Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Are there dangers in living near Nuclear Power?  (Read 13561 times)

ThomasPaine

  • Guest
Re: Dangers of Nuclear Power?
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2005, 12:35:09 pm »

There would not be a market for nuclear energy without the public subsidies in the form of the Price Anderson Act of '57 which provides for payment of public liability claims in the event of a nuclear incident.

So much for advocating free market principles.

TeePee
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Dangers of Nuclear Power?
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2005, 04:15:14 pm »

There would not be a market for nuclear energy without the public subsidies in the form of the Price Anderson Act of '57 which provides for payment of public liability claims in the event of a nuclear incident.

So much for advocating free market principles.

That doesn't even vaguely compensate for the ridiculous expenses imposed by the government, with all their regulatory nonsense and frivolous litigation.  Eliminate those, annd the "subsidies," and the nuke companies would still come out ahead.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2005, 10:34:14 am »

Joe: As far as TMI, to be sure, there was cause for evacuation but JCPL did not  notify the CD to implement the plan, if there was one.  Check the documentaries about TMI and how close it came to a melt down.  Just because it didn't meltdown, it doesn't mean radiation was not leaked into the surrounding area.

Really?  Source it.

Wouldn't you want an evacuation plan in place.

No.  It’s not the government’s business to evacuate me.  If I choose to leave, that’s my business.

Are you are trying to represent that there is little danger to the public from a virtually unprotected nuclear power plant in light of 911?

Unprotected?  Hardly.  I take it that you have zero knowledge of containment design and reactor safeguards?

Futhermore, if there ever was a "problem" at Seabrook, the local residents probably wouldn't know it before it was too late anyway.  So, in that respect, you may be correct.

How does that make any sense?   The reactor at Seabrook cannot pull a Chernobyl-eqsue stunt and blow up.  The design is different, and there isn’t a physical means by which that can happen.

Now, let's address your logic. I am trained and licensed to carry firearms.  The last thing I want in the world, is to use those firearms to kill  someone.  My risk is minimal but I carry "just in case."  They are there if I need them.  Better to have something and not need it, then need it and not have it.  Following your logic, the risk of my being attacked is minimal, or "insignificant", so I shouldn't carry firearms. Extrapolation of this line of logic, one would deduce since most Americans are not at risk of being assaulted or attacked, then there is no need for them to carry firearms.  Sorry, I don't agree with your logic.

No, that does not follow.  Because the risks are wholly incomparable.  The risk of harm from a full meltdown is many orders of magnitude less than the risk of being assaulted.  It’s like seeing a car coming down the road while you’re trying to cross the street, and one case has the car a mile away, while the other has it ten feet away.  The risks simply aren’t comparable.

The term "significant risk" I think is your term, not mine.  I merely pointed out there was no evacuation plan.  Man, what don't you get about that statement?  I believe my information is accurate because there is no viable plan for the evacuation of the seacoast.  Probably not even for a hurricane.  I haven't seen any evacuation routes down there?  Have you?  You have I-95.  either leading south to Mass or North to Me.  Then there is US 4 West and Rt16 North.  So please don't attribute statements to me that I don't make and please, forget your lecture to me about" insignificant risks."  That is a subjective statement made by you.   Why don't you let people decide for themselves what is significant and insignificant?  Significant/insignificant, your words not mine.

No dice.

The South Central is heavily industrialized and a "shopper's paradise."  It is also crowded.  The Seacoast is small but "picturesque", albeit ruined, in my opinion, by The Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.  There is no viable evacuation plan for a "Three Mile Island" type disaster.  So, if you don't mind the possibility of glowing in the dark, by all means consider the seacoast.

You are clearly saying that you believe there to be a significant danger.  So significant that you believe no one should move there (since, obviously, none of us want to end up “glowing in the dark”).

I never implied anything about not having a viable evacuation plan.  You accuse me of this but it's not true.  I just pointed out there is no workable evacuation plan in place along the seacoast.  This is true.  You drew the inferences and then attributed them to me.  For instance you wrote that I told people they were in" danger."   Please show me where I wrote that sir.  It seems to me that the only person spreading inaccurate information here is you.  Sorry, but I'm not buying your distortion of my statements.

