Ohio's 2 nuclear plants face critics ...

Ohio's 2 nuclear plants face critics of safety | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 24 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Mar 21, 2011, titled Ohio's 2 nuclear plants face critics of safety | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

A little more than a year ago, power-industry officials promoted a new generation of nuclear reactors as a clean source of electricity that wouldn't contribute to climate change.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Debbie

Columbus, OH

#1 Mar 21, 2011
The Perry Nuclear Power Plant is within 40 miles of two different fault lines. They had a 5.0 quake up there a while back and theoretically, could have one much larger. Doesn't make me feel very safe.

http://chestertontribune.com/Business/316118%...

http://www.ohiodnr.com/jan06/0123earthquakeco...
NUKES are NOT SAFE

United States

#2 Mar 21, 2011
ONLY IDIOTs say that NUKES are clean
Adolph Oliver Bush

Reynoldsburg, OH

#3 Mar 21, 2011
They should probably double check the integrity of these installations. I heard they were constructed by the West Virginia firm of "Jethro Bodine's Newklar Pow-R Plant Cornstrukshun Cumpanee"..........
SO WILD ABOUT

Canton, OH

#4 Mar 21, 2011
Build it with "Clean Coal Burning" technology !

Cheaper and safer,while creating more jobs.
SO WILD ABOUT

Canton, OH

#5 Mar 21, 2011
You just don't read about many
"CLEAN COAL BURNING" plants releasing radiation into the air or killing thousands (or more).

There is enough coal to last a minimum of 500 years and we do have the technology to "CLEAN" burn it (with no air polution) "NOW" !
Spooey

Cleveland, OH

#6 Mar 21, 2011
Ironically the people who don't want coal, gas, oil or nuclear energy sources are the same ones who don't want wind turbines near them. Ohio being at the top of least number of days of sun is not a solar energy type of place. What do they want?
jams

United States

#7 Mar 21, 2011
The plant in Piketon should not be built period. They are already studing the cancers and the risk of cancers that the plant had caused it's employees when it was known as the Atomic plant 40 years ago. This study is still going on and they haven't published reults from it yet as I have heard. I am one in the study and I worked there30 years ago. Some other employees who have cancers are trying to get money from the employer and government to help them fight the cancers they have developed from working there. But as ususal the government and employer are waiting for the paint to DIE so they have to not pay any compensation. So is a lit light bulb worth your life, its not mine.
Reality Check

Westerville, OH

#8 Mar 21, 2011
Unfortunately people fear what they do not understand.
retired

Eastlake, OH

#10 Mar 21, 2011
A mixture of health/environmental problems and NIMBY make virtually all sources of energy contentious. I am interested in thorium nuclear energy which supposedly is much safer than uranium based nuclear energy. The USA did the groundbreaking research on thorium but then abandoned it. The Chinese now are setting the pace on thorium. Look it up.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#11 Mar 21, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
Unfortunately people fear what they do not understand.
"Incidents" such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima-Daiichi (the three most notorious cases, but not the only ones) make the dangers of nuclear power all too easy to understand, whether it's near faults, shorelines, or not.

It only takes ONE bad accident (Chernobyl being the worst-case scenario) for hundreds of thousands to be affected. And then there're the problems with waste disposal and weaponization.

Fear, here is perfectly reasonable and rational.
indeed

Columbus, OH

#12 Mar 21, 2011
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
"Incidents" such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima-Daiichi (the three most notorious cases, but not the only ones) make the dangers of nuclear power all too easy to understand, whether it's near faults, shorelines, or not.
It only takes ONE bad accident (Chernobyl being the worst-case scenario) for hundreds of thousands to be affected. And then there're the problems with waste disposal and weaponization.
Fear, here is perfectly reasonable and rational.
Well said.
indeed

Columbus, OH

#13 Mar 21, 2011
Reality Check wrote:
Unfortunately people fear what they do not understand.
And tired, cliched axioms don't change facts,
nor do they negate the clear potential for catastrophic failures.
Frank

United States

#14 Mar 21, 2011
In 2002 when they had the problem with the Davis Besse Nuclear Plant. They said the waste water that they put in Lake Erie would not hurt anything. However it did, for the next 3 years we found fish that were deformed. Fish that had sores all over them. It got so bad that for a while we did not go fishing to keep the fish, but fishing to see how bad the water is to the fish. And when we would tell someone about the fish, they would say the water and the fish are OK in Lake Erie.
Frank

United States

#15 Mar 21, 2011
http://druzifer.livejournal.com/661804.html Check the above link. Texas Power plant on the Gulf of Mexico. Guess who is going to build it. Tokyo Electric (TEPCO). Remind you of Japan.
We need Erin Brokovich

