Ground broken for New Mexico uranium ...

Ground broken for New Mexico uranium enrichment plant

There are 37 comments on the The Associated Press story from Aug 29, 2006, titled Ground broken for New Mexico uranium enrichment plant . In it, The Associated Press reports that:

The first major nuclear facility to be licensed in the United States in three decades moved a step closer to construction Tuesday as officials broke ground for a $1.5 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Associated Press.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Donnie

Akron, OH

#21 Sep 13, 2006
John wrote:
I have recently read reports of an enzyme in humans that is induced by Ionizing radiation. This repair enzyme undoes DNA damage. The enzyme likely corrects damage to DNA that may have been caused by either radiation or chemical. Since it restores DNA it may actually reduce cancer incidence.
Is this the article you read?
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug03/Wyrobek.html
Frank

Apeldoorn, Netherlands

#22 Sep 13, 2006
John wrote:
Frank, it is not surprising that you express a view that plutonium is uniquely toxic..... the death rate will be far lower
Hey John, I like your ways.
I am convinced you are far more intelligent then Donnie, who doesn't really look at the contents of arguments, but stucks in his own conservative (old-fashioned) perception of the world, and responds according to that.
You're talking about low-level exposures, and according to the homeopathy this has much sense (people can be actually cured by highly dilluted toxic materials, because this initiates biochemical reactions).
But I only took plutonium as an example: you've also pollonium, uranium and many other isotopics.
There are well-documented cases that form the foundation of my concerns about nuclear products, besides logical thinking.
I mentioned the children of Tsjernobyl, I can also bring forward our soldiers, who came back from Bosnia, with symptoms of the 'Vietnam-syndrome', and the people in the desert of Irak, who are talking about the 'wind of death', blowing from the formal battlefields, affecting their childs - or people here in Holland who are affected by the crash of the ElAl airplane on Amsterdam - all because of that 'poor' uranium, that's 'enriched' in your new factory.
As I made clear the dynamics between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, that cannnot be denied, and that form an enourmous problem.
Of course, other high-level pollution are also harmfull, I'm certainly not a patron of coal energy - but I already wrote that. In fact I was committed in an committee against the building of a coalplant in my own town.
In no way nuclear power can be called 'safe', that's the argument, and the more it is deployed, the higher the risks and exposures. Your arguments don't convince.
You cannot scientifically predict that the death rates will be far lower with the use of nuclear energy, it's your believing.
The only real safe energy source comes from nature itself: water (also hydrogen), wind, gravitation, earth warmth, and sun - and, in the coming future, nuclear fusion (the source of solar energy), chemical reactions as those between salt and sweet water, and biological/biochemical and magnetic energy, and energy from outer space.
Donnie

Akron, OH

#23 Sep 13, 2006
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking about low-level exposures, and according to the homeopathy this has much sense (people can be actually cured by highly dilluted toxic materials, because this initiates biochemical reactions).
Homeopathy is fraud. Hormesis is the process that allows living things to benefit from relatively low levels of radiation, about 1,000 millirem per year.
Frank

Apeldoorn, Netherlands

#24 Sep 13, 2006
Donnie wrote:
<quoted text>Homeopathy is fraud. Hormesis is the process that allows living things to benefit from relatively low levels of radiation, about 1,000 millirem per year.
Aye your ignorance Donnie !
Hormesis isn't only about radiation, it's one explanation of the effectiveness of SOME homeopathic cures (like the use highly dilluted poissons of snakes and bees - in Germany there are well documented researches). Another explanation lies in the crystal structures of water - look at the researches of Batmanghelidj, Beneviste and Emoto.
But that's not what I'm talking about here, Donnie...
Donnie