Pray tell how I distorted the actual quoted statement that you made (among others, but we’ll use that quote for now).

I stand by my original statement.  The seacoast of NH has no viable evacuation plan for disaster in Southeast NH.  Call this inflammatory, inaccurate information, and intentionally giving people false information, but that is a blatant distortion of what I wrote, and you sir, are the only one doing what you are accusing me of doing.  So please, spare me your lectures that you make up in your confused state of mind and then mistakenly attribute that false information aimed at disparaging my writing.

At the risk of sounding like a skipping record, the only statement I wrote was :  The Seacost of NH has no viable evacuation plan. ( in response to public disaster)  This statement is true and I stand by its accuracy.  Ughhhhhhh  This can get so old sometimes. :(  So I apologize in advance for my curt tone toward you but I get so tired of the BS and twisted statements, I sometimes lose my patience.  Sorry.

Odd, but that’s not the only statement that you made, is it?  Nope, I definitely saw you make several others.

Joe

As far as my original statemet of an "viable evacuation plan", in light of Katrina, do you people now "get it"?  I think most rational people do get it and are now looking at having viable evacuation plans for natural disasters.  But according to some here, nothing will ever happen in NH.  They ridiculed my post.  Ha!  So build you homes from straw and sticks, but don't come knocking on the brick homes when the disasters occur because some of you said it was ridiculous to plan for such events.  I think Katrina, and the folly of New Orleans proved you nay sayers wrong.  It highlights the fact that some of you are foolish and some others support that foolishness.  Good luck to you all.
Logged
No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law, and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more......M. T.

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re: Dangers of Nuclear Power?
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2005, 12:33:31 pm »

Certain locations around Seabrook have signs that read "No Evacuation Possible, Got KI?"

If that makes you uncomfortable, then you should live somewhere else.  If someone else wants to live there despite driving past that sign on the one road in/out to their home, that's on them.

People in New Orleans lived in a friggin basin.  When you hear "Biggest storm ever heading straight for us!" it's a good idea to get the hell out.  Those who relied on the government to get them out got what most people get out of relying on the government to live their lives.  Screwed.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2005, 09:14:00 pm »

As far as my original statemet of an "viable evacuation plan", in light of Katrina, do you people now "get it"?  I think most rational people do get it and are now looking at having viable evacuation plans for natural disasters.  But according to some here, nothing will ever happen in NH.  They ridiculed my post.  Ha!  So build you homes from straw and sticks, but don't come knocking on the brick homes when the disasters occur because some of you said it was ridiculous to plan for such events.  I think Katrina, and the folly of New Orleans proved you nay sayers wrong.  It highlights the fact that some of you are foolish and some others support that foolishness.  Good luck to you all.

Do we "get it"?

Get what?  There was a detailed evacuation and disaster response plan in place.

People trusted government to implement it, and the government failed.  Remember the school busses?  The shelters that weren't stocked?

Trusting in some government evacuation plan would be the mistake.

As far as rational people "now looking at having viable evacuation plans," that's just plain nonsense.  Rational people already had plans, and acted accordingly.  Only the irrational sheep are feeling surpirsed and looking at plans.  And not many of them, at that.

And as far as comparing Katrina to Seabrook, that's just plain silly.  New Orleans was a disaster waiting for a chance to happen, from the day the sub-sea-level nonsense began.  That it took this long is a miracle.  The chances of a containment breach at Seabrook are so low that worring about it would be pretty low on my list of priorities.

Or, to rephrase, even before Katrina, there's no chance you could have talked me into living in any such place.  You'd be hard pressed to talk me into living anywhere that isn't at least a mile inland and a hundred feet of elevation; I've seen what storms can do.  I've toured Seabrook.  I lived a few hundred yards from a reactor for three years.  Nuclear power doesn't bother anyone who is educated about it.  The risks from a modern plant are so low as to be absurd.  Even the TMI incident didn't cause the widespread devastation that you're preaching about, and that involved about the worst that can possibly happen in one of our plants.

