Typical. Let's assume for the moment that the environmental concerns
about global warming that could be right. That the warming of Earth
is being caused by greenhouse gases, that irreversible climate change
that could doom the planet could happen in the next 50-100 years.
This isn't something extremely far fetched, as most scientists,
experts and govt bodies around the world believe it is a very real
Nuclear power is an immediate answer that could be brought online
quickly and economically that has just about zero greenhouse
emissions. But you block that over the fear that nuclear waste
stored at Yucca might kill someone? Makes a lot of sense. BTW,
there is already enough nuclear waste material in temporary storage
all over the country. Not only from civilian nukes, but from weapons
programs dating back 60 years. All that has to be stored
somewhere. The risk from XX tons vs 2XX tons seems a trivial point
to even debate. But one thing is not debatable. And that is those
that have blocked a relatively safe secure storage at Yucca have left
this waste sitting all over the country.
The public is expressing their opinion. It's just like yours, based
on fear, instead of rational facts. What I'd like to hear is exactly
what your riskless energy solution is. And it would be nice if it
also addressed some of your other populist worries. Like reducing
the trade deficit. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Not
spiraling up energy prices, etc. Nuclear is a positive contributor
to all that.
Hmm, who told you that? I never recall any such claim. The first
plants built in the 1960's were expensive even then. They may have
been touted as less expensive than oil, but no one ever said they
would be free.
Two Boeing 767's not only came close, but actually destroyed the WTC
and killed 3000 people. Should we close the airports and stop
building them too? From everything I've read, all the containment
systems at TMI worked perfectly and demonstrated that even with a
serious occurrence, due to the many redundant safety features, no one
was exposed to anything unsafe.
Unfortunately, you may be right. It's interesting you keep trying to
push off nukes to other countries. First Mexico, now China. As if
they are somehow insignificant, or backward countries dumb enough to
accept nuclear power. What do you say about France? Aren't they
environmentally and safety conscious? They get about 70% of their
electric power from nukes in France. Or Japan, which has 55 nukes
that provide 1/3 of their power? As I recall, Japan has more reason
than any other country to be concerned about the effects of nuclear
power. Yet, they have no problem with it.
On Mar 1, 10:10�am, email@example.com wrote:
my point is have other countries find the glitches in the pebble
system. all new things have unforseen troubles:(
yes at the time the very first nuke plants were being built we were
told they were safe, triple redundant, and no electric meters would be
go search back old science magazines, and others posted it. its not
and since you bring up aircraft, we both should know that contaiment
buildings werent designed for a hit by a fully fueled airliner, the
largest werent designed yet at the time the current reactors were
life is full of risks, everything is risk vs rewards.
now the risk of poisioning a large part of our country
permanetely..... essentially forever, while raising cancer risk nation
and likely world wide?
just what reward is worth that?
your interst is making money selling new plants which will increase
the stock and probably your retirement account.
congrats that reward doesnt help most here
Re: meterless electricity: Yep, you are correct, it was published in
the popular science type mags of the time. Why would lyou have
believed such obvious 'pie in the sky' dreaming?
I suppose you also believe that the 'wonderful air car' that keeps
cropping up in the same type publications is also true and it will go
for miles and miles and miles on a charge of compressed air and that
it will be built all over the world. That claim is still surfacing
and it first appeared about 12 or more years ago. Thus far not one
consumer car has hit the street.
How about the 'we will be able to drop a pill in the gas tank' bit
that was also "predicted" at the same time?
I have to concede, if you take fanciful magazine articles of what
MIGHT be possible in the future, then H probably did read stories that
about meterless electricity. When he first made the claim that this
was promised, I took it to mean that it was being promised by power
companies actually building the plants. Or companies supplying the
nuclear reactors, etc. As you say, I don't see how you take a
speculative magazine article as a promise.
While at the time I don't recall meterless electricity stories, there
sure were plenty of other pie in the sky forecasts, like using nuclear
reactors in the home for heating. But why anyone would consider them
reliable promises is beyond me.
On Mar 1, 12:49 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
yep even nuclear cars, imagine the risks of that,
never the less these were how nuke was sold to the public who at the
time looked at nuke only as a weapon.....
the industrys propoganda machine must of been working overtime
Virtually none of it was "industry's" doing.