Akron, OH

#25 Sep 13, 2006
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Aye your ignorance Donnie!
Hormesis isn't only about radiation, it's one explanation of the effectiveness of SOME homeopathic cures (like the use highly dilluted poisons of snakes and bees - in Germany there are well documented researches).
Hormesis is not an explanation of any fraudulent homeopathic claims. Hormesis is a real effect, which I did not even hint was limited to radiation effects. Hormesis is completly independent of the quackary of homeopathy. You need to look into some of the scientific books (CRC Press) and articles (peer-reviewed) by Dr. T. D. Luckey. There is a nice summary of recent developments here:
http://www.tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/1999/T...
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>But that's not what I'm talking about here, Donnie...
I know what you're not talking about, you wish to avoid discussion of the beneficial effects of radiation.
Donnie

Akron, OH

#26 Sep 13, 2006
Donnie wrote:
<quoted text> Hormesis is completly independent of the quackary of homeopathy. You need to look into some of the scientific books (CRC Press) and articles (peer-reviewed) by Dr. T. D. Luckey. There is a nice summary of recent developments here:
http://wBAD w LINK w.tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/1999/TPE99Shieh...
The link above is bad it shouldn't have "www" in it. The correct link is:
http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/1999/TPE99...
Old vet

Austin, TX

#27 Sep 13, 2006
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Aye your ignorance Donnie !
Hormesis isn't only about radiation, it's one explanation of the effectiveness of SOME homeopathic cures (like the use highly dilluted poissons of snakes and bees - in Germany there are well documented researches).
You think Donnie is ignorant while you claim that hormesis has something to do with the fantasy called hemopathy. Below is a comparison from
http://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm

B. Homeopathy characteristics
(not typical of hormesis)

Only special compounds are active

Very minute doses are active

First dose sensitizes the subject

Medical use is primary

Psychosomatic factor is great

Primary effects are short-lived

__________

C. Hormesis characteristics
(minimal in homeopathy)

Non specific agents are active

Medium doses are active

Most dose rates are active

Animal and human react

Statistically valid data

Many parameters are affected

Immune competence involved

Benefits sick and well

Effective for months/years

Public health concern

Donnie

Akron, OH

#28 Sep 14, 2006
Old vet wrote:
<quoted text>You think Donnie is ignorant while you claim that hormesis has something to do with the fantasy called hemopathy. Below is a comparison from
http://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm
B. Homeopathy characteristics
(not typical of hormesis)
Only special compounds are active
Very minute doses are active
First dose sensitizes the subject
Medical use is primary
Psychosomatic factor is great
Primary effects are short-lived
__________
C. Hormesis characteristics
(minimal in homeopathy)
Non specific agents are active
Medium doses are active
Most dose rates are active
Animal and human react
Statistically valid data
Many parameters are affected
Immune competence involved
Benefits sick and well
Effective for months/years
Public health concern
Thanks for the link Old Vet. Dr. Luckey's books are too expensive for me. Of course they are not allowed in libraries.
John

Underwood, MN

#29 Sep 14, 2006
Donnie you do an amazing amount of literature research. Thank you for the reference on the benefits of low level radiation. I did not have that reference. I believe that I came across a research note last spring. I had been watching for research supporting the notion of health benefits from low–level radiation for sometime. A couple of years ago I purchased Senator Pete Domenici’s book, A Brighter Tomorrow – Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy. He noted that some research pointed to benefit from low-level radiation. He criticized the linear no threshold (LNT) model that presumes no safe level of exposure. The LNT model forces us to regulate radiation to levels approaching 1 percent of background despite the fact that background in the U S may vary by more then a factor of three. We have spent billions cleaning up low levels of radiation that posed no health threat and may even have been a health benefit.

