It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Nuclear Sites, Are They Worth The Risk?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Einstein put it best when he said, "Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water."

Love how that man was always so concise in getting his point across.

Yup, nuclear power is a friggin joke.
"Duh... Let's boil water to make steam to spin a turbine to make energy. Oh look boys, a steam powered engine !"

Pfft. Neanderthal technology.
We really are still swinging around in the trees, aren't we ?





posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 


Those turbines ain't gonna turn themselves.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Einstein put it best when he said, "Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water."

Love how that man was always so concise in getting his point across.

Yup, nuclear power is a friggin joke.
"Duh... Let's boil water to make steam to spin a turbine to make energy. Oh look boys, a steam powered engine !"

Pfft. Neanderthal technology.
We really are still swinging around in the trees, aren't we ?



I'm sure your many years in power engineering has given you a unique insight on how to do this better.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Apparently you're power engineering expertise is unfamiliar with hydrinos, or Rossi reactors, or temperature differentials between electrodes, or....

... and the list goes on.

Eventually the nuclear proponent shills and their billions of dollars in revenue will get voted off the island.

Time to wake up and smell the economic factor.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred


Greetings:


For the energy required to mine and transport uranium to power nuclear plants they use, guess what, nuclear energy!

Would you happen to have sources, links, and factual evidence to back up this assertion? Nuclear-powered mining equipment and nuclear-powered vehicles? We would actually be interested in this technology. Please share it with us.

Meanwhile, let's talk turkey.

The snarky comment about the North Georgia Mountains did not go unnoticed.


Like I said, we should have started converting to nuclear power years ago. The facts are that

nuclear power provides a cheap alternative to fossil-fuel-based sources of electricity. With comparable capital and operating costs, and a mere fraction of the fuel costs, it can provide electricity at 50-80 percent of the price of traditional sources. It is extremely reliable, and is by far the cleanest of any viable energy source currently known.

When you lifted that comment from Kuro-Kuro - We Should Go Nuclear - you "forgot" the first line.


In the midst of power shortages and rising energy costs, nuclear power would be a practical solution to our energy problems.

Nuclear power provides a cheap alternative to fossil-fuel-based sources of electricity. With comparable capital and operating costs, and a mere fraction of the fuel costs, it can provide electricity at 50-80 percent of the price of traditional sources. It is extremely reliable, and is by far the cleanest of any viable energy source currently known.[1]
Kuro-Kuro

Are we having fun yet?


In America today the nuclear industry ranks among the safest places to work. It experiences only 0.34 accidents resulting in lost work time per 200,000 workers compared to an average of 3.1 throughout the private industry. In the past 40 years, hundreds of thousands have died as a result of coal mining and other forms of energy production, yet there has not been a single fatality, or even a serious injury, resulting from the operation of civilian nuclear plants in the United States. The annual probability of radiation leakage for the newest reactors is estimated at less than one in a billion--a level of safety no other source of energy can even approach.

When you lifted that comment from Knol - The Misconception of Nuclear Power - you "forgot" the first line.


Its safety record is also exemplary.

In America today, the nuclear industry ranks among the safest places to work. It experiences only 0.34 accidents resulting in lost work time per 200,000 worker-hours, compared with a 3.1 average throughout private industry. While during the past 40 years, hundreds of thousands have died as a result, directly and indirectly, of coal mining and other means of energy production, there has not been a single fatality, or even a serious injury, resulting from the operation of civilian nuclear plants in the United States. The annual probability of radiation leakage for the newest reactors is estimated at less than one in a billion–a level of safety no other source of energy can even approach.
Knol

Not again?!!


The truth here is that

the opposition to nuclear power is based not on science, but on hostility to science and technology.

This is the exact quote:


The opposition to nuclear power is based, not on science, but on a hostility to science, technology and capitalism.
Ayn Rand Center

We may not have the PhD, but we do have original thoughts.

While you continue to shill for the nuclear industry, on this, and other threads, at least have the courtesy to source your comments correctly and not take credit for other people's words.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Time to wake up and smell the economic factor.


You mean the fact that it's cheaper than other power?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
Would you happen to have sources, links, and factual evidence to back up this assertion? Nuclear-powered mining equipment and nuclear-powered vehicles? We would actually be interested in this technology. Please share it with us.


en.wikipedia.org...

Quite a few ships are powered by nuclear energy, in fact the USS Enterprise has eight nuclear reactors.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: Oh, and all the icebreakers are nuclear powered, it's the most feasible way of running them.

en.wikipedia.org...


