1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish

Page 5 of 10  
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/GhostTown/html/quicknavmenu.htm
heres a page of links, to pictures of the russian dead zone. some areas are so hot even after all these years you can die.
so take a look around and ask yourselves, is the risk worth it?
what if this happened in our country?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have one in my "back yard" and there are very close to being approved for the first new reactor in years. I really hope it goes through...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dr. Hardcrab wrote: ...

You talking about the recent TVA/NuStart application for the Bellefonte site? While the application has been filed, it's probably at least four years before any approvals will wend their way through the licensing maze. It will, of course, be the acid test for the "streamlined" process...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001881.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dr. Hardcrab wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001881.html
Hadn't seen that -- TVA Bellefonte was the only one I was aware of that had actually been filed...
http://www.tva.gov/news/releases/octdec07/tva_nustart.htm
I still wouldn't put "soon" or "very close" in front of either, though.
Hopefully the process will at least be workable this go 'round, though.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

heres a question for nuke supporters, do the plants carry insurance and are willing to pay if a accident similiar to chernobyl does occur?
one that makes permanetely uninhabitible a big chunk of our country, and the possiblity of loss of life and sickness that would go with such a accident?
pay everyone to move, for all lost property? expenses and health troubles?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

...
Yes, up to a federally mandated maximum.
But, have you yet figured out you can't have a Chernobyl (I surely wish you'd correct the capitalization even if you can't get anything else right) physically cannot occur w/o a Chernobyl-type reactor and even if the reactor design were similar, the simple expedient of actually having a containment (w/o which _NO_ reactor would ever be licensed in the US hence making the question of one w/o containment moot for the US) would mitigate such an event?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

since we do not use graphite-moderated reactors for power generation in the US,a "Chernobyl-type accident" cannot occur.
Note that the Three Mile Island accident was a good example of US nuke safety.Very little real effect on the environment,the safety systems worked as designed.France and Japan both generate a significant amount of their nations electric power very safely.(using pressurized-water reactors)

Have you researched "pebble bed reactors" yet? They self-moderate,inherently safe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 2/28/2008 11:18 PM Jim Yanik said the following:

Doesn't matter. As long as the words 'nuclear', or 'reactor' is associated with the plant, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe we should just call them Fission Energy Generators. The Anties won't know what that means. They'll probably think it is energy generated from fishes. :-)
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
maybe it would be better to build new nuke plants far away from population centers and just accept the hit on transmission losses?
this way a unforseen accident takes out a rural area, rather than downtown new york?
this compromiise would probably make everyone reasonably content. nuke power industry gets to grow and make boatloads of money, away from most people centers.
hey why not put the plants in mexico? far away from the us border?
it would provide jobs for mexicans, lessening their desire to immigrate here, still provide the power needed, perhaps use supercold transmission lines to reduce line losses? and a accident although still terrible wouldnt effect our country so bad.............
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know, I've wondered about that for a long time too. It would seem that it would be a great business idea for some investors. With Mexico's govt culture of corruption, it should be easy to get approvals and start building with a hell of a lot less opposition and regulation that you get here. For Mexico, the govt gets $$$, the politicians get $$$, the locals get lots of jobs during construction, etc.
For the US, we get power, but no jobs and add to the trade deficit. And then, if they put the nukes near Tijuana, you get a bunch of them that you have no regulatory control over how safely they are built and run and if it someday has the accident you're so worried about, San Diego is right next door. Sounds like the best for everyone!

BTW, it's a swell idea you have to suggest putting something you consider so potentially lethal in Mexico, where they get take the risk. May I suggest that it suggests you have some deep rooted issues that are surfacing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why,when there's never been any real problem with US nuke plants?

How far would make you *feel better*? ("reasonably content";define "reasonable")

and yet you worry about nuke security at US plants.....

Its not the US job or responsibility to provide jobs for Mexicans. Let MEXICO worry about Mexicans.

With all the reactors operating in all the countries of the world,and only ONE bad accident in RUSSIA,and you worry about uncontained disasters; that sounds like an *unreasonable* fear to me.
Have you researched "pebble-bed" reactors yet? Inherently safe.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Good idea.
We could put one in an uninhabited area, say Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and no one would complain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nevada has decided it shouldnt be the countries nuke graveyard, despite its past.
heres a good question.
if a nuke plant has a accident today, just what is its federally mandated max insurance cap? i got news for you its trivial, and a excuusion on everyones homeowners policy too.
essentially you lost so sorry................
those effected would be forced to move with no compensation, no homes no anything. our government would be forced to help somehow. given how many might be effected katrina victims would of been considered lucky
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
while the pro nuke advocates talk of safety, they ignore federal investigations of safety troubles and bad wiring that could of caused a disaster.
the nuke power industry like everyone else wants to cut costs, and have created their own public relations nightmare.
oh and do note i suggested nuke plants in mexico far from our country. southern mexico would be ideal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

but haven't.

NIMBY.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Reference please?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it was very newsworthy perhaps 5 years ago. many reactors had miles of bad wiring.
as to my suggestion of mexico.
my real point is the indusry can try to make the public accept them but i doubt it will fly.
people dont want cell phone towers in their neighborhood, but a nuke plant 50 miles away will be much worse...........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...

...
If you can't substantiate something specific to discuss, then don't bring it up. I have given you factual data for every one of your fantasies and can provide further detail on any point you wish to challenge. You simply make up or reiterate one piece of rhetoric after another and never finish a single subject.
As for the US putting reactors in southern Mexico, that's simply ludicrous, the least of which being the "not in my back yard" syndrome.
As for cell towers, same problem -- all the yuppies want the stuff but somehow expect it to be magically supplied for them.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Aw, more Katrina "victims" crapola.
They knowingly occupied costal property BELOW sea level, were given ample warning to evacuate and they stayed put.
The bulk of them got what they deserved. The bulk of them got MORE than they deserved: Our money.
I'll cheerfully accept the personal risks associated with nuclear power. It beats the heck out of strip-mining.
--
:)
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.