"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"charlesb"
writes:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute while
working
perfectly.

Yup. So do nuclear plants. The pollution in each case is different,
of
course.
Nuke plants generate various forms of radioactive waste that will
remain
hazardous for far longer than anyone realistically knows how to deal
with.

Unlike the nuclear plants, they don't have to wait for an
accident in order to cause a problem.

But when a nuke plant has a problem, it's a BIG problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a
part
of
the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And,
it's
a
very important part of the issue.

Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear
generation
is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It
will
never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the
industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...


Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions
rather data.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


See my reply to Clint, Dee. Nuclear power is bad ecnomics.

Kim W5TIT



See my comments to your reply. Are coal, oil, and hydro also bad economics.
California won't allow any of them to be built either.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000 miles from the
plant it will have a concentration of only 1 millioneth of the
concentration
at the release site.


It's a popular thought in the environmental impact world that the
"solution
to pollution is dissolution" or something like that. And, of course,
that's
wrong. On its 1000 mile (more actually) trip to infinitesimal
measurement,
how much impact did it have along the way?


Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively simple in fact.


Another favorite thought. Yeah, in basis theory, the technology is not
complex. Everything on paper looks great.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Kim W5TIT



The only way to eliminate all pollution is to eliminate the human race.
Since that is not a reasonable solution, it is up to people to develop
energy supplies and attach the appropriate safety requirements without the
emotional baggage caused by fear. To date, the nuclear industry has had a
much better safety record than many other industries and we have the ability
to make it even safer yet. Right now the irrational fears about nuclear
power are standing in the way of collecting the data that will prove it
either safe or dangerous and developing an appropriate energy action plan.
What data does get collected is buried on the back of the last page at the
bottom of the last column of the newspaper or doesn't even make it into the
paper unless it is something that they can sensationalize.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "charlesb"
writes:


Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute while

working

perfectly.

Yup. So do nuclear plants. The pollution in each case is different, of

course.

Nuke plants generate various forms of radioactive waste that will remain
hazardous for far longer than anyone realistically knows how to deal

with.

Unlike the nuclear plants, they don't have to wait for an
accident in order to cause a problem.

But when a nuke plant has a problem, it's a BIG problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a part

of

the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And, it's

a

very important part of the issue.

Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear

generation

is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It will
never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the
industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...



Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions
rather data.

Dee, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with you,
but very much disagreeing with your argument.

Uranium miners get ill with apalling regularity. This is part of the
overall cost of this method of energy production, unless you are force
fitting your argument to include only the power generation stage. There
are piles of radioactive tailings around some towns out west. Kids often
play on them.

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/miners.html

http://www.downwinders.org/cortez.htm

These are just a couple examples.

Is that directly attributable? Gosh who knows? Cigarettes were "not
proven to be deadly until not all that many yars ago, while I have read
literature from the 1860's that documented all the effects that tobacco
smoking causes. My guess is that if a group of people involved in an
activity show statistically significant trends in illness, some activity
they have in common just may be responsible.

I don't suspect you will understand this, but part of your approach is
exactly why people distrust what they are told about NP.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:

So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns
in the last ten years? I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the
environmentalists. Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely.

Do you think it's that simple Dee? Another scenario is that the shakers
and movers found in more profitable to try to buy and sell existing
power from each other, until the inevitble happened. And it's not just
in CA. Its all over

"charlesb" wrote:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute
while working perfectly. Unlike the nuclear plants, they
don't have to wait for an accident in order to cause a
problem.


Most would consider the massive amounts of nuclear waste (from spent fuel,
contaminated building materials from closed plants, and so on) a "problem."
People over many generations will have to deal with those waste products.
And, of course, this environmental polution is far worse than anything
generated by fossil-fuel burning plants. So, your claim above ("unlike the
nuclear plants...") is patently false.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Because they are blocked on every hand by people
who operate on emotions rather data.


