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.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#165 Mar 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Can you say heartless?
They are people, too.
So why are you so heartless as to fill them with needless fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Your lies are making their lives miserable!

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#166 Mar 13, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The issue is less of nuclear power but forcing a generation of SAFE nuclear power. The currently dominant 'light water' reactors cannot be MADE safe, and were designed for submarines where cooling water is all around them.
I do not support UNSAFE light water reactors but we NEED the next generation of safe nuclear if we are to counter AGW and climate disruption while building renewable energy.
But you will notice that these postings always degenerate into mud slinging contests instead of debating the facts.
First, nothing is absolutely SAFE. But nuclear, even the Gen II reactors like Fukushima Dai-ichi are safER than any other type of energy available. The numbers are undeniable by any rational person. Modern Gen III+ are much more safe than the older Gen IIs.
But I do agree there are nuclear technologies that are inherently safe and are potentially much cheaper too. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are an example. Indeed, the inventor of the pressurized water reactor also invented the LFTR and knew that PWRs were expensive to make acceptably safe and LFTRs were easy.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#167 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> So why are you so heartless as to fill them with needless fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Your lies are making their lives miserable!
LIAR.

Remember Fukushima etc.

You can't fool the people with this trash.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#168 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> First, nothing is absolutely SAFE. But nuclear, even the Gen II reactors like Fukushima Dai-ichi are safER than any other type of energy available. The numbers are undeniable by any rational person. Modern Gen III+ are much more safe than the older Gen IIs.
But I do agree there are nuclear technologies that are inherently safe and are potentially much cheaper too. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are an example. Indeed, the inventor of the pressurized water reactor also invented the LFTR and knew that PWRs were expensive to make acceptably safe and LFTRs were easy.
You can't fool the people with this trash.

Remember Fukushima etc.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#169 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> I was invited to be a nuclear instructor at a Navy school. I think maybe you are the ignorant one.
The "China Syndrome is a hypothetical condition that has never happened and by most calculations CAN never happen, at least to the devastating effect claimed by anti-nukes. It was a schlock movie.
Yeah, you post for the bird brains like yourself.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#170 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR.
Remember Fukushima etc.
You can't fool the people with this trash.
I don't need to "fool people", all I need to do is reveal the constant lies of the anti-nukes, lies paid for with fossil fuel money, in large part.
The anti-nuke cabal was started with a lie and hasn't changed tactics since.

I've been reading a bunch of posts by anti-nukes and they can't seem to complete a post without using one of what appears to be a small list of standard lies. I started compiling the list. Comments?

Anti-Nuclear Cartel
Standard Lies

1: There is no safe dose
2: You can't be an Environmentalist and Pro-nuclear
3: "Waste" is an unsolvable problem.
4: Nuclear Power is too expensive.
5: Anyone who supports nuclear power is a shill
6: Anyone who disagrees is obviously a liar.
7: The effects last for generations.
8: Nuclear power = nuclear bombs.
9: Fukushima is "Killing the Oceans (Pacific)".

So you see, you've fallen back on standard lies #6 & #9.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#171 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, you post for the bird brains like yourself.
If at first you can't succeed, start calling childish names.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by you foolishness.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#172 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You can't fool the people with this trash.
Remember Fukushima etc.
You really need to actually find out about Fukushima. When you finally know what you are talking about (I predict... never) you will understand how silly you sound.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#173 Mar 14, 2014
The truth hurts the nukists..

http://search.yahoo.com/search...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#174 Mar 14, 2014
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.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#175 Mar 14, 2014
[QUOTE who="kick man's a$$"] I don't need to "fool people".......[/QUOTE]

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.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#176 Mar 14, 2014
[QUOTE who="kick man's a$$"]......why are you so heartless.......[/QUOTE]

Ah...... you're protecting your territory, a shiveled up, wrinkled, dead heart.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#177 Mar 14, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> I was invited to be a nuclear instructor at a Navy school.
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.

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.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> I think maybe you are the ignorant one.
Then too, you prove yourself wrong in your OWN post
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
The "China Syndrome is a hypothetical condition that has never happened..
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.
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
and by most calculations CAN never happen
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?
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text>
at least to the devastating effect claimed by anti-nukes. It was a schlock movie.
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.

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!!!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#178 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
1. There is no safe radiation dose.
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).
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
2. Nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem.
Totally false. The engineering to consume all fissile elements and cycle the radiation fragments for thermogeneration are just engineering. And the low level waste is easy to store in old salt mines IF you accept that radiation levels BELOW the level of the original ore are ok to leave to the next generation. This solutions are just engineering, and the failure has been on a POLITICAL level.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
3. Nuclear reactors are very very expensive.
It is true that they have a high investment cost upfront, but low fuel costs. That said, they can produce power as cheaply as coal and with much less pollution. The big problem in the first generation nukes was that there was NO control of the capital pool and so many nukes were started that the interest rates on the money went through the roof. Combined with the 'ongoing' redesign process it led to massive costs and overruns.

