Ron Paul: Dangers of Nuclear Energy Overblown

I posted this in this section because obviously it's a response to the disaster in Japan
I hope staff finds that acceptable
And it's also something that many ATS members in this section have also thought



Now before you respond, think of this
Fukushima: Mark 1 Nuclear Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing -- the Mark 1 -- was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.

"The problems we identified in 1975 were that, in doing the design of the containment, they did not take into account the dynamic loads that could be experienced with a loss of coolant," Bridenbaugh told ABC News in an interview. "The impact loads the containment would receive by this very rapid release of energy could tear the containment apart and create an uncontrolled release."

abcnews.go.com...

So part of it had to do with bad engineering
So if a plane goes down in Central New York because it was built bad.... should that merit a no fly zone over any non-farmland which would significantly increase flying costs, or just no more flying at all?

I was talking to some colleagues that come from several different countries and that frequent foreign news sources, we were comparing headlines.

The U.S. headlines were much more sensationalist and next thing you know there's a surge in potassium iodide sales.

Thoughts?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Ron Paul starting to smell like corruption. Toshiba designed one of blown nukes. They plan to build 2 in Texas.

The only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on is the Nuke issue. Its not safe I'm sorry ron.

Well for starters, your argument is flawed. If a plane crashes it does not require decontamination, evacuation of a 50 mile radius and never being able to use that piece of land again. Clearly Nuclear Power is too dangerous for the 20% energy it produces for the US.

is he joking??? dangers overblown?
did he just crawl out of a hole?
another politician in Big Energy's pocket... well, Paul has revealed his true charactor...

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I agree that this whole thing with the plants has become sensationalized. Whether or not it is overblown remains to be seen though as this event has yet to fully play itself out. From a present 'snapshot' POV it's overblown for sure (because up to this point there has been no meltdown).

I'm just keeping a level head and going about my daily business. Can't say I'm really worried about fallout here in Alberta.

Thanks for the video OP. BTW I highly doubt (even in the event of a meltdown) that the building of nuclear reactors will stop ... about 96-97% sure. There's a market for energy and nuclear power plants provide.

SnF

Peace,

AS

If mr. representative Ron feels that way, then I'm sure he would not mind a personal visit within the 20km evac zone.

Not.

We can have safe nuclear energy, but not by understating failures and risks: the ostrich with his head in the ground tends to have something come along and bite him in the ass.


We can have safe nuclear energy by massively over-engineering the reactor and support facilities:

Instead of a three-foot thick containment dome, make it 15 feet thick.

Instead of 3 cooling systems, give it seven independent and independently powered cooling systems.

Raise the emergency generators to power the cooling and controls (again multiple independent systems) and their fuel reserve above any possible flood level, like maybe 50 feet in the air.

If it's inside an earthquake zone, where the max expected is 6, build it for a 12.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


A vote for a Libertarian (Paul) is a vote for 'cart blanche' for all industry to act as they see fit. Forget about those wasteful government regulatory commissions that spend all that tax money. The market can decide what's best for us. I hope you know sarcasm when you read it.

Does anyone not realize that we around ticking bombs just waiting to go off everyday? What about our cars. In my experience fire and gasoline has never mixed very well. But in controlled situations it is an acceptable risk, and as safe as anyone can expect, but at any moment, some piece can fail and blow the car to pieces. As they occasionally do.

I do not agree with nuclear power either, hell, I was stationed on a reactor and if that sucker went up there would have been no place to go when I was stationed on a carrier. Never had a problem with it, as long as the proper maintenance and the X factor never showed itself. But the cost is far greater when things go wrong with reactors.

What a surprise, the age ol conservative logic abbys..

. Same as

"Deregulate wall street to prevent corruption!"

"save the environment by removing all environmental standards!"

"Prevent oil spills by lifting all restrictions of abstraction!"

"Nuclear fallout helps the immune system and builds strong bones!"

I suggest

"Cleaning your ass with spent diaper gives you the cleanest ass possible!"

Conservatism is the corporations surety bound...

Because the alternative is contrary to long term ideological goals of "freedom" and non governance...

The obvious counter to the problems above would be a pro active pragmatic approach, but again, that undermines the desired destination so we get the make believe.

