I would request that the pro-nuke people on here to read this post from GD

[madokie]

fixed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3648908&mesg_id=3648908

Add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3312956 Added from the way back machine

Especially a certain person who is always calling us, anti-nukes like me, names and spouting bullshit about the safety of the very dangerous nuclear radiation and how it is beleived today by some that it is all a misunderstanding and its really not dangerous at all. Read this then explain to me how it is that I should embrace the use of more of this very tragic mistake called nuclear energy.
I knew it was all a lie and was wrong years ago when PSO tried to build a nuke plant in my back yard and protested against it then. We stopped it too. The pro-nuke people kept telling us back then that they would find a safe way to deal with the radioactive waste same as I keep reading today some 40 odd years later and still no viable way to deal with it has been found to my knowledge, bullshit aside.

Mods if I'm in the wrong to cross post this please forgive me, spank my ass and send me to bed tonight without supper and most of all delete this post, otherwise thanks.

Thank you Froward69 and my hope is you'll not be too mad at me

Now I go pound sand as this upsets me to no end, what is going on with the big lie that is.

[NMDemDist2]

1. broken link n/t

[madokie]

2. Fixed

sorry about that.

[DCKit]

3. Exajoules!!! Exajoules!!! n/t

[ladjf]

4. Sounds like Captain Exajoules. His posts = Subject + verb + exajoules.

[madokie]

5. Personally I think it wrong for this person to talk to us as he does

damn sure wouldn't if we were in eye contact I can say that with certainty. Those posts, almost all of them, break the rules that we all have to live by, or most of us anyway. I hope this reply is not also one of those rule breakers, if so my bad.

[MrMonk]

6. Needs more explanation

The articles are about health problems and compensation of workers in the nuclear armaments industry, and secret human experimentation. Both involve direct exposure to nuclear materials.

What does this have to do with the safety of nuclear energy plants?

[madokie]

7. it has everything to do with the lie that is,

is what this is about. There is no safety in nuclear energy, never was and as it stands today doesn't look to ever be.

[MrMonk]

9. Radiation and metals exposure at nuclear power plants?

Bring forward the evidence. Where are the exposures (demonstrated, not speculative), and how many have been sickened or killed?

Sorry, I can't stick around for this, but I've got a looong day ahead of me.

[jpak]

17. The US civilian and military nuclear infrastructure are one in the same

uranium mines

uranium mills

uranium conversion plants

uranium enrichment plants

plutonium extraction facilities

tritium production facilities

All fall under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and/or the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act...

Here are the claim stats (not pretty)...

http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/weeklystats.htm#PartBStats

http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/omp/omi/Tre_SysClaimsToDateSum.pdf

Over one hundred thousand claims and cases with $5 billion paid out so far.

Something the shills of the Nuclear Energy Institute want you to ignore....

[cosmik debris]

21. Interesting numbers

The EEOICP data includes nuclear weapons workers, but the OP wants to talk about nuclear power plants.

I didn't see the data for power plant claims. Do you know where that can be found?

You did post the numbers for uranium mining and it made me wonder how they compare to coal mining (per capita) worker's comp claims. That might be interesting data to have a look at.

[madokie]

24. see post 16

Uranium is radioactive no matter the stated reasons for using it.

lets fight about the color of the cars in the crash not the fact one of the drivers was drunk, same thing. And yes, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand other than my using it as an example. One of my old friends would go off on tangents so as I would have to be careful of what words I used because here in a little bit we'd be discussing something entirely different. You notice I used the word, would, there didn't you and I bet you can figure out why that is that I used it.

[cosmik debris]

33. So, let me see if I have this right

Uranium is radioactive, radioactivity is dangerous, therefore we should not use uranium.

Does that sum up your argument accurately?

[madokie]

41. Yep, you got it all figured out don't you

the answer is no but I'm not sure you would get it if this is what you have gotten so far, so I digress.

[cosmik debris]

43. I'm just trying to get a coherent argument

and you are not giving me one.

Try stating your case in one coherent sentence.

