c there is a conductor pipe from the sea-floor to the rig at surface. Once the rig sank that conductor pipe was bent and twisted like spaghetti and venting far below the water's surface.

The full story on this hasn't come out yet. From things I've heard they have performed cycle tests on the BOPs and the BOPs are functioning, but they are not sealing. That may mean the flow can be staunched somewhat, or it may not mean anything. But if the BOPs are able to actuate then why communication with the surface was disrupted isn't logically explainable with the public facts as they are currently known.

As far as safety regulations go the offshore environment has mountains upon mountains of regulations, procedures, etc. Something here doesn't add up, b/c for those familiar with this sector there is no shortage of either regulation or safety procedures.

Just the costs of the equipment that sank by itself is phenomenally expensive (approaching $700 million), and cost roughly $1 million/day to operate. These sums are too large to write this off as somebody's careless mistake, or on the job negligence, or lack of regulation. There is more to this than has been released so far.

[Whisp]

4. no nuke power!

anyone who is pro-nuke power - just think Chernobyl.
and don't think that the U.S. is so much smarter and above it all than those stupid people over there. Thats the feeling I get some some pro-nukers - thats we're way too smart to fuck up like that.

bull fricken shit.

I know that there has been great safety added since 3 mile island, and that is great. but there is always a chance of an accident just because we are imperfect beings. that is too much a risk, way too much.

[Teka]

77. IF you knew the facts, you'd know that Chernobyl could not happen

with US approved designs.


Fear Factor at maximum...

[Whisp]

79. you will never convince me that humans are mistakeless in ANYTHING.

and you won't be getting any recruits to your way of thinking by your holier and smarter than thou attitude you have.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Incase you didn't know

None of the 100's of rigs in the Gulf have got that safety device. It simply isn't a requirement of your government. So - you got an issue with that then take it up appropriately.

see here : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8263309

[Echo In Light]

8. Trust Us, Inc

[BlooInBloo]

9. True. I recommend we never ever do anything, because companies will want to cheat.

[KansasVoter]

13. Hey Cobol Boy.........lets not do anything where we can kill 1,000 people accidently!

[Statistical]

So you are for banning....

airlines, cruise ships, all forms of fossil fuel, gasoline, prescription drugs, hospitals, swimming pools, firearms, etc.

[KansasVoter]

21. How does that apply, Nukes are an industry where a major accident could kill 1000s?

[Statistical]

24. 9/11 + airlines = 3000 casualities in a matter of hours.

So you are going to ban airlines first right?
They have a proven track record of killing thousands.
Of course the hijackers flew right past a nuclear reactor because hitting it would have done nothing.

So you are also going to ban hydro-electric power right?
You are aware that the single largest loss of life from energy industry is from a hydro-electric damn breaching.

[underseasurveyor]

25. Even Condi said, no one could have foreseen an airplane being flown into a building.

:eyes:

And oh yes let's build more targets for planes to fall on. After all planes crash all the time. Flying is not safe ya know!

[KansasVoter]

30. LOL...you made my point. No one assumed that could happen but it did!!! Thanks!

[Statistical]

34. So you are going to ban airlines first right.

Airlines, hydro-electric damns, cruise ships, stadiums, cities below sea level, urban centers (dozens of instances where disaster in urban center resulted in thousands of deaths) and more will all be banned by you. They all have a proven track record of large single instance fatalities and have killed a magnitude more than nuclear energy over last 50 years.

Plus single incident deaths is a canard. What matter is aggregate risk.
You are going to ban every single industry/product/event that has a higher lifetime fatality rate than nuclear power too right?

Of course not, because none of this has anything to do with logic or facts. Nuclear power scares you and you lash out at it without understanding it. Really no more enlightened than AZ legislature lashing out at brown people because they are scary.

Let me know once you are for banning everything with higher fatality rate than nuclear energy first.

[underseasurveyor]

36. Building solar and wind power plants before we build more nuke plants is a crazy idea.

Planes fall out of the sky every day doncha know. Might fall on one of those wind farms and OMG then where will we be:cry:

[Statistical]

37. I support wind & solar & hydro but I also support nuclear.

It doesn't have to be an either or proposistion.

We need all the forms of low carbon energy we can get to avoid runaway climate change.

Of course containment building can survive impact with passenger liner, supersonic military aircraft, or cruise missile so the net effect of plane hitting nuclear plant or hitting wind farm is roughly the same.

[Pavulon]

60. How many wind farms to run NYC?

do you need a new grid. How long will that take.

And finally are you aware the Navy has a reactor program that has operated 5700 reactor years with no failures.

[underseasurveyor]

73. How many nuke accidents would it take to wipe out New York?

I really don't know how many wind farms it would take to run New York city but I know it would be more than one.

[BlooInBloo]

19. lol cobol.