You go on about how the government hasn't provided you with what you consider a viable evactuation plan, but you have a number of choices.  For starters, you could note that there are plenty of people who do think that the government plan is viable.  You could also develop your own plan, if you so desire.  And you could also compare the risks and say, "gee, I'm more likely to be struck by lightning a couple dozen times, than to get radiation poisoning from living near Seabrook, so I don't think I'll consider Seabrook to be much of a threat."

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Heyduke

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
  • I'm a jerboa!
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2005, 12:47:36 pm »

Quote
  there is NO INTELLIGENT EVACUATION PLAN in place. 


sure there is...just not for massachusetts...which is why Dukakis had a hissy fit back when he was guvnah...

those were fun times...Clamshell Alliance...Guy Chichester ( http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/01152005/news/59237.htm )...

anywho...the only concerns to living near Seabrook are:  Massachusetts, property values, 'Brookahs, and tourists...
Logged
I do not suffer fools gladly

freedominnh

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Re: Are there dangers in living near Nuclear Power?
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2005, 06:52:46 pm »

As a friend said run toward not away.  Less than a mile as the crow flies.  There is no f---king way out.  One of the only brave things Carter did was to visit TMI when Reactor Two was ready to blow its lid with hydrogen buildup. If only to allay the rampant fear of the five day incident.   To this day, TMI Reactor Two has been shut down.  Cooling ponds are also the scarey problem with all of them....

History Channel is running an eyeopener about how close TMI actually came to disaster.   Interesting note, only one half of  35,000 inhibitants ever returned to communities with five miles of TMI.    Seacoast tourism has been flatlined since 9/11/01.... this comes from some one who used to draw concentric circles to  determine collateral damage in another life in the not too distant past.  I'll be thankful when the Seabrook Plant is  shut down & encapsulated forever.   May we all live long prosperous lives to see that in the not to distant future.  You bet we have KI.   

New note:  is anyone paying attention to the CT Yankee plant that has sprung a leak?   
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 06:48:18 am by freedominnh »
Logged

mvpel

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 387
    • Aidoann
Re: Are there dangers in living near Nuclear Power?
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2005, 06:08:25 pm »

One of the only brave things Carter did was to visit TMI when Reactor Two was ready to blow its lid with hydrogen buildup. If only to allay the rampant fear of the five day incident.   To this day, TMI Reactor Two has been shut down.  Cooling ponds are also the scarey problem with all of them....

Why are cooling ponds a "scarey problem?"  The spent fuel has been sitting in myriad such ponds around the country for decades with no significant problems other than overcrowding, and the fuel wouldn't be sitting there if the "environmentalists" weren't so busy blocking a plan to store the spent fuel in the middle of a godforsaken desert.

Quote
History Channel is running an eyeopener about how close TMI actually came to disaster.   Interesting note, only one half of  35,000 inhibitants ever returned to communities with five miles of TMI.

Not particularly interesting, considering that every one of those 35,000 residents probably routinely gets more radiation exposure from airline travel than they ever got from TMI.

Quote
I'll be thankful when the Seabrook Plant is  shut down & encapsulated forever.   May we all live long prosperous lives to see that in the not to distant future.  You bet we have KI.

So instead you'll be showered with thousands of tons per year of uranium, thorium, and other toxic heavy metals, as well as sulphur and nitrogen oxides, from coal powerplant emissions.  Did you know that the uranium and thorium found in coal fly ash contains more heat energy than the coal that was burned to produce it?
Logged
New Hampshire Notary Public - Merrimack Valley Area - Silver Accepted

Ward Griffiths

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1050
  • Canvas and Quicklime
Re: Are there dangers in living near Nuclear Power?
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2005, 07:32:26 pm »

Remember, the mob opposed to nukuler power is generally led by humanities majors who brag that "the only physics I ever took was Ex-Lax".
Logged
--
Ward Griffiths    wdg3rd@comcast.net

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  (Denis Diderot)

freedominnh

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
Re: Are there dangers in living near Nuclear Power?
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2005, 09:53:04 pm »

Right, now I see. No one ever anticipated spent rods being railed through major SMA's from Northeast major SMA's through Central and Southwestern States to the  catacombs.   Cooling ponds as wells as rail or highway transport of spent fuel rods are a national security issue. 
« Last Edit: November 09, 2005, 07:04:08 am by freedominnh »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up