$3.00 per gallon gasoline. Why is everyone so panicked?

Page 4 of 6  
wrote:


For once you acknowledge that this is your opinion.
Have a nice day.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As will the wastes of the chemical industry. If you're afraid of 'terrerrists' then its not hard to stick it in a well guarded lot. Its not easy to steal spent fuel casks that mass tens of tons. It misses the point anyways of there being a better solution to the issue tomarrow than today because it just isnt a problem. Spent fuel hasn't killed anyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cars would be outlawed if we used the numbers game.
Ready to walk an average of 350 miles a week? Or ride a bike?
Why do you want to support terrorist countries? Build nuclear power plants and stop buying their oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Brown <.> wrote:

Cars have the ability to destroy entire landscapes, with pollution that cannot be cleaned up for thousands of years?
You aren't listening.

Non Sequitur.
We use very little crude oil to generate electricity, which is what nuclear power plants do. Allowing nuclear power plants would not change how we travel. It would not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Your claim that buying Canadian and Mexican oil is supporting terrorism is unfounded, grossly in error, and abjectly stupid; but your dishonesty on this topic has been noted previously, so it comes as no surprise.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But we don't buy foriegn oil instead of using nuclear power. I said "very little", you say 3%... which is the same thing.
Regardless *we* don't buy most of our oil from terrorists, and suggesting that our oil purchases support terrorism is abject stupidity.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are not paying attention. We don't buy most of our oil from the Middle East; therefore, even if every country there supports terrorists, _we_ _don't_ _buy_ _most_ _of_ _our_ _oil_ _from_ _countries_ _that_ _support_ _terrorists_.
Unless of course you want to claim that Canada and Mexico support terrorists. They are the source for most of our foreign crude.

So what? That is true, but has *no* bearing on the statement you are commenting on.

So we take our trade elsewhere... it's a free market.

Nuclear power simply wouldn't have any significant effect on our use of oil. As you have admitted, oil is only used for 3% of the power generation in this country.
You also claim nuclear power is safe... except for the extreme danger it presents to millions of people:
"The benefits of nuclear power are relatively safe and cheap power. The risks and costs of nuclear power include the need to handle the nuclear waste on a permanent basis and the risk of a disaster. In addition, the nuclear waste can fall into the hands of a terrorists, which is not good."
A ridiculous contradiction.

Hence it probably is not going to happen. Certainly not as long as Canada, Mexico and other friendly countries continue to sell us a plentiful supply of crude oil.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you do realize you have made an idiot of yourself...
We get what percentage of our oil from the Saudis??? Is that "most" of our oil? We get what percentage from Venezuela? Are the two, even put together, somehow "most" of our oil.
And just because they are run by dictators does not mean they support terrorists.
You just are *not* being very logical.
The *facts* are that for total petroleum products imported (all of 2006), Canada was by far the number one source at 2.3 million barrels/day. Mexico is second by a significant margin, at 1.8m/day. And Venezuela, which is *not* a terrorist country and is not even in or near the Middle East, was third by a larger margin at 1.5m/day. (Crude only numbers are slightly different, but the signficance is the same.)
Saudi Arabia, which really should not be accused of supporting terrorism, was forth on the list with 1.4m/day. Nigeria, another relatively benign country rounded out the top 5 (and the list of all that supply more than a million barrels per day) at 1.2m/day.
So the question for you is just where do you get off claiming we buy most of our oil from Middle Eastern countries that support terrorism?

You can't add, son. Between the two, they provide us with 3.1 million barrels per day of petroleum products (not just crude). That is indeed less than half, but the rest does *not* come from "Middle Eastern countries" supporting terrorism.
In fact, *all* of the Middle Eastern oil that we import amounts less than we import from Canada alone!

You claimed we imported *most*, not just "much" oil from the Middle East. In fact, all totaled our petroleum imports from the Middle East amount to 2.0m barrels a day. That is *all* Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq, combined; and it is less than the 2.3m/day that we import from Canada alone.
We use about 21 million barrels a day, and import less than 10% of that from Middle Eastern countries.

Correct. *WE* are not.

Sure sure. Show us some legitimate figures projected for how that would happen.

Exactly. So you *cannot* claim it is "relatively safe", when millions of people are put at risk. So it obviously *is* a contradiction when you claim otherwise.

Not for *millions* of people from one mistake.

But it only takes *one* mistake to affect *millions* of people.
That is *not* the definition of "relatively safe".

Those individuals may have been Saudi's, but you are wrong to claim that the Saudi's support terrorism. There is *no* way they were supported by the Saudi government, any more than they were supported by the several other countries where they were located while plotting terrorism.
You are not arguing logically.
(On the other hand, ask most Arabs if the US supports terrorism! Ask most Iraqis or Iranians! They are not wrong either.)

And we *don't* do that by putting 10,000,000 people at risk for every power plant we construct! That is an absurd idea.

With the single exception of Iraq, those are relatively friendly countries. We don't buy oil from half of them.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message wrote:

That, to me, is poor thinking. Nuclear power, if not implemented properly, puts millions of people at risk. There are something like 10,000,000 people downwind of the nuclear power plants in Berwick, PA.
There is also something else different. I choose whether to take a bus, train or car. A person doesn't get to choose whether or not to let a power company build a nuclear power plant.

I don't walk that far, but I walk when reasonable, like when I go to the grocery store for small items. I take a car when I want a case of soda.

