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.

 

Two United States nuclear power plants are on alert!

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by moosevernel
really..?

and here i was thinking it is worse than what it was made out to be (admitted by the ceo of the power company aswell). And what media hype was this, most media here stopped reporting about fukishima after a week.

If your so confident its not that bad i suggest you travel to fukishima, maybe go lie in the sand, take a dip in the sea, then go for a tour of the nuclear facilities and surrounding areas and see how good you feel.


Are paid to spout this crap??

Are you an employee of a nuclear power company??
edit on 22/6/11 by moosevernel because: (no reason given)


Like I said in another thread, If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding.

And like I said, comparing a nuclear power plant built in the 60's to a modern nuclear power plant is like comparing a WWI biplane to a F/A-18 jet.


Most opposition to nuclear power arises from ignorance. The only viable alternative to fossil fuels for the world is nuclear power, and nuclear power is superior in every way to any kind of fossil fuel.




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


They (Japan) just had another one...6.7. Like....a few minutes ago!

If the Earth continues to quake and rumble with spewing volcano's we may be in for a multitude of disasters and the Nuclear plants will not help. I can guarantee that statement to be a fact.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred
 


Im sorry to say this but please by all means, look around and take the blinders off. Europe will indeed be obliterated if that huge Volcano blows...its quaking there and everywhere. Volcano's around the globe are spewing and more are on alert. We have no idea whats going on in the ocean with the residents (dying off in thousands) not to mention the volcano's that are spewing underneath as well.


Not one person has ever been killed by nuclear power in Europe. It's kind of funny that a continent who relies heavily on nuclear power, Europe, has never had a nuclear power related death but has hundreds of thousands of deaths annually related to literally every other power source except for solar. Please look at the facts before claiming that nuclear power is not safe.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred
 


They (Japan) just had another one...6.7. Like....a few minutes ago!

If the Earth continues to quake and rumble with spewing volcano's we may be in for a multitude of disasters and the Nuclear plants will not help. I can guarantee that statement to be a fact.


Modern nuclear power plants are much more resistant to natural disasters than power plants built in the 60's, I really can't stress this enough. That's like looking at early WWI planes and how unsafe they were, then using that information to imply that modern planes are unsafe. It's a logical fallacy.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


That's funny....I do look at the facts! That is why I am wondering why you are saying the opposite. I do not know why it is that two people can read site after site explaining the risks and costs and one not "see" and understand the writing.

Its not safe and the risks out way the pros. Period.

Solution: Figure out how we can adapt without it otherwise we are facing extinction from numerous issues and this one we speak of right now does not help...only hinders.

My kids and the future generations depend on "smart" solutions that will enable life!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
For those who don't know,

Nosred's avatar is called "vault boy".

It's from a video game called Fallout 3, which takes place after nuclear holocaust where people stayed underground in vaults to stay away from radiation.

Go figure eh???

edit on 22-6-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)


And if you played that game you would know that the radiation they had to stay away from came about as a result of a nuclear war, and that the reason the nuclear war got started was because the world's governments were fighting over the last remaining oil on Earth, since the world had never been fully transitioned to nuclear power.

Now back on topic.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Also, since you are so quick to run with Europe..comment after comment about how they depend on it. I really hope they do not go through anything major as you will indeed wish you would not have publicly signed your name to this forum/comments.

I feel for them as they know not what they are doing to their people. The risk is just too high. We should all take note of what has happened in the past.

We should also take note of the drilling. Its killing us!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Please tell me how the cons of the most modern nuclear reactor which you can see here,

en.wikipedia.org...

outweigh the pros. Then please explain to me how relying on fossil fuels is better than adopting this.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred
 


Also, since you are so quick to run with Europe..comment after comment about how they depend on it. I really hope they do not go through anything major as you will indeed wish you would not have publicly signed your name to this forum/comments.


I so firmly believe in the safety of nuclear power that I'm willing to take that risk. If any nuclear disasters happen at a nuclear power plant in Europe I'll eat my hat.



We should also take note of the drilling. Its killing us!


Oil drilling is, that's one thing we can agree on.

Speaking of which, after the BP Gulf of Mexico spill you definitely can't tell me nuclear power is worse than relying so heavily on oil.

