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 13569 times)

freedomroad

  • Guest
Are there dangers in living near Nuclear Power?
« on: August 04, 2005, 04:18:37 pm »

To sum up this thread...

Overall, the dangers of nuclear power plants in America are so small that the chance of a major event happening is almost none. So, IMHO, when considering where to live in NH, the nuclear power plant should not be a part of the equation.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 09:21:27 pm by NH Bound »
Logged

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2005, 11:51:40 am »

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.

I am confused?  Just how many 1,000s of people died in this disaster.  I don't remember it, but I heard it worked as planned.

Ahhh, NH Bound, you twist my words.  I never said there was a disaster.  I wrote exactly what you see above, and I stand by it.  The picturesque Seacoast is ruined, in my opinion, because of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.   There is no viable evacuation plan should there be a problem with the cooling of the fuel rods.  Do you know of one?  I do.

It is my understanding that thousands, upon thousands of people would be directed to Interstate 95 whereby it would become one large parking lot.  Those trapped there would meanwhile be exposed to radiation that would emanate from the reactor as the core would meltdown.  It happened in the Soviet Union at Chernoble, so why couldn't it happen in NH?  Because you say it can't happen.  If so why not?  Because this is NH?    Please, can I borrow your crystal ball, I would like to purchase some lottery tickets.
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.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2005, 12:49:48 pm »

...There is no viable evacuation plan for a "Three Mile Island" type disaster...

You said the above.  However, there never was a Three Mile Island disaster. 
Logged

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2005, 01:16:08 pm »

...There is no viable evacuation plan for a "Three Mile Island" type disaster...

You said the above.  However, there never was a Three Mile Island disaster. 

The Three Mile Island "situation" was so close to melting down that it was a "disaster" in the minds of those who knew about it at the time.  The Three Mile Island was owned by The Central NJ Power & Light Company and their execs and participants were interviewed in a documentary that was to say the least shocking.   They didn't tell the truth to the American public until long after the "public disaster" was narrowly averted.  The reactor was so close to melting down and they hadn't even called for a mobilization of the civil defense.   But anyway, I should have chosen Chernobyl in my first post.  Sorry for the confusion.

So, I stand by my initial point that NH has no viable evacuation plan for a possible "problem" with the Seabrook Nuclear Reactor.  And anyone who is considering living in Southern NH, Northeast Ma, or Southeast, Maine should be aware of this.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 01:19:54 pm by Brien »
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.

Russell Kanning

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3535
    • We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2005, 01:24:44 pm »

We could also be hit by a tsunami :o
Logged
The NH Underground - "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
New Hampshire Free Press - The Nonviolent Revolution Starts Here

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces." -- Etienne de La Boetie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

Brien

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • I'm a Leo
    • standard transportation
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2005, 02:46:42 pm »

We could also be hit by a tsunami :o

So you rule out the possibility of a problem at the Seabrook Plant because it is remote?  Oh you trusting soul. :o  Three Mile Island proved that the Eastern United States came within a whisker of a melt down.

Besides, you miss the point as usual.  The point is:   there is NO INTELLIGENT EVACUATION PLAN in place.  The time to form one is not when there is a problem.  But, you must surely know that.  Right? ::)

One problem at the plant, and you will find a unending line of cars with terrified and desperate people clogging RT 9 & RT 101 heading right up to YOUR front door, sir. ???

I yi, yi........ :(
« Last Edit: August 05, 2005, 02:49:39 pm by Brien »
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.

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2005, 01:57:55 pm »

Now, please. You write a red herring.  A nuclear "problem" such as a meltdown would result in thousands upon thousand  of deaths.  It would make Bhopal look like a corner house fire.

And once again.  I am not saying it is or isn't going to happen. Just that there is NO VIABLE EVACUATION PLAN in place.   So, please don't miss the point of the post, as others have already done.  Comprende, senor?

Of course, modern reactors don't release dangerous amounts of radiation during a meltdown, due to passive safety measures (by which I mean that the chance of it happening is so remote that worrying about it is pointless; there's no tsunami evacuation plan, either, and that sort of disaster is of similar likelihood).  We're not talking about a Soviet breeder reactor, here.