[KansasVoter]

31. Only you and I can understand that! :-)

[BlooInBloo]

33. Well durr. Because anyone else who might recognize it is dead.

:P

[KansasVoter]

38. I started coding it in 1976 in high school. Thought it was the best thing ever.

[BlooInBloo]

40. Well I was still in the single digits at that time, so I never experienced the verbose joys of it.

Glad you had a good time though. :)

[KansasVoter]

43. So you must have done c++ or fortran to start? I am coding C++ iPhone apps now and relearning C++

[BlooInBloo]

45. Basic and machine language we my first. As a wee lad back in the trs80/c-64 days....

Didn't come back to programming until after I left professional philosophy and went all mathy. At that point it was c++ and dotnet.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Don't you pro-oil people think that more nukes mean less oil spills?

[SidDithers]

18. Don't you PRO Coal people think enough people have died in mining accidents this year?...

Or due to respiratory illness from the millions of tonnes of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere from coal-fired generating stations?

Sid

[guitar man]

20. The way to guarantee safety with nuke plants

Would be to require that the CEOs and top execs all live next to them ;)

[KansasVoter]

22. Or build them in Washington DC

[guitar man]

26. yeah

that would work too ;)

[liberal N proud]

27. This covers it

From n2doc toons: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8263673

[Better Believe It]

28. Come now! They would never do that! I trust them.

[KansasVoter]

32. LOL.....some might need the Sarcasm icon! :-)

[Vinca]

46. FYI - in the 1970's I briefly worked in security at a nuclear plant.

Besides being a job too boring to endure for any length of time, the general consensus of the guards was that if anything ever happened at the plant, they would quickly head for the abutting river and swim for all they were worth. I hope it isn't like that now, but nothing would surprise me.

[Chulanowa]

48. And this is why mandatory goods should not be market goods

People need electricity, they need water, they need food. These are not luxuries, and should not be subject to the profitmongling bullshit that they are given to these days. Disruptions and accidents in these departments are catastrophic, and placed i ntheh ands of people with profit motive, such accidents are always going to happen.

So take them out of the hands of profit privateers.

[G_j]

51. well said

that says it all.

:applause:

[truedelphi]

55. I believe in oil, coal and nuke power only in other nations

Where the safety records are enviable to what we have here. Scotland has equipment for any offshore oil incidents and employs protocols that are note worthy for their speediness. France glassifies its nuke waste so that it is not sitting in barrels near the Faralon Islands, leaking out as the barrels corrode. (One reason I was never into fish much when I lived in S.F. Bay area.)

The greed and corruption of Americans is beyond belief. I guess the rich now spend most of their time elsewhere and even raise their kids elsewhere - but even so, how can they do this to their own nation?

[Pavulon]

59. Please tell me EXACTLY how to generate 137 gigawatt baseload to keep lights on

in the tristate. How many wind turbines, how much solar. Please dont forget about efficiency, you know solar only works during the daytime...

BTW it would take 37 ap1000 units configured to run 2000Mw / hr continuos.

PS you have coal and nuclear, that or ebola. You know kill 90% of the demand.

[maryf]

63. K&R

no nukes, no way, no how...

[Heywood J]

64. As someone who supports nuclear power when done correctly,

you're right in that for-profit corporations will always look to take shortcuts in order to save a buck. That's a fact of capitalism, has been for thousands of years, and is a reason not to have a nuclear plant in for-profit hands. It means we need to go back to a system of regulated, public utilities that have no reason to cheap out, and every incentive to install all possible safety measures on power plants.

As someone said up-thread, essential commodities like electricity shouldn't have been privatized, because it leads to a desire to scrape the bone and make another dollar for the CEO.

[Kablooie]

65. Oh heaven forbid! The nuclear energy people would NEVER do that! They are GOOD people.

[MilitarismFTL]

67. Yes, indeed.

Because coal is the way to go? I think the idea is that we should be searching for different alt energy solutions. People who nay-say nuclear technology seem to be using 1975 models when comparing to other types of energy. I can't imagine how ridiculous it would seem to shift to solar/wind based on the relative prices of those alt energy technologies in 1975. Here, how about you do some of your own research like I did and come to your own conclusions. My research is posted here: http://policytotheleft.blogspot.com/2010/03/nuclear-power-safe-and-stable.html

kthxbye

[kristopher]

78. No they don't

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[progressoid]

70. I found the solution for you.

[LanternWaste]

72. I tend to see science and safety as two wholly and separate issues...

I tend to see science and safety as two wholly and separate issues-- each one worthy of its own discussion. Yet when conversations default to one equaling the other, I get lost.

Anyway, the Radiation Center/Cancer Outpatient treatment Center I worked at in the nineties was hardly a ticking bomb caused by the malfeasance of medical management...