« REBA SEASON 4 EPISODE 18 PART 3
TS:SEASON 2:EPISODE 3:EVIL HAIR SALON P1 »

PRO NUCLEAR RALLY – ALL


Rally to support antiquity a newborn thermonuclear noesis being at the Grand Gulf Nuclear artefact in Port Gibson, Mississippi. Rally was on the river Washington steps in Jackson.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 19th, 2009 at 10:18 pm and is filed under Personal Finance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

25 Responses to “PRO NUCLEAR RALLY – ALL”

  1. nope sorry you are wrong. they did tests with a fully fuelled 747 jet hitting a containment building head on. in all the tests the plane disintegrated on impact and containment was not breached. todays reactors are so advanced that the possibility of a meltdown is les than .000000001 %.

  2. you are wrong. nuclear plants are extremely safe. the reactor vessel is surrounded by a steel zirconium shield 12 inches thick. this is submerged in coolant water which is contained in another zirconium vessel. the structure surrounding the reactor is made of solid reinforced concrete about 1 meter thick. this is enough to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled 747. they are able to withstand any attack short of a direct hit with a nuclear bomb.

  3. plus, they need to redesign the AGR reactors like our because they are safer than the American PWR’s in the fact they cant suffer from fire or a steam explosion.

  4. you tell em masterseph, i work in a nuclear power station in england. great fun, very safe. they wanted to build a huge wind farm with a 200MW output on our ‘C’ station site but it blew away because what is the point in this crappy useless form of power trying to supply power in place of a nuclear station with a 1200MW output? its simple maths. nuclear all the way.

  5. Let me clarify a couple of things about that post:
    -When I say radiation, I’m referring to ionizing radiation (including alpha, beta, gamma, neutron radiation).
    -Coal contains trace impurities of radiioactive heavy metals, which include uranium and thorium. Unlike nuclear, these radioactive materials aren’t contained when coal burns.
    -Many of these calculations have been done, and they consistently show the same results.

  6. I probably should have brought this up earlier, but risk assessments have been done in regard to terrorist attacks for both nuclear power plants and chemical plants, and every one I’ve seen shows chemical plants to have a much greater risk, some as high as 10 times greater. Once again, the lower risk of nuclear is associated with the safe gauards.

  7. The point I’m trying to make is that you rarely hear about radiation being associated with coal power, and since even less is associated with nuclear, the public safety impact as a result (with the obvious exception of Chernobyl, which was not a US reactor) is next to nothing.

    As for Chernobyl, we’ve already been over this…it had many design flaws, and was a disaster waiting to happen.

  8. It is not the sort of radiation releases, that we are talking about. Chernobyl has caused in creae cancer in Sweden, and made areas of the UK unable to farmed. it will kill atleeast 200,000 people, and made 3km of land uninhabitable. Humans release radiation. Your calcaulton might say humans have releasd more radiation than nuclear, that would misleasdin’

  9. And while we’re on the topic of safety I’ll have you know that far more radiation has been released into the environment due to coal power than from all nuclear releases combined, ever.

  10. “A containment building is not indestructbale”
    In the absolute sense this is true, but on the same token a plane isn’t an all penetrating object. As I said earlier, all existing containment domes were modified post 9/11 (and even before this they were still by far the strongest civilian built structures in existance). And new reactors are being built to withstand this.

    And by the way, I’m an engineer, so there goes your “floor sweeper” theory.

  11. Your apology accpeted. But there is no point in contacting the NCR. Nuclear is dangerous I am dogmatically opposed to it. Nuclear will never be safe for energy stations. For all I know you could have been a floor sweeper. A containment building is not indestructbale plane would easiy rip through a containment structure. Todays are more dangerous if they destroyed. The debate is not over an accident it is over a terrorist attack.

  12. I think I owe you an apology lonympics…I’ve been very harsh on you during this debate & I’m sorry for that. I just think when it comes to assessing risk you have to take into account what being done to prevent accidents from occurring, as oppossed to simply the worst possible outcome.

    However, in the future if you ever believe you have a legitamate concern in regard to nuclear safety I recommend you contact the NRC with it; that’s how you become part of the solution.

  13. Lonympics, I respect your criticism, but you proved very early on that you are not my equal in technical or nuclear industry knowledge when you said today’s reactors were more dangerous than the RBMK design (which Chernobyl was). It’s widely known that the RBMK design is by far the most dangerous design, and that one would never receive a liscense to operate in the US. I on the other hand have had educational/employment background in the area, so why should I consider you a credible source?

  14. In short, for a single failure, there are many more successes.

    I think I understand your view: you’re concerned that, regardless the countermeasures, there will always be a chance something could go wrong. However, from my educational/industry experience regarding these reactors, I believe you’re either been short changing or have been misinformed about what’s been doing to prevent them from occurring.

  15. Also, the nuclear industry is one of those industries where the public hears far more about its failures than its successes. Security squads run drills/tests quite often.

  16. Actually risk depends on more than just the worst possible outcome. It also factors in what’s being done to prevent it. And this is the factor which anti-nuclear fear mongerors refuse to face. This also happens to be an area where the US nuclear industry excels.

    It’s true no technology is risk free, but you can’t jump to conclusions based soley on the worst possible outcome.

  17. Pre 9/11 not all containment structures could have stood up to a plane crash, I’ll give you that. But as I said, afterwards the industry did make substantial investments into strengthening these structures.

    In addition, because I assume you want to concentrate on the issue of new reactors being built, all new reactors being built will be able to sustain a plane crash of 9/11 magnitude. And don’t give me that “it’s not possible to do that” nonsense. Just ask some of the design engineers.

  18. Hiring more security people, what on earth. So no president will ever be assassinated again, no bomb will ever be planted again no aircraft will ever be bombed. Because we changed. A sucessful nuclear attack could kill millions. It is not worth the risk.

  19. I have said it was fighter jet a tenth of the weight of a typical civilian jet. It is a total con. The wall as i have said, was not anchored, and the plane was on a track. What was the Pentagon made of, when a real civilian aircraft smashed it apart.

  20. Regarding this test you referred to, the problems can be corrected by, wait for it…hiring more security personnel and/or changing strategies. Not that hard to do.

    If a college student fails a midterm that certainly doesn’t mean you should kick him out of school…it means he should learn from his mistakes and use it to improve…something the US nuclear industry does through its REQUIRED corrective action programs.

  21. At the same time I don’t think you should turn the blind eye on Gen 3+ & Gen 4 reactors. Like I said earlier, I believe we’ve both made good points, and although we have different points of view, it’s perhaps debatable that the answer lies somewhere between.

  22. Keyword: R&D, meaning it doesn’t factor into the operating costs. Also, the fact that this is R&D reitterates how much potential the Gen IV reactors have.

    We have both made some good points. I’m still a bit skeptical about a country relying on primarily on solar, as no country has demonstated that they can acheive this. But I won’t turn a blind eye on it.

  23. Tests? You mean like the one where they simulated a plane crash into a containment structure wall, where the plane vaporized and the wall was left intact? Or perhaps the countless tests they’ve conducted successfully in regard to spent fuel drycast storage and transportation (which included laucing a rocket propelled locamotive at it…fuel integrity was not compromised and no radiation would have been released as a result).

  24. Rubbish Loads of tests have been done and the nuclear industry has failed mock terrorist attack by the us army.

  25. As long as someone offers cheap subsidized nuclear power, someone else will buy it. (Nuclear still receives far more public R&D funding then Renewables.)