Edit: Here are a few links that explain a little more in depth than I can why nuclear power is safe.

www.csmonitor.com...

www.world-nuclear.org...

www.howitworksdaily.com...
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: And here's a little more info about the Fukushima accident, and I'll post this quote from the article for those of you who think Fukushima was the end of the world.


On 4 April radiation levels of 0.06 mSv/day were recorded in Fukushima city, 65 km northwest of the plant, about 60 times higher than normal but posing no health risk according to authorities. Monitoring beyond the 20 km evacuation radius to 13 April showed one location - around Iitate - with up to 0.266 mSv/day dose rate, but elsewhere no more than one tenth of this. The safety limit set by the central government in mid April for public recreation areas is 3.8 microsieverts per hour (0.09 mSv/day).

No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened as of May 31. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA on 7 June.


www.world-nuclear.org...

edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Modern nuclear power plants are much more resistant to natural disasters than power plants built in the 60's, I really can't stress this enough. That's like looking at early WWI planes and how unsafe they were, then using that information to imply that modern planes are unsafe. It's a logical fallacy.



According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977.

wiki.answers.com...

Not exactly recent. It is only a matter of time before we have a nuclear catastrophe in the US.


The time-bomb of aging US nuclear reactors revealed: Federal regulators have been working closely with the US nuclear power industry to keep the nation's ageing reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them. Time after time, officials at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

www.guardian.co.uk...

You are never going to convince me that Nuclear energy is safe, especially when it is in the hands of greedy b*stards. Excuse my French.


edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: Fixed Quote



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Yeah, because they're not allowed to build modern nuclear power plants because of ignorant people who thinks it's not safe. The fact that America hasn't had a single nuclear power related accident in 50 years of commercial nuclear power using outdated technology is a testament to its safety.

Oh yeah, and those greedy b*stards control every other form of energy as well, even wind power and solar power.

Edit: If solar power was as efficient as nuclear power, I'd be a supporter of solar power instead since it's pretty superior in all aspects other than efficiency and sheer amount of space taken up.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Any reliance on man made energy is retarded, we must harness the powers given to us. Solar, wind, and water. Not be greedy and try to explore space. It's not time for that. Not how the world is now..



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JJShinobi
 


Atoms aren't a power given to us?

Not to mention that dams break and screw up wildlife; and solar power and wind power are unreliable and well, screw up wildlife by taking up significant amounts of land.

Fossil fuel goes without saying when it comes to hurting the environment.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
That is unfortunate, but fortunately we can all watch the government make fools out of themselves when they lie in public again and again about how safe we are from radiation (but not terrorists, more TSA needed, less giger counters).



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DisinfoDude
 


The government's the one who made it next to impossible to build nuclear power plants in the first place, the people who make claims about its safety are scientists who are experts in this type of stuff.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Yeah, because they're not allowed to build modern nuclear power plants because of ignorant people who thinks it's not safe. The fact that America hasn't had a single nuclear power related accident in 50 years of commercial nuclear power using outdated technology is a testament to its safety.


The Three Mile Island accident happened in 1979. Your statement is only off by 18 years.
The fact that there are no new Nuclear plants in the US have been built recently, only lends support to the fact that the ones we have are old and in many cases operating much longer than their intended lifespan, and thus, less safe than many claim.

It resulted in the release of 40,000 gallons of radioactive waste water directly in the Susquehanna River. I call that an accident. What do you call it?
edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

The Three Mile Island accident happened in 1979. Your statement is only off by 18 years.
The fact that there are no new Nuclear plants in the US only lends support to the fact that the ones we have are old and in many cases operating much longer than their intended lifespan, and thus, less safe than many claim.
edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)


The Three Mile Island accident killed exactly zero people, and the amount of radiation people in the area were exposed to was less than you get from a commercial airline flight. The only reason Three Mile Island even got any media attention was because a fictional movie about nuclear power had been released a few days before the accident.

The reason our nuclear plants are getting old is because of all the restrictions that were put in place to prevent the building of new nuclear power plants, mostly called for by people who are ignorant of how safe nuclear power actually is.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: For comparison, Three Mile Island killed less people than robot attacks. A Ford factory worker was killed when a robot hit him on the head thus making robot attacks outrank Three Mile Island's death toll 1-0.

Do you see how ridiculous this is getting?
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


For more reference, Three Mile Island killed less people than moose attacks.
www.vs.gov.bc.ca...