Do you know how hard international trade would be without those babies?
edit on 23-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
Would you happen to have sources, links, and factual evidence to back up this assertion? Nuclear-powered mining equipment and nuclear-powered vehicles? We would actually be interested in this technology. Please share it with us.


en.wikipedia.org...

Quite a few ships are powered by nuclear energy, in fact the USS Enterprise has eight nuclear reactors.

en.wikipedia.org...


Greetings:

Just for once, please attempt to stick to the point you made, and answer the question, if you can.


For the energy required to mine and transport uranium to power nuclear plants...

Thank you for your time and consideration.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Apparently you're power engineering expertise is unfamiliar with hydrinos, or Rossi reactors, or temperature differentials between electrodes, or....


So if Cold fusion nuclear energy could be perfected you'd be okay with it?



Eventually the nuclear proponent shills and their billions of dollars in revenue will get voted off the island.


Yeah, because those oil companies definitely aren't greedy and making billions every year. I'm sure what happened last year with BP in the Gulf of Mexico proves that.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thorfourwinds

Greetings:

Just for once, please attempt to stick to the point you made, and answer the question, if you can.


You asked for examples of nuclear powered vehicles, I showed you.


Are ships not vehicles?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Greetings:

Meanwhile, back to the Fukushima World-Killer Nuke Meltdowns and the [color=limegreen]continuing radiation poising of our land, food and children - 24/7/365.

zorgon, what is your take on this?


Well, I spent three weeks following that Fukushima story doggedly... then in the end I found out three things...

1) Except for a handful of people and those that live in the area... NO ONE CARES...

2) We are still here... 1000's of nuke tests (especially near my home town) medical radiation, space radiation, CME's, cell tower radiation, microwave radiation... etc etc.. and we are STILL HERE.. and world population is increasing exponentially

3) Radiation is good for you


Greetings:

Thank you for your insightful and timely response.

1) We have been attempting to sound the alarm in the many nuke-related threads in our signature, and have come to the same conclusion: NO ONE CARES...

However, having spent the last six weeks on the road in the Hurricane Irene-ravaged areas of North Carolina, we were amazed - no, dumfounded - that [color=limegreen]NOT ONE PERSON we spoke with (including fellow First Responder Volunteer Firepersons) had any clue about Fukushima 24/7/365.

The Captain of the local department said that "there is no problem, or the USGOV/EPA would alert us, and it would be on television, right? (!???!)

Revised Conclusion: The people have been denied the basic information to make informed decisions as to how best "handle" the radiation poisoning nightmare.

2) Never thought that you would not be (there) "here" - after all, who would want to leave that pool? And whatever happens in "here" (there) stays in "here," (there), right mate?

3) You and Ann Coulter make such a great pair...

Glad to be back.

As we have been attempting to bring to light for over six months (!), there exists a world-wide conspiracy in the MSM to deprive the public of the facts regarding the dire consequences of the melt-throughs of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi.

Please listen up, people.

Your life and the lives of your loved ones may very well depend on your access to and use thereof of potentially life-saving information being kept from you by the EPA/USGOV.

The total number of days between Friday, March 11th, 2011 and Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 is 214 days.

The radiation poisoning of our people, food and land has continued unabated - 24/7/365 - for exactly 7 months.

For your edification and enjoyment (bewilderment), a few 'notable' stories that seemed to miss mass circulation and perhaps a peek at what might have been missed on the 6:00 o'clock news...:

Three days into the disaster, this FOR EYES ONLY memo circulated at the NRC.

14 March 2011
NRC ONLY Update – All 3 Reactor Cores Likely Damaged

15 March 2011
Fukushima Daiichi Units Degrading – Zirconium Fire at Reactor 4 SFP – Reactor 2 Possible Reactor Vessel Breach & Ex-Vessel Core Reaction

My goodness gracious! And we thought they (TEPCO/JAPGOV) said they had this "stabilized..." and presumably under control...

At least, that is what they (and the EPA/USGOV) would have you believe.

Fast-forward about six months to more headlines you may have missed in your local media:

21 August 2011
Fukushima Officials Worry New Discovery of Radioactive Beef Will Harm Reputation More After Farmer Confirms Cattle Not Fed Contaminated Rice Straw


21 August 2011
4,000 Potentially Radioactive Cows Without Radioactive Rice Hay May Have Been Shipped from One Farm in Namie-Machi, Fukushima

29 August 2011
Why the Fukushima Disaster Is Worse Than Chernobyl

31 August 2011
France Releases Map of Cesium-137 Deposition Across the Pacific – Shows the US More Contaminated Than Western Japan



[color=limegreen]Will this insanity ever end?


In Peace, Love & Light

tfw







 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join