If you're worried about radiation, by all means avoid the whole state of NH.  It is, after all, "The Granite State," and where you have granite, you have radiation.

You may also want to avoid most any city with a decent college, as the science department likely has a reactor.  You'd be amazed at hoe many reactors are actually operating in the US, once you account for all the research reactors.

Now, as far as cold weather, that's just silly.  People adjust.  The heaviest piece of clothing that I own is a medium-weight winter jacket, and I only wear that if I expect to be outside for at least a few hours.  As far as cars, block heaters and remote starters are cheap and easy retrofits for most vehicles.

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 #7 on: August 16, 2005, 01:44:31 pm »

Now, please. You write a red herring.  A nuclear "problem" such as a meltdown would result in thousands upon thousand  of deaths.  It would make Bhopal look like a corner house fire.

And once again.  I am not saying it is or isn't going to happen. Just that there is NO VIABLE EVACUATION PLAN in place.   So, please don't miss the point of the post, as others have already done.  Comprende, senor?

Of course, modern reactors don't release dangerous amounts of radiation during a meltdown, due to passive safety measures (by which I mean that the chance of it happening is so remote that worrying about it is pointless; there's no tsunami evacuation plan, either, and that sort of disaster is of similar likelihood).  We're not talking about a Soviet breeder reactor, here.

If you're worried about radiation, by all means avoid the whole state of NH.  It is, after all, "The Granite State," and where you have granite, you have radiation.

You may also want to avoid most any city with a decent college, as the science department likely has a reactor.  You'd be amazed at hoe many reactors are actually operating in the US, once you account for all the research reactors.

Now, as far as cold weather, that's just silly.  People adjust.  The heaviest piece of clothing that I own is a medium-weight winter jacket, and I only wear that if I expect to be outside for at least a few hours.  As far as cars, block heaters and remote starters are cheap and easy retrofits for most vehicles.

Joe

Well Joe, all of what you write is true, but all I really was doing was to advise any potential settler in the Southeast that there was no evacuation plan.  Plain and simple.  It was made fun of by Mr Kanning who apparently doesn't even understand simple nursery rhymes and children's stories. 

I made mention of Vermont Yankee in Guilford VT in another thread but not in the sense of any danger to residents in Southern Vermont or Southwest NH.  This is because the population is sparse and I-91 could handle an evacuation if necessary. 

Understand the difference here?

And as for Radon, I lived in 3 different areas of NH for 16 years and never once, encountered a Radon problem.  This is not to mention it doesn't exist, but with a little bit of information, a potentioal settler can avoid properties that have high levels of Radon.

But back to the point, it was just an advisory, a point of information.  And if you don't think the reactors can have "problems" then what was Three Mile Island all about?  Sure you can minimize the risk, but that doesn't mean I am Chicken Little either.  It was just a "point of information to let potential settlers decide for themselves.  But apparently there are some people around here that enjoy thinking and deciding for others, not to mention and mocking some posters.   So be it.   Around here, you are what you write.
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.

Russell Kanning

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3535
    • We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2005, 02:03:18 pm »

It was made fun of by Mr Kanning who apparently doesn't even understand simple nursery rhymes and children's stories. 

once you promoted me to "Mr." I stopped caring about childish things ..... some day I may aspire to the level of the debate captain obrien ..... but I can never attain his pedigree, since my lowly ancesters didn't come here until the late 1800s
Logged
The NH Underground - "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
New Hampshire Free Press - The Nonviolent Revolution Starts Here

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces." -- Etienne de La Boetie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2005, 03:58:19 pm »



 my lowly ancesters didn't come here until the late 1800s

I didn't know about this.....I'm not sure I can associate with you any longer ;)
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2005, 05:44:51 pm »

Well Joe, all of what you write is true, but all I really was doing was to advise any potential settler in the Southeast that there was no evacuation plan.  Plain and simple.
...
I made mention of Vermont Yankee in Guilford VT in another thread but not in the sense of any danger to residents in Southern Vermont or Southwest NH.  This is because the population is sparse and I-91 could handle an evacuation if necessary.