Should we outlaw moose now?
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
The Three Mile Island accident killed exactly zero people, and the amount of radiation people in the area were exposed to was less than you get from a commercial airline flight.


You may like to investigate this before you reach that conclusion. If you believe everything the supporters of Nuclear power claim, then you are only getting one side of the story...the side they want you and me to hear.



The Radiation and Public Health Project cited calculations by Joseph Mangano—who has authored 19 medical journal articles and a book on Low Level Radiation and Immune Disease—that reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident. [P^ a b c d e Mangano, Joseph (September/October 2004). "Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Metapress) 60 (5): 30–35. doi:10.2968/060005010. ISSN 0096-3402. Retrieved March 31, 2009.]

en.wikipedia.org...


This one does not focus specifically on Three Mile Island, but rather, those living in close proximity to nuclear plants.

As of November 2010, Radiation and Public Health Project members have published 27 medical journal articles on health risks from radioactive exposures to nuclear reactors and weapons tests. RPHP has conducted the only[citation needed] study of in body radiation near U.S. nuclear plants. It studied 5,000 baby teeth, the results of which were published in 5 medical journal articles. High and rising levels of strontium-90 in baby teeth were found near reactors. Other RPHP studies have found elevated rates of childhood, thyroid, and other cancers near reactors. The work of the Radiation and Public Health Project has been criticized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a statement citing only one other peer-reviewed publication besides those of the RPHP.[6]

A set of 85,000 teeth that had been collected by Dr. Louise Reiss and her colleagues as part of the Baby Tooth Survey were uncovered in 2001 and given to the Radiation and Public health Project. By tracking the individuals who had participated in the tooth-collection project, the RHPR published results in a 2010 issue of the International Journal of Health Service that showed that those children who later died of cancer before the age of 50 had levels of strontium 90 in their stored baby teeth that was twice the level of those who were still alive at 50.[7][8]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
You may like to investigate this before you reach that conclusion.


I did, and like I said not one person died or was even seriously injured. Moose have literally hurt and killed more people than Three Mile Island did so it kind of seems like you're grasping at straws here.


If you believe everything the supporters of Nuclear power claim, then you are only getting one side of the story...the side they want you and me to hear.


I listen to the people who have Ph.D's and who are experts on this stuff, so unless you have a Ph.D in nuclear energy or can provide me with a reliable source supporting your side of the "Nuclear power being dangerous" story, you're going to sound ignorant.

Edit: About this,


This one does not focus specifically on Three Mile Island, but rather, those living in close proximity to nuclear plants.

As of November 2010, Radiation and Public Health Project members have published 27 medical journal articles on health risks from radioactive exposures to nuclear reactors and weapons tests. RPHP has conducted the only[citation needed] study of in body radiation near U.S. nuclear plants. It studied 5,000 baby teeth, the results of which were published in 5 medical journal articles. High and rising levels of strontium-90 in baby teeth were found near reactors. Other RPHP studies have found elevated rates of childhood, thyroid, and other cancers near reactors. The work of the Radiation and Public Health Project has been criticized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a statement citing only one other peer-reviewed publication besides those of the RPHP.[6]

A set of 85,000 teeth that had been collected by Dr. Louise Reiss and her colleagues as part of the Baby Tooth Survey were uncovered in 2001 and given to the Radiation and Public health Project. By tracking the individuals who had participated in the tooth-collection project, the RHPR published results in a 2010 issue of the International Journal of Health Service that showed that those children who later died of cancer before the age of 50 had levels of strontium 90 in their stored baby teeth that was twice the level of those who were still alive at 50.[7][8]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment


You conveniently left out this part of that same wikipedia article,


Among the errors were: small sample sizes used to draw far-reaching conclusions; no control populations; no other cancer risk factors considered; no environmental sampling and analysis; cherry-picking of data to fit the conclusion; and an incorrect half-life used for strontium-90. As such, the results have not changed the opinion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that there is no excess cancer risk from living near nuclear facilities.


And I have sources that argue against that as well such as,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Critics of nuclear energy always seem to alter the facts to suit their agenda. Kind of sad really.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


I find all of that acceptable. If everyone has a solar panel, a mini wind farm- it would be good. Who said you can't live with this on your land? When it get's to the point of harming the land more than what these things can do, than we should find alternatives. Courage the Cowardly dog but with solar panels.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join