Dublin, OH

#16 Mar 21, 2011
jams wrote:
The plant in Piketon should not be built period. They are already studing the cancers and the risk of cancers that the plant had caused it's employees when it was known as the Atomic plant 40 years ago. This study is still going on and they haven't published reults from it yet as I have heard. I am one in the study and I worked there30 years ago. Some other employees who have cancers are trying to get money from the employer and government to help them fight the cancers they have developed from working there. But as ususal the government and employer are waiting for the paint to DIE so they have to not pay any compensation. So is a lit light bulb worth your life, its not mine.
We need Erin Brokovich!
Brian Cummins

Cleveland, OH

#17 Mar 21, 2011
Technology choices and how our government subsidizes and supports our energy future is driven very heavily by large corporate interests, be damn the full-cost-accounting or potential safety risks or health and environmental damages. As an example, here is the 2007 and 1999 subsidy totals for U.S. energy as reported by the Energy Information Agency: 2007 -$6.7 billion for non-renewables,$4.9 billion for renewables and $900 million for conservation; 1999 -$3.4 billion for non-renewables,$1.4 billion for renewables and $200 million for conservation. Note: It is important to point out that ethanol and bio fuels development receive the lion share of the subsidies for all non-renewable energy; think agricultural subsidies, large petroleum and auto companies as well as the road/interstate transportation industry

Brian Cummins
Cleveland City Council
Brian Cummins

Cleveland, OH

#18 Mar 21, 2011
For those speaking of Clean Coal...it is similar to the Nuclear industry touting Nuclear energy as being carbon-free while at the same time they ignore the huge and horrendous full-cost-accounting of nuclear energy, i.e., risks to health and environment in operations and containment and storage of spent radiation ladened fuel.

There are currently no "Clean-Coal" plants operating in the USA and none in the world operating at large capacity. The Carbon Capture and Sequestration" technology has not been suitably developed and tested. Forget about how the cola is used, think about how it is taken out of the ground. Coal mining, however you do it is dirty, plain and simple, and has caused huge amounts of damage to the environment and health of workers.

Just because there is still a lot of coal in the USA, doesn't mean we should keep on burning it, or gasifying it and pumping the carbon back into the earth as much as we have for the past 2000 years. Mountain-top mining or otherwise and carbon sequestration are inherently non-natural processes which come with huge costs and risks.

Nuclear and Coal based energies, how ever you describe them are not clean or sustainable!

Since: Jun 10

Canal Winchester, OH

#19 Mar 21, 2011
If you know what you're talking about and have done your homework, fine. Otherwise, bug off!
We don't need a bunch of hystericals running around loose.
BigBertha

Knoxville, TN

#20 Mar 21, 2011
I understand the fear and paranoia, but nuclear plants can be built safely and strong enough to withstand even 12.0 earthquakes. The problem is that most nuclear plants aren't designed like that because no one plans for the worst case scenario. Most nuclear plants in the U. S. don't have proper containment because it involves more cost. Also, you've always heard the old saying, "80 percent of what you worry about probably won't happen." But, when it comes to designing a nuclear plant, I think you have go ahead and plan for the worst case scenario. It's kind of like thinking you don't need flood insurance if you live on a hill. Don't be so sure.
Jimmo

Cleveland, OH

#21 Mar 21, 2011
The containment vessel at plant near Toledo came within an inch of having a rupture occur and release of nuclear material due to corrosion of the vessel shell. First Energy and the NRC both pinned the blame for this on some hapless maintenance engineer. This corrosion likely took a long time to occur and after repeated inspections it was never unconvered and it was all the fault of this one man ? First Energy and the NRC needed a scapegoat to use to coverup their total neglect on this issue and they found one. Also, what about all that radioactive fluid release that occured at that plant a few years into Lake Erie that was totally covered up / papered over as a non-event of no consequence ? No problem, no big deal, not an issue, blah, blah, blah. More lies. There is only 1, count them, one Lake Erie so we cannot afford to screw it up. The people paid to produce the electricity and Agency to keep us safe have proven they cannot and / or will not protect the people and our resources. Blaming one guy for 5 feet of steel eaten away by corrosion is not a people-problem, it is a design problem. Shut the plant down now before Lake Erie is destroyed.

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.

FirstEnergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
double bill (Jan '14) Jan '14 H Sig 1
News FirstEnergy hydroelectric statio... (Nov '13) Nov '13 ndact 1
News Lawsuit against FirstEnergy claims wrongful ter... (May '08) Aug '13 pam 3
News Closing of Western Pennsylvania power plants le... (Jul '13) Aug '13 Joe 2
News Pipeline To Be Built Within Mile Of Nuclear Plant (Nov '12) Nov '12 Greg 1
News Nuclear Cracks Tied to Lack of Coating (Mar '12) Mar '12 Dan 1
News FirstEnergy plans job fair (Jan '08) Mar '12 Former Nuke 24
More from around the web