Re: Nuclear power

But wildlife does.

But not eliminated.

References to back your claims, please.

Doubling the number of people who use almost no energy will have very little effect on the amount of energy used.

Doubling the number of people who use a lot of energy, like the people in the US, will have a large impact in the amount of energy used.

The problem is not just the number of people, but the amount of energy some groups of people use compared to others.

You would ignore the resultant birth defects because you don't happen to like the analogy or way in which I describe a problem? That's pretty narrow minded.

Why you would want to continue to post on the subject of nuclear power when don't not what you are talking about seems rather strange at best. For one to even suggests nuclear power plants lead to birth defects is absurd.

mike hunt

Why do you want to cover up or ignore the hazards of nuclear power? Perhaps you are not willing to admit to the hazards, preferring to ignore them in a rush for more power at any price; at any risk?

That ignores everything science and medicine have learned over decades about the dangers of exposure to radiation and what it does to cells. It ignores what the Russians have experience as a result of a failure to contain it. It ignores acknowledged leakage into the ground water systems in our own country from the storage of the waste.

The plants themselves do not lead to birth defects, death, etc. But, when there is a failure of the containment system, a price is paid.

You are pro nuke. Fine. I happen to be pro nuke as well because it happens to be the only thing which will, for the foreseeable future, help meet the needs of the globe. Where we differ in recognizing the hazards.

I don't recall having told you that because you do not agree with me you should shut up on the subject. Nor have I intentionally, and I hope not even accidentally, indicated that you are stupid and know nothing about the subject, as you have inferred about me. I don't know about you, but i have had to wear the suit and detector badges, and scrub down. I've spent hours in the classroom being trained for such events. I think I have some knowledge of the subject.

I merely suggest you might want to stop posting on this subject since you opinion about nuclear power is not based on facts..You may know much about nuclear radiation but you know little about the operation of a US nuclear power generating plant, with your wrong headed efforts to connect the two. Disposal of nuclear waste from a power station is indeed a political problem, but it is not a scientific problem If you knew how the pellets are handled after they have served their purpose, you would know that. Your equating nuclear power, as used in a US power generating station, with fusion is ridicules. There could not be a nuclear explosion in a power plant if one wanted to cause one. You are simply adding to the nuclear hysteria in this country buy posting such crap in a NG. With every post you prove you do not know anything about nuclear power as used to produced electricity in the US, or the storage and disposal of the used material.

If you want to know about the safe use of nuclear power, talk to a US sailor. Every submarine and carrier is nuclear steam powered and has been for many years. Talk to the thousands of people that go to work every day in nuclear power plants in the US, France or Japan where the used material is now stored under six foot of water and ask them if they are afraid to go to work. My one son is the Manager of a nuclear power plant, when I showed him some of your posts he just shook his head and said, I know we have been fighting a grossly ill-informed public for years over thirty.

mike hunt

Mike, Pot meet kettle.

You stated that nuclear reactors are cooled by graphite.

When you know what you are talking about, then start talking.

See above.

What's nuclear steam?

Mike is an example of that ill-informed public, apparently.

Jeff

If you don't know that nuclear power is used to make the steam to runs a ships turbine engines, and the turbine that runs the generators in a power station, there is no use trying to teach you anything LOL

mike hunt

The steam is not nuclear, however.

Jeff

And if you don't know the hazards of that propulsion system, talk to the widows and orphans from the submarine Kirsk. And ask any submariner in the US Navy. Ask those who tend those propulsion systems on ships. It may not go wrong often, but when it does it goes very very wrong. Radiation is radiation. It is bad for your health. Consider the use of radiation in the treatment of cancer. The radiation does not pick and choose which cells to destroy. It destroys them all. The question is always whether it gets rid of the cancer before it kills the patient. You just proved your ignorance. There is nothing more to say.

What does Nuclear propulsion have to do with it? It was a Torpeo explosion, not a nuclear accident.

Tell that to cancer patients who are getting radation therapy.

Actually, it kills more rapidly dividing cells, like cancer cells, than cells not dividing rapidly.

While there is no question that steam is generated from the heat in the nuclear reactor, I have never heard it called nuclear steam before.

Jeff

It seems you don't know any more about submarines then you know about nuclear power in the US. The Kirsk was not a US submarine and its lost was a result of the mishandling of one of it own torpedoes, not from a failure of its reactor.

mike hunt

Clearly you concentrate on the cause and ignore the fears of the reactor leaking and contaminating the ocean. That is what it has to do with it. The explosion could have led to radiation leakage.

By that, we can infer that the atom bombs dropped on Japan prevented added deaths so it was a good thing?

I note that you do not deny that it kills good cells as well as bad. I don't recall at any point indicating that it kills one faster than the other. As for whether it kills the cancer first or the patient, talk to a cancer specialist. Chemo is the same.

I never called it "nuclear steam".

Sorry, but that was a rather idiotic retort. What the heck difference does the nation of origin matter? It's still a nuclear reactor heating water to make steam to drive turbines to create electricity to propel the boat.

While you have concentrated on the accident cause, you have ignored the grave concern of many nations in the region regarding contamination of the ocean. Both the US and Russians have had accidents, and losses with nuclear powered subs; the Russians far more than we. Among those have been reactor leaks which resulted in both death and long term illness. I expect you will ignore them as well.

However, I do enjoy the way you take things out of context and twist them to negate anything which conflicts with your "expert" views, and to cover what appears to be a serious lack of knowledge on your part.

Aside from experience by way the military, I have experience through contacts while doing volunteer work in a hospice and rehab hospital.

How about the thermal reactors in satellites that fall back to earth?

No. Only that radiation can be used for good things.

I know. However, I pointed that out.

Having treated cancer patients, I am quite well aware of that. I have already talked to the cancer specialist.

Jeff

Nuclear radiation is a problem in the retired Russion nuclear fleet, IIRC.

This is nothing really new, except that there was an explosion before the sub was scrapped.

Jeff

You mean those things which cause such worries in Australia, and Canada? The same reason that environmentalists are so dead set against sending the waste materials to the sun because of the possibility of an accident?