Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nucle...

Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy

There are 268 comments on the Forbes.com story from Dec 15, 2013, titled Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy. In it, Forbes.com reports that:

The Columbia Generating Station's nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington that, together with hydroelectric power, gives Washington State the lowest carbon, cleanest energy footprint in America, delivered with the lowest cost per kWhr of any state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Forbes.com.

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#185 Mar 14, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
..
Mine deaths from coal mining will exceed that easily. And there are the ash ponds which are MORE radioactive than most of the area around Fukishima.
You changed again, my facts to "fears." Not cool, LOL.

Your opinion is not based on facts. Fukushima surpasses by far any imagination about it.

Besides I was not comparing with coal radioactivity. Also, mining deaths are not to be ignored by any means.

Why don't you do a list of seven facts for coal, come on.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#186 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You changed my 'facts' to your "fears." NOT OK., huh.
What you wrote as response is your opinion.
And what you wrote was your fears. That is a fact. And I gave explanations why they are fears and not fact. As if this were a debate and not you exposing a totally biased opinion.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#187 Mar 14, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And what you wrote was your fears. That is a fact. And I gave explanations why they are fears and not fact. As if this were a debate and not you exposing a totally biased opinion.
Projection on your part. All you exposed were your opinions.

You changed the word in a quote.. not kosher.jealous for sure of my list.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#188 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
"Nuclear facts:"
1....
Proof positive that SpaceBlues doesn't know a fact from a lie. Sad, really.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#189 Mar 15, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't fool people, since you have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Proof positive that litesong (a.k.a. litehead") knows NOTHING. I was interviewed to teach at the navy's nuclear school outside Pocatello, but I didn't want to live in Idaho.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#190 Mar 15, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Even scientists and PHds can be out of touch with reality. I know one in particular. Schizoid. Then there are those like Lindzen who have lost their scientific reputation because they put their 'beliefs' ahead of the facts.
True. Exactly my point about the presstitute, Michio Kaku.
[QUOTE}So we have only YOUR claim to authority and even if we believed it (which I don't) it would still be the old 'argument by authority' fallacy.[/QUOTE] Very true. And I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, just to be exposed to a truth they can investigate on their own.
[QUOTE}<quoted text>
Then too, you prove yourself wrong in your OWN post[/QUOTE] Specifically?
<quoted text>
Almost ANY failure of a nuclear power plant has never happened. That is just meaningless crap. Even for you that is stupid. You do admit that the term IS used in reactor safety analysis, just as with other *possible* scenarios such as hydrogen bubble explosions, core meltdown, etc.
<quoted text>
How very true. Which shows that they are VERY unlikely, which is my point. Nuclear plants have been DEMONSTRATED to be the safest around. Thank you for your support!
There is NO evidence that it cannot happen. In fact you cannot, by definition, prove that it cannot happen. It MAY be unlikely. It probably IS unlikely. But most nuclear safety issues are about unlikely events to begin with. What is the difference between once in ten thousand hours of operation and once in ten billion hours of operation, except chance?
I never said that there is "evidence" that it cannot happen, just calculation. But there have been 4 melt-downs, one of which was about as bad as it could be, and no "China Syndromes". Those the available evidence suggests that it is a propaganda term made popular by a schlock movie.
<quoted text>
O.K. On that point we can agreee. THe movie was schock and the likely consequences of a China Syndrome will probably be no more than Fukishima, if it ever occurs.
Thak you for your support.
My concern right now is that accident in Halifax, Canada where four cylinders of Uranium Hexa-fluoride were dropped from a container hoist. No leaks but that is still just dumb luck. WHY are they shipping a TOXIC and radiologically dangerous gas like Uranium Hexafluoride in cargo??? They should be shipping 'yellow cake' and converting it to the fluoride at the point of processing!!!
So some shipping containers designed for severe dropping and miss-handling conditions undergoes a near design level incident and survives unscathed... and you are concerned? Shouldn't tht pretty much tell you that they know pretty much what they are doing?
You should have no more concern about shipping UF6 than about shipping F2 which they would have to ship (in less robust containers) in order to do what you suggested.
The "TOXIC" stuff in question was actually the fluorine, not the uranium.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#191 Mar 15, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably. BUT we can accept that doses that are less than we get by flying across the country are within tolerable risk (more gamma rays at altitude).
Good readers, LessHypeMoreFact and I have battled it out in this forum on other issues, but in this post he is correct. Listen to him on this post.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#192 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You changed my 'facts' to your "fears." NOT OK., huh.
What you wrote as response is your opinion.
Gentle Reader,
It seems what LessHypeMoreFact wrote is the correct version. SpaceBlues list is indeed the list of anti-nuke fears, which they then lie about, which then makes it the list of standard lies.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#193 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What you don't understand is the additional costs due to licensing issues related to safety, etc. in the US.
Any new designs would entail at least 20 years to be online. After Fukushima, time will tell.
What YOU don't understand is that for at least one plant, that design licensing has already been done. The C&O license process is not very long by comparison, and can be done once for the construction of many reactors in a plant.