Frank thanks for reading my ramblings. One needs another with a different point of view in order to stimulate fresh thought on an issue being debated. As you state, there are many potential energy sources. If breakthroughs in photovoltaic or fusion should occur to make either a cost competitive, we would have an ample energy source into the future that would spare us from having to deal with fission’s high-level radiation... I am concerned about the geopolitical and environmental implications of fossil fuels and I fear that time is running out so there is no time to wait for a cleaner source of energy. I think the need is so pressing that we need to go with fission, a ready-to-go energy source that has the potential to replace coal and oil. Today BBC reported a 14 percent drop in polar ice area. That means more solar energy absorbed by water and less reflected back to space by ice.
Frank

Apeldoorn, Netherlands

#30 Sep 17, 2006
John wrote:
.. we would have an ample energy source into the future that would spare us
Ok John, thank you for your viewpoint.
But why are you avoiding talking about the many essential problems I mentioned ?(homeopathy is not really the discussion here, too many issues are involved, and it's difference with hormesis is gradually (like D1-D12 dillutions) and a matter of definition).
I was discussing your new plant, cleaner soures of energy, and the industrial/scientifics/financi al/gouvernmental complex that wants to push nuclear energy forward, at all costs.
Some of those points were:
That real clean sources are within handreach. For instance:
The rating of deployable wind energy alone is 5 times the world energy consumption.
The problem of varying windpower is solved by new technologies in producing hydrogen fuel (and other sollutions).
Thereby, we need decentralised energy-sources, not only regarding the situation in the 3rd world, but also with respect to our own home/work situation. Wind, water and solar energy are the 1st one to use for this purpose.
New technologies are fast developped, like the use of transparant window paint for catching solar power.
But also new technologies in coalburning, like oxy-combustion,(C. Shaddix, Sandia’s Combustion Research Facility, 2006).
It only needs money and goodwill to start introducing it on a worldwide scale.
When you are that concerned about global warming (that's caused for some 50% by the increased solar activity, not by pollution), you should not (only) promote nuclear energy, but also highly promote the real good ways of energy-producing, the new technologies.
That's were you show biased views, like the same guys, that are lying to us about the pollution, costs and dangers of nuclear fission - and they are doing this for many decades now.

You won't like my rational conclusion: that attitude makes you responsible for all the people who are suffering ALL of the consequences of nucelar power I mentioned - now and in the future.
Quite a responsability John ! But of course you will not sleep a minute less.... supposed rationality has always been the Excuse for all evil outcome.
coolmind

North East, MD

#31 Sep 17, 2006
I hope they get the long term storage issue worked out. Yukka Mnt or Wipp, but we need a permanant storage place for waste.
John

Underwood, MN

#32 Sep 17, 2006
There is untapped potential in wind. Between 1 and 3 percent of the suns energy captured on earth is believed to be in the form of wind. By comparison photosynthesis captures only about a quarter of one percent of the incoming sun’s energy. It is doubtful that more than half of the energy found in biofuels can be taken out of the food chain without consequences. I would estimate that biofuels can meet only 7 percent of the worlds current oil needs. That percentage will drop since the world’s oil consumption is increasing. While in theory wind could support our current energy demand. In practice this does not appear to be possible. There is potential to develop more wind farms, however, as a replacement for fossil fuels, limitations for wind will result in a major short fall. Wind is only about 30 percent efficient so the capital investment is high considering the return.

Hydrogen can be made from wind by electrolysis. Another loss in efficiency added on to the already inefficient energy source. North Dakota has an abundance of wind but a sparse population. Transport of energy to population centers results in more loss of efficiency. I grew up in the Dakota’s. We made our DC current electricity with a wind charger and we pumped our water with a windmill.

I do believe in energy diversity. Denmark has wind from the North Sea. They get 20 percent of their electricity from wind. The world’s energy problem is largely due to over dependence on a single source of energy, namely fossil fuel. The Irish famine was the result of reliance on a single food source, the potato. For diversity sake we should not put all of our eggs in one basket. Even if wind is not competitive from a cost point of view with nuclear, we should bare the extra cost for a portion of our energy. By bringing along alterative energy forms we maximize the potential for a breakthrough that may make them truly competitive.