"My pa can't be a drunk cause he's my pa!!!"

reply to post by ModernAcademia


What he is implying here is that Nuclear Energy is Designed to be a Safe way to Generate Electricty if Done Correctly . Redundant Safeguard Systems for Containment of the Possible Leakage of Radioactive Material must be incorporated into any Design for a Safe Plant . Considering the News from Japan coming out lately about their Incompentent handling of the present situation just goes to show all of us that sometimes the Wrong People are in Charge of the Wrong things . In Japan's case , it was HUMAN ERROR that caused this Catastrophy in the first place by the Decisions that were made by their Goverment concerning Nuclear Safety procedures . In that regard , Mr. Paul is correct in my eyes of his personal accessment of the Nuclear Power Industry .

The responses are insane

Let's not give up to free market = power to the people

Let's expand govt. reguation, yes that's your choice = let's trust elected mobsters

Insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
The responses are insane

Let's not give up to free market = power to the people

Let's expand govt. reguation, yes that's your choice = let's trust elected mobsters

Insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess we all have a different definition of insanity!(!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Corporations have one motive and that is profit. When some entity can save millions of dollars by opening a

runoff valve full of sludge somewhere it would be nice to know that there is an impartial observer who would blow

the whistle.Large multinational corporations wield the power and influence in this free market. Their influence

(corporate) can be seen from the polluted rivers and lakes of Alberta to the corrupt politicians you mentioned.

In fact it's the large free-market entities that have corrupted many of our politicians and public officials. We need

a new regulatory body for politicians and to ensure corporations have no access to policy decision making.

You guys always come back saying the regulators are ineffective-- we need to make them effective.

To reiterate I believe it is insanity for you to think that unregulated corporations wouldn't tear the world apart in

their quest for profits (see South American agriculture and mining practices).

reply to post by Skewed


Ditto. It's a lot less costly, and costs get amortized over time, to super-engineer a reactor than to clean up the mess afterwards and lose the reactor completely to boot. And there is no substitute for independent outside oversight of reactor operations.

reply to post by Mumbotron


You do know about public/private partnerships and the revolving door between industry and government, correct?

Here, look at this for just one example: www.naturalnews.com...

That is just one example, you can search for many many more (FDA, Dept. of Agi, etc, etc). With that type of thing going on, how am I to trust the "government regulators" anymore than the corporate shills?

There is a balance that needs to be struck and unfortunately, what's going on now in America is fascist in nature, not balanced.

When working correctly, I do believe the free market system is the best for human lives. When the government is working correctly, they ENFORCE contracts, which is how a misbehaving company is punished for misdeeds. When both are in collusion with one another, you have a government implementing corporate policy (Obamacare anyone?).

That's what Libertarians believe, not a free for all... that's anarchy.

Ron Paul is a Doctor and politician, not a nuclear physicist. I like some of his stances...especially the war, but some people make him out to be far more than he really is.

I'm sorry, but to not be worried about potential dirty bombs "nuclear reactors" that would bring catastrophic atrocities to virtually everything in our country is silly.

This is almost as silly as Republicans cutting funding for earthquake and tsunami warnings system right after the carnage we just witnessed not only in Japan but in other countries as well.

I definitely like Ron Paul, but even if he thinks the dangers of nuclear energy are overblown, I probably would've kept this to myself. Definitely honest, but not the best time to express your support.

When everything is said and done, let's see if he feels the same way.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I love how this man calls some folks "The regulatory people"... you mean the folks who make sure your foundations are built to a standard code?

anti-intellectualism at its worst

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


So part of it had to do with bad engineering
So if a plane goes down in Central New York because it was built bad.... should that merit a no fly zone over any non-farmland which would significantly increase flying costs, or just no more flying at all?

I was talking to some colleagues that come from several different countries and that frequent foreign news sources, we were comparing headlines.

The U.S. headlines were much more sensationalist and next thing you know there's a surge in potassium iodide sales.

Thoughts?

I agree completely. I'm no fan of nuclear energy, but the specifics of why this particular 'accident' occurred are being predictably blurred by the majority who don't think critically. This specific plant has a history of problems,

I personally don't think nuclear can ever be 'safe', but I'm willing to hear informed refutations of this belief of mine because i am open to new ideas.

Of course, as this thread shows, it's easier for people to just outright dismiss anyone who dare point out the specifics of this facility than to take a minute and think.

And let's not forget, one of Nuclear's biggest competitors is COAL, and you can snippin well bet that they are jumping all over this to pump their own dirty product.

great thread!

I'm not going to watch the video, but will state the obvious... Dr. Paul is telling us that it's being trumped up so that the suckers out there will spend the $300 to $2500 for potasium iodide being touted on you tube, ebay, and craigslist and then start taking doses of it that'll do more harm than good. He's telling us to be wary of sensationalism that will drag you in, grind you up, and spit you out.