Exactly what data is that, Dee? I've read lots of data on nuclear power
plants and little of it supports your views on that industry. When all
things are factored in (construction, deconstruction, waste management, and
so on), nuclear power is the most expensive power generated. At the present
time, most of that cost is being shouldered by the American taxpayers, not
the present or past plant owners. Of course, that fact, and only that fact,
makes nuclear power profitable for the owners (which is exactly why they
continue to push for new plants).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000
miles from the plant it will have a concentration of only
1 millioneth of the concentration at the release site. (snip)


Wind currents don't follow laws, Dee. There will be areas with much higher
concentrations, and areas with much lower concentrations, over a given
geographical area.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:

True fact: The *original* antismoking campaigns had
nothing to do with health concerns. Their real problem
with smoking was that it was perceived to be an
activity done *only* for pleasure - and therefore evil!
(You have to eat and sleep, so those activities were not
targeted as much).


Actually, I have a much more suspicious mind. The government's effort
against smoking stepped up greatly in the late 50's, just in time to draw
attention away from the health effects of the nuclear weapons tests of that
time period. And, amazingly so, the "discovered" negative health effects
commonly associated with smoking are almost identical to the negative health
effects commonly associated with nuclear fallout (lung cancer, etc.).
Amazing coincidence, isn't it? If true, an anti-smoking campaign would be a
great "smoke" screen.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Yes and No...... Granted both failing will result in the loss of life, but
at least after the water drains off and everything dries out, you can still
live fairly well if you were one of the sucessful survivors. If a nuke
plant goes to hell, and leaks out a ton of radiation, it's many years before
you can do anything anywhere near the plant.....


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...


But when a nuke plant has a problem, it's a BIG problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY


No bigger a problem than a hydroelectric dam breaking. The BIG problem is
the slanted and sometimes false information that is spread by the media
just
to have an exciting story.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

One quick example: Irrationally afraid of nuclear
power, the "PC police" has seen to it that we stick
with the burning of fossil fuels for our electricity.
How clever.


Irrationally afraid of nuclear power? According to the UN, there have
been
386 serious nuclear power plant accidents around the world (serious
defined
as a significant release of nuclear material into the atmosphere).
Several
of those accidents have been right here in this country. In addition,
there
have been over 6,000 nuclear weapons tests, resulting in millions of
tons
of
radioactive material spread across this planet. Nobody is certain how
many
nuclear weapons accidents there have been. And, since records are not
kept,
nobody is certain how many accidents there have been at nuclear research
facilities. The nuclear industry, peaceful or military, has been no
friend
to this planet or it's people. And that's not a "PC" perspective - it's
simple common sense.

The following comments address power plants only. Weapons is an entirely
different issue.

Yes, irrationally afraid. The number of deaths from nuclear power plants
pales into insignificance in comparison to the number of minors who have
died to bring us coal to burn not only from accidents but black lung
disease. The damage done from nuclear power plants pales into
insignificance in comparison to the damage done from oil spills. More
people have died from dams breaking than power plant accidents.

If we applied the same logic and standards to other sources of power as we
do to nuclear, we would not have any electricity at all. We'd have to
shut
down every coal, oil, and hydroelectric power plant in the world.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power
generation available at this time.

Provided equipment is stable, and the "human error" doesn't factor in......


Wind and solar have to be excluded at this time since the technology
doesn't
exist to make these forms widely available on an efficient basis. And if
we
follow the logic of some people in this group on other items, wind power
is
too antiquated since it's been used for hundreds if not thousands of
years.

Wind is actually a good source, if there is a consistent breeze blowing
enough to keep the blades of the windmill moving, and would seem to be
fairly inexpensive to construct as well.

As far as solar, the cost of setting up systems are extremely expensive
still as the manufacturers of such materials are willing to lower their
prices any.......


And let's compare nuclear power to some non-power industries. Are you
aware
of how devastating accidents at chemical plants can be?

Yes.... Dow Chemical and Dow Corning are my neighbors.... and I am nervous
on a daily basis.... From an insider that I know, at of one of those plants
that shared this little tidbit of information..... there is 2 specific
materials (they wouldn't state which two) were mixed or tampered with the
wrong way in storage there that would level Midland County and make it into
a crater, and pretty much create extensive damage to Saginaw and Genesee
Counties, and part of the Northern portion of Oakland County as well. Makes
the human error equation a little more relevant to me, especially if it is a
terrorist related activity.

Have you ever seen
a grain elevator explode from sparks causing the suspended dust to
explode?

Yep, the one I saw blew the top off of the silo, and burned for what like
seemed forever!


I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than any other type of power
generating facility or any of several other industrial endeavors.

Not me as much.... would rather see more "natural" forms utilized if it were
cost effective. That is the problem.




--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...