One of the charges in the legislation establishing the original AEC
(precursor of NRC) was the promotion of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. It was a national policy objective pretty much generally
accepted at the time.
Most of the farfetched notions were, however, dreamed up by the kinds of
folks mentioned above -- the writers and editors for popular "science"
and technology rags of the time. Some of these did get occasional
exposure in the more mainstream publications, unfortunately.
Now, of course, the movement of which haller is a prime example dredge
up every source they can possibly find to raise as a red herring and
example of "lying" or other malfeasance by presenting science fiction or
outlandish conjecture as fact.
It's the same thing as the other article he just posted -- not a single
actual factual argument--merely a stringing together of one half-truth
or innuendo or in some cases outright fraud as if it proved a
preconceived conclusion conclusively. Of course, there's no way one can
actually have a rational discussion w/ any of these folks -- as haller
shows, they simply dodge from one assertion to another, never have to
build a defensible scientific or engineering analysis that a
hypothetical situation could even be possible, assert "coulda's" or "may
haves" willy-nilly as fact and even worse. When called on any
particular item, they simply ignore the point and go to the next
strawman on the list. After a while, they then go back to somewhere
earlier in the list and repeat.
If it weren't for the fact they are doing great harm to the development
of a rational energy policy as well as postponing doing something useful
for environmental abatement of combustion gases and emissions, not to
mention causing an even more rapid depletion of our oil and gas
reserves, it would, as noted before, almost be funny to watch.
One other point I intended to make before I kill watching the thread as
having reached its inevitable conclusion of going 'round 'n 'round...
The "industry" has been, if nothing else, remarkably _unsuccessful_ in
their attempts at "propaganda" or "public relations". This was owing to
the thought that simply presenting good, solid engineering and
scientific evidence would carry the argument against bluster and
fear-mongering. As this thread illustrates, it doesn't do much except
leave a track record against the misinformation.
In a former life, when being in a position where I was one of the point
persons to talk on nuclear power and all, the inevitable discussions of
this type almost always came up.
The most useful piece of advice I ever got was from the behavioral
science guy who provided a lecture on how to deal with various types of
audience interaction. He pointed out these individuals are like the
small child who has learned that by sheer persistence it can get its own
way in a large percentage of cases because the parent will finally give
in simply to get a moment of peace. The only way to stop such behavior
is to _NOT_ let them wear you down--extremely tiresome, wasteful of
resources, etc., but its the only course of action that will in the end
Sad, but how true.
I "admit" nothing of the sort -- I proudly consider the time I spent w/
a US reactor vendor as part of their team to handle outside contacts
one of the more interesting parts of my career.
Actually, as has come to fore and your other posting so sadly decries,
there is a very prominent return. At least two applications have been
filed within the last six months. I know of several other utilities
that are seriously looking and expect several more filings this year.
And yes, for this thread for the time being, I'm letting the four-year
olds have the candy bar...
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it _was not_ hyped that
way by scientists. You are still believeing in comic book style
writing. They also predicted we could run cars on water, take
vacations in space...etc.
How many pairs of 'x-ray' glasses did you buy as a kid before you
realized they were fake?
A quick google search turns up that this alleged
"promise" is apparently based on one line from a speech made to a
scientific writers by the head of the Atomic Energy Commission in
1954, as reported by the NY Times. This link will put it all into
perspective for you.
In the speech he gave, he said:
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap
meter," he declared. ... "It is not too much to expect that our
children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world
only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great
speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as
disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."
If you take that in context, it's far from clear that he was even
speaking specifically about nuclear power, unless you believe he also
meant nuclear power was going to extend human lifespan, end famine
make air travel effortless. And even if he meant nuclear power, as
opposed to science in general, it was clearly totaly speculation, not
specific promises made to anyone to "sell" them on nuclear power.
Take a look at all the other speeches made in that time-
frame of the 50's which made it clear that no one seriously promised
was anywhere close to being free.
But this does show how loons seek to take ANYTHING out of context and
blow it all out of proportion to reality to support their cause.
I believe you actually _do_ get your science out of popular mechanics/
Next you will be looking for the flying car, George Jetsons jet car,
Fast Than Light Flight, etc. All of them are in the popular mags.