I don't.

Excellent idea. Also, improve the efficiency of cars, houses, etc., so that we need less energy. This will make us more secure and reduce costs.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No law forces anyone to live in any home or apartment. A nuclear power plant takes MANY years to build, so you would have plenty of time to make plans to move.
The fear of nuclear power plants is based solely on 3-mile island. One plant, one occurrence, period. And from that we received nearly 30 years of people protesting the nuclear power industry. Meanwhile france knows what to do and we act stupid.
Again, a car is, and always will be, more dangerous than living 100 feet away from a nuclear power plant.
NHTSA and other federal agencies publishes the death/injury stats on car wrecks each year.
How many people died from the 3-mile island accident?
Don't mention that "other" one. We don't live in Russia and if Russia had the same rules in place that we have then chernobyl would have never happened. The plant would have been shut down for refit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message wrote: <...>

Don't forget nuclear bombs, Chernobyl and the risk of dirty bombs, which are convential bombs that are contaminated with radioactivity, so that radioactivity would be spread around an area. And there is a general fear of the unknown. So many people would rather live next to a coal-fired power plant than a nuclear plant (actually, I would, too, because the exhaust from the plant is so high up that it affects people miles away, but rarely in the immediate neighborhood).
The biggest risk as far as dirty bombs is concerned is that the radioactivity will come from the former Soviet Union, where oversight of nuclear plants and nuclear waste is a lot less than in the US. Plus Soviet nuclear scientists are a risk, because they are under-employed, making them easier to hire by terrorist organizations.
For the fear of the unknown, think about how so many people are concerned about microwave radiation for cell towers above schools. Again, the antennea are tuned so that the microwave signals and radiation spreads outward, not down. So if cell phones were a risk (almost all studies show they are not), then kids are actually safer with cell towers above them.
The rarity of reports of problems at nuclear power plants might actually be a problem, because people notice them when they occur, unlike car crashes, which occur so often that we don't even pay attention (unless they are in the lanes going in the other direction, when people slow down to look).
Nuclear power plants are actually pretty safe. They require good security, properly trained engineers and proper oversight.
And with the ability to have standardized design, like the big makes of power plants are trying to do, oversight, licensing and engineer would be easier, and the plants safer.

Unless there is a big release of radioactive gas. AFIK, there hasn't been one in the US in the last 25 years. There was one at TMI, but I don't think that release was even a danger.

There is most likely an increase in cancer in those who lived around TMI at the time. http://www.ehponline.org/members/1997/105-1/wing.html
The increase is hard to measure.
Maybe the number is around 10 or 15.
However, coal also release radioactivity. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Small amounts of uranium and thorium are released from the burning of coal. But so much coal is burned, the total amount is not small.
Plus workers are exposed to radioactivity as well as other problems (like being crushed by a mine collapse) during the mining and processing of coal and uranium (for reactors), the building of power plants, the transport of fuel, etc., so it is really hard to calculate the danger to the workers. Overall, I think nuclear comes out as safer.

The problem both with TMI and Chernobyl wasn't just design. There was human error. In the case of TMI, one of the things that made the emergency bigger (I don't call these accidents because they were avoidable) is that the engineers didn't believe their gauges for a while. The folks at Chernobyl weren't following the rules that were in place there, either.
I don't think Chernobyl would be shut down for refit in the US. I think it would just be shut down, for scrap and disposal.
The risk of an emergency the size of Chernobyl is real in the US. But very small, close to zero. With new plant designs, the risk is even closer to zero.
Overall, nuclear power is the lesser of two evils.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is currently, I have two nuclear power plants 'in my back yard' that have been storing nuclear waste under six feet of water since day one. ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, neither Berwick nor TMI is in your back yard.
They were within 100 mi, however, of your back yard. As they were mine.
Perhaps you can talk to the officials at TMI or Berwick, and see if you can move there.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You do not know as much as you think you do. My back yard most of the time is in Delaware, near different plants, but I spend a lot of my time in another of my homes, north of Allentown Pa. located between the TMI or Berwick plants. On a clear day, from the top of the mountain, I can see the vapor from their cooling towers. I've been in the PPL Berwick plant as well as the TVA breeder reactor plant at Oak Ridge Tennessee. ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You've visited two nuclear power plants. Big deal.
You might want to consult a map. Allentown in not between Berwick and TMI. It is about 20 mi. East of the line between these plants. I trained for a couple of months in Allentown, at Lehigh Valley Hospital there, doing internal medicine and intensive care medicine there while in medical school.
Thanks for the laugh about telling someone he doesn't know as much as he thinks. I mean, you thought that the first digit of the VIN indicates US content of vehicles. ;-)
You crack me up.
Maybe you should visit the hospital more. Laughter is good medicine. B-)
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duh, who said my home was in Allentown?
mike
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You also said that you live in the Poconos, which are to the East and North of Allentown.
I am quite familiar with the Pocono area. Not only did I do some of my medical training in Allentown at the Lehigh Valley Hospital and at the Easton Hospital, but I grew up in the area. In fact, the school district which I attended had the name Pocono in it.
Of course, if you didn't report your location accurately, I understand. ;-)
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:13:35 -0400, "Mike Hunter"

'Curious, anyone died there as a direct result of that plant?
As opposed to the deaths from cars and oil/coal factories?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.