On 22 Mar 2007 15:00:00 -0700, "larry moe 'n curly"
Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant is less than 8 miles from this house and
I couldn't give less of a damn. It's safe. I recall in school some of
the engineers came to talk about the odds of a disaster. It was 1 in
some many billions. They said we had a greater chance of being hit by
10-20 meteorites at the same time than an accident of any degree from
the power plant.
It's in Chattanooga and run by TVA in case you wanted to know.
p.s. I used to live less than 2 miles from it, you could see the
flashing lights from the cooling towers at night. I had relatives who
lived across the street from the plant for decades, none died before
they were 75 years old.
It's a bunch of hype about nuclear power plants being dangerous.
TNT plants are VERY dangerous.
Now I live near some of those very HUGE Gasoline storage tanks, about
10 all bunched together. My risk of death increased 10,000% compared
to the nuke plant.
Actually, Environmentalists will want you to breath a lot more. You make a
lot less CO2 walking to the train station or to work or whatever than your
You the comments that you and Mike make about "environuts" are really
stupid, IMHO, because they don't encourage discourse. We all have to share
this planet. One way to get along is to show respect to each other.
"Environmentalists" yes, but not the "Environuts" who are trying to force
legislation. . You of course are free to believe whatever you choose, but
respect must be earned. The fact is environmental extremists do more harm
than good in our efforts to clean up where we can. More level headed
environmentalist have been speaking out about those. like Al Gore, who over
represent and exaggerate environmental problems to gain attention to their
extremists views of the problems .
The history of the automobile industry since 1970 is a prime example. I
personally witnessed that forcing our industry, by demand, to spend billions
to jury rig contemporary technology to meet environmental and safety
standards by dates certain, rather than allowing us to meet those same goals
by developing new technology in new vehicles with the same funds over the
same amount of time, merely delayed by nearly fifteen years todays
technologically advanced automobiles.
As usual, when you say something about believing what I want, you usually
are expressing your opinion.
Global heating is going to be a real problem if we don't do something about
it. Almost all leaders of developed countries, including Pres. Bush, have
come to this conclusion.
Your last paragraph doesn't make sense. The regulations required that
certain goals be met. The car makers were free to make those standards
however they wanted. They had the choice on how to meet the standards, with
new technology or old. The people who made the standards had plenty of time
to meet the standards.
But, as you say, you can choose to believe what you want.
Why do you like to comment on subjects of which you have little or no
knowledge. First one must understand the problem, obviously you do not.
To meet those goals by times certain we need to re-engineer what we were
building or we could not sell vehicles until we developed totally new types
of vehicles. Had we been allowed to work on new technoclgy rather than jury
rig we cold ahv ahd tocay cars on the market in the late eightes. Get a
I guess I must bow to you superior knowledge of what happened back then..
After all I was only working on those engineering changes at the time, not
going to nursing school at the time like your LOL
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.