Several years ago, I signed an agreement with my power company that allows my power company to charge me 2 cents per kilowatt for the electricity used in my home. They in turn agree to purchase that amount of wind-generated electricity.

The world consumption of all forms of energy is currently at ten terawatts. The world is currently paying annually the equivalent of two trillion U S dollars for 70 dollar per barrel oil. It would require 10,000 light water reactors, costing a billion and a half dollars a piece, to meet the world’s entire energy need. Light water reactors are not efficient hydrogen produces. High temp fast neutron reactors will likely cost less build and produce hydrogen at efficiency equal to, or greater than electricity generation. The excess heat byproduct will be just the ticket for desalination. The amount the world spends in 8 years on oil would forever eliminate the need for oil, coal and natural gas.

I would not spend the entire 15 trillion on nuclear. It does appear to be the surest bet, so it would get the biggest share, but I would not risk all on one horse. Just think what an energy transformation 15 trillion dollars could make spread around among the half dozen most promising energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
Old vet

Austin, TX

#33 Sep 17, 2006
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
But why are you avoiding talking about the many essential problems I mentioned ?
Because they don't exist.
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>(homeopathy is not really the discussion here, too many issues are involved, and it's difference with hormesis is gradually (like D1-D12 dillutions) and a matter of definition).
You introduced a subject and made irresponsivble claims; then when reality intruded you want to change the subject. Looks like you are just another standard anti-nuke.
Chas

Lubbock, TX

#34 Sep 17, 2006
Donnie wrote:
<quoted text>Yep
<quoted text>Yep. The experiments were well known for years. I knew about some of them decades ago when I was in elementary school. Some of them I didn't know about until about ten years before they were declared secret. Just because you and other ignorant people didn't know about them doesn't mean they were secret.
<quoted text>Just because somebody makes up a story and puts it on the internet doesn't mean it is the truth. You can Google into a lot of fantasy lands.
<quoted text>I would be happy to ask any of them. There was no harm. <quoted text>
Off topic irrational gibberish.
I have really enjoyed reading the debate of this forum on this issue and it seems that the gentleman from the Netherlands is truly concerned with the welfare of people in general. Wether his facts are truly correct or fictional with a grain truth, I would suggest that we keep an open mind that governments and other forms of leadership are most certainly subject to corruption as blantantly seen in developing nations. My own opinion is that we are not immune to corrupt officials and motives here in the United States. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but we haven't been listening to enviromental issues for the past 20 years and face a real danger of damage to the live support system we call earth.
Donnie

Akron, OH

#35 Sep 18, 2006
Chas wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but we haven't been listening to enviromental issues for the past 20 years and face a real danger of damage to the live support system we call earth.
Actually, considerable progress has been made in improving environmental conditions during the past 25 years. The ressurection of Lake Erie is just one example. The regulation of mercury emissions is another example. We are leading the world in that area.

I am curious about what environmental issue hasn't been listened to in the past 20 years.
Ronald Reagan

Norfolk, VA

#40 Mar 21, 2007
John wrote:
It would be good if Holland could send us its spent nuclear fuel. Someday we would be able to use it for fuel in our power plants. There is too much hysteria about nuclear waste. I certainly would find dry casks of spent fuel acceptable for my backyard..
You are a silly, radiation-damaged mind.
Donnie

Akron, OH

#41 Mar 21, 2007
Ronald Reagan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a silly, radiation-damaged mind.
Can you back that up with any information that can be verified? For example, how is radiation damage of the mind identfied and quantified?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Eunice Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Basics at LCCF 8 hr Officer 9
Review: Lobo Nut & Bolt Inc Sun maddog 2
Rent a center May 19 Jowanna 2
Best Resturants in town (Oct '07) May 16 Foodery 3
Hobbs Police Department (Nov '08) May 14 Willie Granville 12
Gay sexting (Oct '14) May 10 BryteStarFag 7
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) May 10 Paul 8,898

Eunice Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Eunice Mortgages