Some preliminary work has been done on evaluating the safety certification process for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology and the NRC response has been indicative that they think the inherent safety of the technology will help certification.
SpaceBlues

United States

#194 Mar 15, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And what you wrote was your fears. That is a fact. And I gave explanations why they are fears and not fact. As if this were a debate and not you exposing a totally biased opinion.
lOL. Now respond to your buddy, kiter.

You are at the same level..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#195 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear facts:
1. There is no safe radiation dose.
2. Nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem.
3. Nuclear reactors are very very expensive.
4. Anyone can learn about nuclear accidents.
5. The nuclear accidents generate harm, damage, and waste that can last millenia.
6. Nuclear reactors can make nuclear bomb materials.
7. Fukushima is deadly to life for a long time to come.
This is my list.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#196 Mar 15, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> What YOU don't understand is that for at least one plant, that design licensing has already been done. The C&O license process is not very long by comparison, and can be done once for the construction of many reactors in a plant.
Some preliminary work has been done on evaluating the safety certification process for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology and the NRC response has been indicative that they think the inherent safety of the technology will help certification.
blah blah what I said is true!

They don't exist!

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#197 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Don't forget the old and new mines, mine accidents, burning mines, pile and pond accidents, transportation, etc. Similarly, for the nuclear isotope mining, processing, storing, transportation, and their accidents.
Like I said for a long time to come. Read the Fukushima report soon.
Here we go with anti-nuke standard lie #8. SB, the results of the WWII war-time and cold war-time MILITARY nuclear program are NOT equivalent to the COMMERCIAL nuclear program. Mixing the two is deceitful. You should be ashamed of yourself. You won't be since you see yourself as holy, above the petty fray. But you SHOULD be.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#198 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You changed again, my facts to "fears." Not cool, LOL.
Your opinion is not based on facts. Fukushima surpasses by far any imagination about it.
This is pure poppycock. The only thing about Fukushima that "surpasses, is the FUD spread by the fear-mongers which far surpasses reality.
FUD deaths ..... >1650
RadCon deaths .. zero current to a small number eventually.
Besides I was not comparing with coal radioactivity. Also, mining deaths are not to be ignored by any means.
Why don't you do a list of seven facts for coal, come on.
SB: Good question. Why do you NOT list the facts for coal?
Reason... "follow the money". The anti-nukes receive significant fossil fuel money to harass nuclear power since nuclear is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels. The fossil fuel cartels don't want such a list for themselves.
Besides, I am in favor of nuclear so I listed the lies of the anti-nuclear cabal. I am not pro-coal. I don't care what lies the anti-coal folks might spew! ;)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#199 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Projection on your part. All you exposed were your opinions.
You changed the word in a quote.. not kosher.jealous for sure of my list.
Actually, he provided a number of facts. You just restated the anti-nuke lies as if they were "facts".

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#200 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>This is my list.
Rewording lies and calling them facts does not make them so.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#201 Mar 15, 2014
Your buddy will do the coal, LOL. bwahahahah

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#202 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>blah blah what I said is true!
They don't exist!
Keep harping on an inconsequential condition and "believe". It is about all you seem capable of doing; you "believe" your own lies.
They don't exist... NOW (thank you, Richard M. Nixon); but they have existed and could again quickly when the time comes.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#203 Mar 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Your buddy will do the coal, LOL. bwahahahah
My "buddy"? Why would a buddy of mine come up with a list of anti-coal lies? IS there such thing as an anti-coal lie? Yet again, you make NO sense!
BDV

Decatur, GA

#204 Mar 15, 2014
1. There is no safe radiation dose.

There is no safe soot dose

2. Nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem.

Oil and coal soot is an ignored problem

3. Nuclear reactors are very very expensive.

Check you neighbourhood gas staion. Europeans pay 2x to 3x that.

4. Anyone can learn about nuclear accidents.

Anyone can learn about oil accidents.

5. The nuclear accidents generate harm, damage, and waste that can last millenia.

So oil doesn't?

6. Nuclear reactors can make nuclear bomb materials.

No.

7. Fukushima is deadly to life for a long time to come.

Potentially compared to actually - see Lac Megantic. And the big refinery fires borught by Tsunami? No even remembered!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Pasco Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Chris L. Murphy Sep 18 miss 3
Vasectomy Sep 4 Julius 2
Field of Love (Jan '13) Aug '17 Ross Fox 3
News Drone view of Bateman Island brush fire Jul '17 a misleading troll 2
Cops license to commit murder on our citizens (Mar '15) Jul '17 Jack Spencer 13
How do I get a Hazmat CDL job at Handford in Ri... (Mar '17) Jul '17 Jack Spencer 2
Sam Girton Bail bondsman Jul '17 Cotton Farmer 1

Pasco Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pasco Mortgages