It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SalientSkivvy
reply to post by Shura
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the same guy was claiming wind turbines are more dangerous to people then nuclear plants... lol.
Originally posted by thorfourwinds
Originally posted by Nosred
Generation III reactors have been operational since 1996 and not one person has ever been injured or hurt by one. Hundreds of people are injured and killed by wind turbines every year, and hundreds of coal miners are killed every year, and countless people die of lung cancer every year from air pollution.
Saying these reactors are more dangerous than current power sources is ignorant when you look at the facts.
OK, Since you seem reticent to supply facts to back up your assertions, here are some for your edification and enjoyment.
A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs.
Improvements in reactor technology result in a longer operational life (60 years of operation, extendable to 120+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and reactor pressure vessel replacement) compared with currently used generation II reactors (designed for 40 years of operation, extendable to 80+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and RPV replacement).
Furthermore, core damage frequencies for these reactors are lower than for Generation II reactors —
60 core damage events per 1000 million reactor–year for the EPR;
[color=limegreen]3 core damage events per 1000 million reactor–year for the ESBWR
significantly lower than the
10,000 core damage events per 1000 million reactor–year for BWR/4 generation II reactors.
Now, don't you feel a lot better? What kind of bravo sierra is this?
The first generation III reactors were built in Japan, while several others have been approved for construction in Europe. A Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is scheduled to become operational in Sanmen, China in 2013.
That makes us feel a whole lot better.
Originally posted by kissitgoodbye
According to Breaking News on the Weather Channel, June 23, 2011 at 9:45 pm central time
The nuclear plant has been preparing for the flooding since May 30. More than 5,000 tons of sand has been brought in to construct barricades around it and access roads, according to NPPD. Should water levels engulf the facility, forcing closure and repairs, energy bills in the area would be likely to rocket to cover the cost. 'In that case we may have to raise rates,' a spokeswoman said. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... z1QF0wz89d
Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by RoyalBlue
There was several feet of flooding, it would've cost a lot of money to fix any type of power plant.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Nosred
You have to get up right next to a wind turbine to get hurt.
It is easier to just stay away from alligators or wind turbines in order to achieve 100% safety.
There is really no where to run when you have the entire atmosphere and oceans contaminated. And last I checked the contamination created by wind turbines and alligators is negligible to the atmosphere and ocean.
Ok now you know why. So if you would kindly stop spreading misinformation (which is totally out of context)...I would appreciate that.
And implying directly that wind turbines are more dangerous than nuclear power plants is totally absurd and only works with out of context assertions exactly like the ones you made.
Do wind turbines cause more contamination of the surrounding atmosphere, soil, water; than a nuclear plant when it goes into full meltdown?
Can wind turbine accidents in China affect me in the United States? What about massive nuclear pollution?
Which one is the most dangerous in reality? It's clearly obvious.
Originally posted by RoyalBlue
Yeah, the damn nuclear biilionaires can pay for it, too!!! Instead of passing it off onto the average citizens who just lost, or are going to lose everything!!! WTF is wrong with this country???