Predictions? Only in your mind.
Why bother. Just admit it. NOTHING anyone could do with any nuclear
reactor would reduce the risk to zero or to any level that would
satisfy you. With any nuclear reactor, if you defeat every safety
device put into place, you can always create a scenario where
radiation escapes the plant. You'll always have to transport the
waste, which you've railed against. You'll always have to store
waste. So, why pretend that some other country is going to "find
glitches and make nukes acceptable to you?"
BS. I live 25 miles from the first commercial nuke in the USA.
JCPL, mid 60's. No such foolish claims were ever made. And for
good reason. The plants were expensive to build. Who was gonna pay
for them? And even if the power itself was free, you still have a
huge distribution system to pay for. Ever think about who pays for
the transmission towers, sub stations, utility polls?
BTW, it's not up to me to do research to support your silly claims.
If it's true, you show us.
You pretend to understand risk vs reward, but clearly you don't. In
many scenarios, I can take a miniscule risk, say with .0000001%
probability of occurence, and use it to block almost anything. I
gave you the example, which you failed to answer, of the risk from
airplanes. How many have crashed and killed 200-600 people? Two
actually killed 3000 on 9/11. Yet, we're not stopping more of them
from being built. Why? Because the risk/reward is worth it. Same
thing with nukes.
As for this nonsense about poisoning a large part of the country
forever, ever hear of Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Are they abandoned
cities, or thriving modern ones? How many nukes were set off above
ground in NV during the 40's and 50's, so close to Las Vegas that
people went out into the streets to see them? Is Nevada an abandoned
And now it comes down to this silly accusation? Like I have some
vested interest in building nuclear power plants? Are you for
real? Like there aren't a million other investments out there? Ones
where you can just go ahead and actually build something? As opposed
to spend maybe $100mil and 5 years to TRY to get permission to build
it and then have it get turned down. Repeat that 10 times, then
MAYBE get to actually build one?
Sure, that's a business I like.
My real interest is in having energy to keep this country safe,
secure, and my house warm.
BTW, I note you totally ignored my question of what exactly is YOUR
proposed solution to our energy needs? Which one is greenhouse
friendly, low pollution, reduces the trade deficit and completely safe
and risk free? Or are you one of the nuts that thinks electric just
comes out of the wall and that Detroit has a carburetor that will get
100 miles to the gallon, but keeps it off the market?
And you ignored France, which gets 70% of their power from nukes.
And Japan, that gets 1/3 of theirs from 55 nukes. Please explain how
it is that Japan, a country with plenty of reason to fear nuclear
power, finds it safe and acceptable.
risk vs rewards
Either we burn coal with its downsides or move to nuclear.
you obviously being from the industry prefer nuclear. thats certinally
but lets consider risks for just a moment.......
lets imagine the unthinkable occurs and a nuclear plant actually melts
down the core and breaches the containment somehow.
now no doubt there will be a rushed evacuation, and hopefully katrina
lessons will be remembered. that is take pets, use busses and have a
plan in place in advance.
now we need a site, say 3 mile island. depending on prevailing winds
the area of contamination will be wide. sad all that dead zone, for
many generations. probably includes new york philadephia and most of
the coast to maine, heck canada might be effected too.
I bet the fiancial loss will be more than the profit on all the nuke
plants generated since the first went on line. including the profits
on building the plants.
the reward green energy or so you say.
the risk, in the event of a major malfunction probably the bankruputcy
of our country..........
Discuss this story Print This Post E-Mail This Article
Published on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Why Must Nuke-Power Lemmings Again Flock to the Radioactive Sea?
by Harvey Wasserman
It's baaaaaack. The fifty-year multi-trillion dollar failure of atomic
energy has resumed its lemming-like march to madness.
Isn't the definition of insanity the belief that if you do the same
thing again and again you'll somehow get a different result?
The first commercial reactor opened in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in
1957. America was promised electricity "too cheap to meter."
That was a lie.
America was promised there'd soon be consensus on a safe way to
dispose of high-level radioactive waste.
That was a lie.
America was promised private insurance companies would soon indemnify
reactor owners--and the public--against the consequences of a
That was a lie.
America was promised these reactors were "inherently safe."
