Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news told me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 ....in Japan is politicized and exploited by environmentalists? May be inappropriate to even speculate but I think in about 36hours. Unless its already happened and I just haven't picked up on it. I know Hillary is promising coolant to help Japan out but apparently the plant in question is water cooled so coolant could not be used. Not claiming to be a expert but one on the radio was talking about it. Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news told me so. Who had 17 hours? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news told me so. All energy generation has risks but to return to our low energy use past would not entail a risk but a certainty of killing billions- We must continually mitigate risks as our knowledge increases and we have to have an equitable distribution of risks and benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey greco Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news RFK Jr. and the NRDC told me so. Far more opposition to actual real-world wind proposals comes from environmentalists than anyone else. All of you dolts need to get with the program and understand that any system of energy creation is going to have costs and getting to a rational cost/benefit analysis rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching about BIG OIL, NIMBY, and all the rest of the blather. Huge reason the message has lost so much power since the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news told me so. I'd rather have a meltdown every 20 years than be slave to the middle east. But I guess you like your oil and greenhouse gasses. And wars. Good for you. Wind power is great but does not give enough power. Deal with that fact. Edited March 12, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news told me so. Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Didn't take long for the nuclear apologists to jump to the defense of this perfectly safe power source. I'm all fired up about building more of these perfectly safe reactors. Meanwhile wind power is bad! The oil companies and fo news told me so. What a predicable, poorly [or not at all] thought out emotional factless remark. If you're "all fired up" for someone to build a obsolete 40 year old reactor in a area of high seismic activity in a location subject to tsunamis, good for you. You have a much better chance of getting you're mother earth butt ugly windtowers. I was in Allegheny county, NY last year and what was once a post card landscape of rolling hills and farms is now a blighted view of massive steel towers marching along every ridge, producing little power and driving the locals insane with their 24/7 whirring noise. The only people happy with them are the landowner's whose property they are located on, getting their lease checks and even some of them are saying get that ugly noisey monster out of here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. Doubt I'll say this very often, but well spoken Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. Up is down. Up. Is. Down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. I'm pro nuclear power but I'm against their refusal to advance from their 1950s-1960s technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. Who are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Who are you? Opposition to an excellent form of clean and efficient energy does not make any sense. I like to think of myself as a logical and rational person with a huge respect for science. Many of my views will counter conservative views because I think that modern day conservatives are generally anti-science to some degree or another - highly religious, anti-evolution, etc... I don't like people who try to force their arbitrary morals on others or who ignore truths that are staring them in the face just to keep in line with their ideology. It's very hypocritical from a personal liberties point of view and simply pathetic from a thirst-for-knowledge point of view. "Have responsibility for yourself until you want to do things that don't align with our code." That's disgustingly hypocritical. "The Earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so." That's pathetically and willfully ignorant. I also happen to have a heart when it comes to people who I see as downtrodden or who come from bad situations, especially because I think I was given a lot and was born into a situation where I was able to thrive. You see that as liberal and maybe it is, but I'm always going to be rational first. Anything less is just a self-deceiving load of crap. Back on topic: nuclear power is a wonderful thing and it's a shame that new reactors are not being built in the United States. Doubt I'll say this very often, but well spoken Frenkle It's probably not any more or less well spoken than many things I post here. You just happen to agree with me this time. I'm pro nuclear power but I'm against their refusal to advance from their 1950s-1960s technology. That's because there haven't been any new reactors built in the United States since the late 70's. Edited March 13, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I'm pro nuclear power but I'm against their refusal to advance from their 1950s-1960s technology. How do you think economies that so many brag about, advance? By doing it on the cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Opposition to an excellent form of clean and efficient energy does not make any sense. I like to think of myself as a logical and rational person with a huge respect for science. Many of my views will counter conservative views because I think that modern day conservatives are generally anti-science to some degree or another - highly religious, anti-evolution, etc... I don't like people who try to force their arbitrary morals on others or who ignore truths that are staring them in the face just to keep in line with their ideology. It's very hypocritical from a personal liberties point of view and simply pathetic from a thirst-for-knowledge point of view. "Have responsibility for yourself until you want to do things that don't align with our code." That's disgustingly hypocritical. "The Earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so." That's pathetically and willfully ignorant. I also happen to have a heart when it comes to people who I see as downtrodden or who come from bad situations, especially because I think I was given a lot and was born into a situation where I was able to thrive. You see that as liberal and maybe it is, but I'm always going to be rational first. Anything less is just a self-deceiving load of crap. Dude, I just asked who you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Dude, I just asked who you were. Hey, Gene told us who he was. Gotta respect that even if we all knew that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) The reactors are in stainless steel right... That helps. Couldn't they have built them better knowing they are in an earthquake/tsunami zone? The again, that would have raised cost. We all glorify the Japs for this or that... They are such great at business... Economy and such... And we all knock America for our enviro over-the-topness that comes at a steep price. I know now is not the time... But Japan is considered a first world country... Is there gonna be a time when they get lambasted for doing things "just enough to get by?" Shouldn't they be putting more money into better built projects? How does a nuke plant lose all power? Tokyo is supposed to be real "earthquake resistant." I know this was a powerful quake... And Tokyo didn't get the brunt... But the truth is coming out how the Japanese are not the best at this. Why were they ever considered it? Edited March 13, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Dude, I just asked who you were. Yeah, that self-righteous micro rant was brought to you by Glenfiddich. Feeling the aftershocks a bit today... I just realized that "aftershocks" might not be the best choice words in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. Wow, this is the most non-frenkleian post in your history. I don't know how to respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Wow, this is the most non-frenkleian post in your history. I don't know how to respond Anything I post is, by definition, frenkleian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yes, the most catastrophic earthquake in Japan's recorded history, not to mention the resulting tsunami, should be the be the benchmark for determining the relative safety of nuclear power plants. Wind power is great, but not enough. Nuclear is one of the most efficient and least polluting sources of energy we currently have and has a great record as far as safety goes. I guess I was wrong when I said the far left isn't as anti-nuclear power as it used to be. Sounds like you've been waiting for this ever since the Chernobyl meltdown. Mad props! Well Done! What annoys me about the current situation with respect to the news coverage is everyone reporting, "could be CHERNOBYL-like incident! CHERNOBYL!!!! CHERNOBYL!!!! DOOMED!" This situation is not even remotely similar to what happened in Russia. It's a bad situation to be sure, but we are not close to Nuclear Armageddon just yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts