Nuclear Event in USA on Thursday, 18 August, 2011 at 08:46 (08:46 AM) UTC.

nuclear power is overrated and heavily subsidized to make it appear cheaper

www.getsolar.com...

At this point in history, if all government liability loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies were removed in the energy industry, SOLAR would be the most profitable energy source.

Nuclear, coal and oil plants cost more to build and insure than a couple different varieties of the latest solar plants, and require the purchase of fuel that keeps rising in price. Solar plants cost less to build (at least some of them), and have no future fuel costs, and cost less to insure. Without insurance breaks, nuclear is less profitable that solar. Without subsidies, coal and oil are less profitable than solar. Without government, companies would follow the money to solar.

the dangers of nuclear energy are the result of not using thorium, because you cant make bombs out of the waste products [ Pu].

oh, and the leftover waste? just dump it in somebody else's back yard and make money doing so:

From Hiroshima to Iraq, 61 years of uranium wars A suicidal, genocidal, omnicidal course

Originally posted by mikeybiznaz
reply to post by angelchemuel

 

Oh dear, they will all parish! [heavy sarcasm] Doncha think we learned from Japan a nuclear plant incident doesnt mean death and cancer to all inhabitants.

My brother I urge you to understand the severity of these Nuclear situations, both past and present.

Either that or become a spokesman for the "Ignorance is still bliss" campaign.

reply to post by MarshMallow_Snake


its callled memory,
u know ,

u see something,
and then later u recall it,
when u see something else exactly the same...?

not sure why i got some stars for my comment,
AND some follow up support,

but your comment??? no stars, no support...

sorry,
but i think there are already TOO MANY threads that are a waste of space,
we do not need to duplicate them...



seeya

Hey ATS, when did this web site become only for agree'ers and the ones that don't suck up to the op are outcasts????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
how many nuke sites are there in the whole world and military ships and god knows the nuke energy in space even the core of the earth a nuke event and 3 plants have issues in all time of history shake up 6 people on this thread.If it were possible I would be receiving death threats because I support responsible nuke energy mostly because its safe and nearest free.

Click here for more information.

Yeah, the safety of nuclear technology as practiced by the military is well known. I mean it's not like they've had more than 50 incidents in the history of it's use.

Wait what?

You mean they have? Oh, my bad...

And as to it's price tag of "nearest free" let's consider the fact that nuclear waste products remain dangerous for LONGER THAN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.

I'm not sure my latter point was clear enough:

The major problem of nuclear waste is what to do with it. In fact, one of the biggest (and perhaps the single biggest) expenses of the nuclear power industry could eventually be the storage of nuclear waste. Currently there are several ways in which nuclear waste is stored. Most of these methods are temporary. In most cases a viable long-term solution for waste storage has yet to be found. This is because the time period for storage is so incredibly long, on the order of thousands of years.

emphasis mine
source

Imagine a football field packed 20 feet high with highly radioactive nuclear waste. That's about the volume of the 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stranded at dozens of nuclear sites across the U.S.

It isn't just a potential public health hazard, as Japan's recent nuclear disaster showed, but a growing burden on the federal government's groaning finances.

Wall Street Journal (strange this shows as subscriber only content when I click the link, but I got it from a straight google search and am not a subscriber)

But first, after years of delay, the plan to stash nuclear waste deep inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain has come to a halt. But there is a similar project under way on an island off the coast of Finland, at a site called Onkalo. Workers are there tunneling into bedrock, carving out a series of chambers that may someday be home to 12,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

My next guest has made a film about that project. The film is called "Into Eternity," and storing nuclear waste long-term pretty much amounts to an eternity. According to this film, at least in terms of human lifespan, this project aims to store waste there for about 100,000 years. How do you plan for 100,000 years? How do you communicate the dangers of this waste being there, for humans 100,000 years from now, if there are humans a few hundred thousand years from now?

You mean we have to think about telling our descendants about the dangers of nuclear waste considering the possibility that all known languages will be extinct and possibly even our entire culture?

Mr. MADSEN: But of course I was also thinking that 100,000 years from now would most likely, in my mind, also mean another kind of human beings. It's perhaps 100,000 years that we left Africa, the human, the Homo sapiens species; 40,000 years ago in Europe there were Neanderthals, a different kind of human species.

more

Mr. MADSEN: Yes, that was perhaps the most eerie surprise for me in my research, my initial research trip, to learn that perhaps it would be best if everything is forgotten.

The difficulty with this project is, of course, the same thing which perhaps led to nuclear power in the first place, human ingenuity, which is based on curiosity, to find out about things. And curiosity is perhaps the main threat to this facility in the future.

FLATOW: That some people might want to just dig it up.

Mr. MADSEN: Yes.

FLATOW: To find out - if you think what we do now, when we find something 100,000 years old, we want to dig it up.

You don't think our far removed offspring might not be curious as to what lay behind any signs (assuming they survive) telling them to go no further?

Mr. MADSEN: There's a very interesting difference between the United States and Finland, because in Finland they're talking about 100,000 years; in the States it's one million years for the same type of waste.

Oh that's much better, isn't it?

NPR

So, wanna remind me about how cheap and safe this all is?

reply to post by mikeybiznaz


hi - I was talking about fukushima

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

the dangers of nuclear energy are the result of not using thorium, because you cant make bombs out of the waste products [ Pu].

oh, and the leftover waste? just dump it in somebody else's back yard and make money doing so:

Right! Not only that, the elevated disaster-critical-fuel-pools are only solved via thorium or other advanced reactors (over the next 50 years). Keeping 50 year old plants going while ignoring the problems and not repairing basic systems is beyond stupid. WTF USA? WTF? I used to feel proud of my nation but with this delapedated crap happening my pride is reduced to what it used to be while hoping to survive the corrupt devastation these dayz. I really hope there's something better happening in secret but i seriously doubt that.

reply to post by angelchemuel


Fifteen years ago most of us would never have heard of this event and like many others it would have been swept under the carpet.
I'm not being flippant but Tritium is only mildly radioactive (relatively) and is used for glow-in-the-dark watches, gun sights etc. Hopefully, contamination should be easy to spot and remove in the dark.

Does anyone have a link to the video NASA released where they insinuated a caution to stay away from water in certain parts, I forget which areas they were talking about

reply to post by lostjohnny


15 years ago....erm...let me think...Chernobil...1986, 25 years ago...heard about that one.
Rainbows
Jane

Originally posted by mikeybiznaz
reply to post by angelchemuel

 

Oh dear, they will all parish! [heavy sarcasm] Doncha think we learned from Japan a nuclear plant incident doesnt mean death and cancer to all inhabitants.

You fool, death from these types of incidents are not swift, they are slow and agonizing deaths that take years to become serious.

reply to post by DieBravely


and the Vermont incident didn't just happen. ....Next bandwagon please