Then America was told no fuel had melted at Three Mile Island.
Lie and lie.
Then they said nobody was killed at Three Mile Island
They said it took six years for acid to eat through to a fraction of
an inch of the steel protecting the Great Lakes from a Chernobyl at
Davis-Besse, Ohio. That's a lie too.
Now they say they say nukes are economically self-sustaining.
But de-regulation stuck the public with the capital costs, and hid the
true amortization for the long-term expenses of rad waste disposal,
plant decommissioning, on-going health impacts and likely melt-downs
by terror and error.
Now they say nukes can fight global warming. But they ignore huge
radon emissions from uranium mill tailings, huge CO2 emissions from
fuel enrichment, and huge direct heat that results from nuke fission
itself, not to mention the long-term energy costs of decommissioning
and waste handling.
All reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass radioactive destruction
for any willing terrorist. Had the jets that hit the World Trade
Center on 9/11/2001 hit nukes instead, the death toll and the
(uninsured) economic losses would be beyond calculation.
It could be happening as you read this.
They say a new generation of nukes will be "inherently safe," which is
exactly what they said about the last one. Limited construction
experience with this "new generation" already shows massive cost
overruns. There is no reason to believe these will be any safer,
cheaper, cleaner or more reliable than the last sorry batch.
They say more reactors won't be a proliferation problem. But they want
war on Iran which wants the Peaceful Atom to give it nuke weapons like
those in India and Pakistan.
They say the green alternatives won't work, but wind power is the
cheapest form of new generation now being built. The Solartopian array
of wind, solar, bio-fuels, geothermal, ocean thermal and increased
conservation and efficiency are attracting billions in investments all
over the world. The immensely profitable green energy industry is
growing at rates of 25-35%.
Meanwhile, "there isn't enough money in the federal till to change
Wall Street's calculation of the financial risks" for new nukes, says
Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust.
It is impossible to embrace both nuclear power and a free market
Nuke power cannot exist without massive government subsidies,
government insurance, government promises to deal with radioactive
waste, government security, government blind eyes to basic safety and
A terrorist reactor attack would mean the end of our political rights
and the beginning of martial law, killing all the basic freedoms which
have defined the best of this country.
America is again being told this can't happen here. It is another lie.
Yet Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Lieberman and other mainstreamers
flock to the nuke madhouse. Al Gore says new nukes must prove
themselves economically (they can't) but that there'll be a "small
part" for reactors in the future, and that the waste problem will be
There's a move to reverse California's ban on nuke construction
pending a solution to the waste problem. (California has four active
reactors near major earthquake faults).
Environmental Defense doesn't think "any options should be taken off
But in 1952 a Blue Ribbon Commission told Harry Truman the future of
America was with solar power.
Then Dwight Eisenhower embraced the "Peaceful Atom", sinking America
in the most expensive technological failure in human history.
In 1974 Richard Nixon responded to the Arab Oil Embargo by promising a
thousand US reactors by the year 2000. The No Nukes movement and
soaring oil prices kicked in, and the industry tanked.
So Jimmy Carter started us up the road to Solartopia ... until Ronald
Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof and forced us
into Death Valley.
Now Gore has sold the world on the dangers of global warming. But will
it just be another excuse to throw more good money at more bad
Clearly, there will be no easy end to this madness. But atomic
energy's bio-economic clock has clearly run out.
Basic sanity, ecological truth and the smart green money are all on
Our challenge is to put them in charge before more Three Mile Islands
or Chernobyls--or a nuclear 9/11--irradiate the asylum.
He's right. I spent many an afternoon in my Grandpa's basement and down
at the library, reading old Popular Science magazines and actual real
scientific journals, and the 'too cheap to meter' claim was a common
sales pitch. Note well that 'too cheap to meter' /= 'free'. It just
means they claimed you would pay for the hookup and a monthly flat fee,
which would have been a hell of cost savings for them, in those
mechanical meter, manually read, pre-computer days.
Nobody actually believed it, though.
(BTW, Popular Science, 100 years or so ago, WAS an actual science
journal. Articles for laymen didn't appear till late 30s or 40s, and
they still had actual science content on a regular basis well into the
60s, when they went strictly gee-whiz new-tech and home improvement.)
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.