A new generation HAS to have public capital available to keep costs in line and hopefully the design process is now done so there will be no 'rebuilds'. As well, there are a generation of modular and mini-nukes that could be used to spread capitalization over longer periods.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
4. Anyone can learn about nuclear accidents.
The few that have happened ( compare to coal for TRUE cost benefit analysis) are certainly well documented. Chernobyl's design was obsolete long before the meltdown, and it too a level of abuse even then to cause disaster. TMI was an example of safety systems WORKING in their extremity. And Fukishima? It clearly illustrates the danger of cutting corners on safety with a light water reactor design that is INHERENTLY unsafe unless it is cooled ALL the time. There should be NO more light water reactors unless they can produce a passive safe design that can keep stable for months to years. And I recommend that nuclear power proceed to those passive safe designs we already have.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
5. The nuclear accidents generate harm, damage, and waste that can last millenia.
No less than coal ash piles and slurry ponds which we have ALL OVER the country now.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#179 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
6. Nuclear reactors can make nuclear bomb materials.
Only if designed and run for that purpose. Many designs now such as the travelling wave, and Molten Salt Thorium reactor produce their fuel from fertile elements as they operate and never have an excess. Therefore NO risk for bomb making. Light water reactors also cannot produce PU239 for bombs (but do justify the centrifuges and are inherently unsafe)

To make bomb grade PU239, you need a heavy water reactor for that, run on a VERY short burn-up to produce the maximum PU239 while not yet producing much PU240. This is hard to do in a working power reactor. There are dedicated heavy water reactors at Savannah Georgia to produce plutonium for America's bombs. They use nothing from light water reactors.

Light water reactors are dominant around the world partly because they JUSTIFY the centrifuges needed to concentrate the recovered PU239 to bomb grade (90%+) or reactor fuel (i.e 40%)

But the PUREX processing of the spent fuel is the problem. It was DESIGNED to extract plutonium for bombs. There are ALTERNATIVES such as the pyroprocessing which produce a mix of elements that CANNOT be used to make bomb grade materials.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Nuclear fears:
7. Fukushima is deadly to life for a long time to come.
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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#180 Mar 14, 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).

...
You changed my 'facts' to your "fears." NOT OK., huh.

What you wrote as response is your opinion.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#181 Mar 14, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
..
Totally false. The engineering to consume all fissile elements and cycle the radiation fragments for thermogeneration are just engineering. And the low level waste is easy to store in old salt mines IF you accept that radiation levels BELOW the level of the original ore are ok to leave to the next generation. This solutions are just engineering, and the failure has been on a POLITICAL level.
.
You changed my 'facts' to "fears." NOT ok, huh.

You are totally wrong. Calling it engineering does not make it solved. Like I said, it is not solvable.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#182 Mar 14, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
..
It is true that they have a high investment cost upfront, but low fuel costs. That said, they can produce power as cheaply as coal and with much less pollution. The big problem in the first generation nukes was that there was NO control of the capital pool and so many nukes were started that the interest rates on the money went through the roof. Combined with the 'ongoing' redesign process it led to massive costs and overruns.
A new generation HAS to have public capital available to keep costs in line and hopefully the design process is now done so there will be no 'rebuilds'. As well, there are a generation of modular and mini-nukes that could be used to spread capitalization over longer periods.
..
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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#183 Mar 14, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
..
The few that have happened ( compare to coal for TRUE cost benefit analysis) are certainly well documented. Chernobyl's design was obsolete long before the meltdown, and it too a level of abuse even then to cause disaster. TMI was an example of safety systems WORKING in their extremity. And Fukishima? It clearly illustrates the danger of cutting corners on safety with a light water reactor design that is INHERENTLY unsafe unless it is cooled ALL the time. There should be NO more light water reactors unless they can produce a passive safe design that can keep stable for months to years. And I recommend that nuclear power proceed to those passive safe designs we already have.
.
The public knows a lot more than you give credit to.

Any design whether passive or not will have to pass the same tests.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#184 Mar 14, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
..
No less than coal ash piles and slurry ponds which we have ALL OVER the country now.
Again, you changed my words to "fears." Not cool, huh.

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.

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.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Solar Energy Is Not A Viable Alternative To Fos... Thu yandli 2
News Nuclear power holds key to clean energy in future Thu Solarman 1
News Hillary Clinton is promising that all homes wil... Aug 25 sandy1 189
News Solar energy slashes electricity bill Aug 25 KitemanSA 2
News Apple and Google Pour Billions Down a Green Drain Aug 25 KitemanSA 2
News Obama to appear at 8th clean energy summit in L... Aug 24 spytheweb 1
News Terry Sheehan: Liberal government will invest i... Aug 21 Fugitive Friday 1
More from around the web