Understand the difference here?

No.  Having a plan to deal with a never-to-happen evacuation should not even play a part in anyone’s decision.  As I said, I doubt there’s a tsunami evacuation plan, either.  Should people worry about that?

And as for Radon, I lived in 3 different areas of NH for 16 years and never once, encountered a Radon problem.  This is not to mention it doesn't exist, but with a little bit of information, a potentioal settler can avoid properties that have high levels of Radon.

Ever held a piece of granite to a Geiger counter?  I wasn’t referring to Radon gas, alone.  But it does exist, now that you mention it, and anyone even considering new construction in NH should have under-slab Radon venting installed, for the sake of safety.

But back to the point, it was just an advisory, a point of information.  And if you don't think the reactors can have "problems" then what was Three Mile Island all about?

So, tell me, was there any need to evacuate the residents near the Three Mile Island plant?  Any harm due to radiation exposure?  No?  Why not?  Because no dangerous amount of radiation was released, maybe?

Sure you can minimize the risk, but that doesn't mean I am Chicken Little either.  It was just a "point of information to let potential settlers decide for themselves.  But apparently there are some people around here that enjoy thinking and deciding for others, not to mention and mocking some posters.   So be it.   Around here, you are what you write.

Giving people accurate information from which they can make their decisions is not “thinking and deciding for others.”  If you’re going to disseminate information, it’s common courtesy to make sure that the information is accurate.  Implying that there’s any significant risk due to the lack of an evacuation plan is not accurate.  The risk is insignificant.  You cannot even calculate it, statistically, because it’s so small that it gets washed over by the background.  Telling people that they are in danger because there’s no evacuation plan is not accurate.  And intentionally giving people false or misleading information to influence their choices, is “thinking and deciding for others.”

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 #11 on: August 17, 2005, 02:01:53 pm »

But back to the point, it was just an advisory, a point of information.  And if you don't think the reactors can have "problems" then what was Three Mile Island all about?

So, tell me, was there any need to evacuate the residents near the Three Mile Island plant?  Any harm due to radiation exposure?  No?  Why not?  Because no dangerous amount of radiation was released, maybe?

Sure you can minimize the risk, but that doesn't mean I am Chicken Little either.  It was just a "point of information to let potential settlers decide for themselves.  But apparently there are some people around here that enjoy thinking and deciding for others, not to mention and mocking some posters.   So be it.   Around here, you are what you write.

Giving people accurate information from which they can make their decisions is not “thinking and deciding for others.”  If you’re going to disseminate information, it’s common courtesy to make sure that the information is accurate.  Implying that there’s any significant risk due to the lack of an evacuation plan is not accurate.  The risk is insignificant.  You cannot even calculate it, statistically, because it’s so small that it gets washed over by the background.  Telling people that they are in danger because there’s no evacuation plan is not accurate.  And intentionally giving people false or misleading information to influence their choices, is “thinking and deciding for others.”

Joe
Quote

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.  If this was happening in your area wouldn't you want to know?  Wouldn't you want an evacuation plan in place.  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?  This may, or may not be true, but it would seem to me that a workable evacuation plan is a wise idea even if it is never used.  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.  But this still doesn't negate the fact there needs to be a workable evacuation plan in place in Southeast NH.                                                                                                                                             

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.


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.

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.

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.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2005, 03:13:46 pm by Brien »
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.

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2005, 03:58:08 pm »

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
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..

davem1958

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2005, 11:48:39 am »

What about taking this nuclear reactor discussion to another thread?  Perhaps entitled "Where not to live in NH".

Dave
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re: Nuclear power (was Re: Where in NH?)
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2005, 02:03:30 pm »

What about taking this nuclear reactor discussion to another thread?  Perhaps entitled "Where not to live in NH".

Dave


I split the threads for ease of future conversation.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up