[madokie]

45. my o my

[cosmik debris]

47. The anti-nuclear power movement needs better spokespersons.

You're not helping the movement at all.

[madokie]

50. I had no intentions to even try

You see I know that I have not all the answers, mostly only questions actually. May I ask you though, are you fixing to go personal on me cause if you are then I will just ignore any further comments. I read enough of that from that other guy.

[kristopher]

54. There is no "anti-nuclear" movement.

Anti-nuclear is the status quo. But there is an attempt by the nuclear power industry to CREATE a PRO-NUCLEAR movement.

Huge difference.

[madokie]

55. Thanks Kristopher

I guess I'll have to take back all them bad thoughts I had about you the other day, :evilgrin: just kidding.
Peace

[cosmik debris]

57. .

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anti+nuclear+groups&btnG=Google+Search

[kristopher]

60. And that proves what? Movement is the operative word.

[cosmik debris]

64. But in your other post "anti-nuclear" was the operative word.

I can't keep up with the mobile goal posts.

[kristopher]

66. I've noticed you have a lot of trouble with Basic English and logic.

X not movement. X status quo. Nuke power industry trying to to create Y movement.

Movement is operative word.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

63. The pro-nuclear movement has a "better spokepersons"

ignorance kills!! Ignorance kills!!111

:rofl:

[jpak]

29. The same uranium mines that produced U for bombs produced U for power reactors

The same uranium mills that produced yellowcake for bomb production produced yellowcake for power plants.

The same uranium conversion plants that produced UF6 for bomb production and naval reactor fuel are the same facilities that produce UF6 for nuclear fuel.

The same uranium enrichment plants (also source of beryllium poisoning) that produced enriched uranium for bombs produced enriched uranium for civilian reactors.

The same process (PUREX) used to extract plutonium for bomb production is the same process used to extract Pu for civilian MOX fuel.

TVA civilian reactors produce tritium for H-bombs.

see???

[cosmik debris]

31. I understand all that

I was looking for numbers on power plant radiological injuries.

I was also interested in the comparison of per capita injuries for coal miners and uranium miners.

[madokie]

35. I'm interested in that too and it would be a good subject to maybe explore if one is so inclined

at the moment I'm not that. I sure would like to follow the links someone who does does though. There is no there in comparisons of radiation poisoning with anything coal other than the injuries and deaths. What would that be if I'm wrong there? What with coal could be considered on a par with radiation poisoning that passes down from generation to generation? Or that will still be here posssibly killing for thousands of years, how do we warn the living for years to come. Personally I feel we can deal with the co2 and etc without going nuclear to do it. thats all.

[cosmik debris]

36. Then this should interest you.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[madokie]

38. as if I would want any of what hes selling

I am not saying that coal is safe and I am not implying that in any way. I am saying I am not want to jump from the pan to the fire and never was. Our problems can and will be solved without us going nuclear in a big way.

[cosmik debris]

40. Just comparing coal mining to uranium mining

in terms of safety. That was part of the discussion.

[madokie]

42. its the messenger not the message

yes that was part of the discussion

[cosmik debris]

44. Do you have knowledge of this person's incredulity?

Why do you dislike this messenger?

If I find other sources for the same information, will you believe it then?

[madokie]

46. Start a new thread and lets discuss that there, ok

this has gotten way more contentious than I intended. I will say I do not come here to argue I come here to learn, I do not buy bullshit as sound arguments either as we seem to have gotten off into. I stated my position early on. I am more against using nuclear energy right now than I was at the time I made the post. sigh. We're losing ground here.

[cosmik debris]

49. I'm just trying understand the support for your position.

But it seems impossible to nail you down on any support because your position seems to be levitated more than it is supported.

[madokie]

51. thats making a lot of sense

I am against any further increase in the use of nuclear energy to fix our co2 problem, that is all. Thats all I started off with and thats what I still say. What more can I say to you that would satisfy you, that I've changed my mind all of a sudden or something?

[cosmik debris]

39. Here is another from Scientific American

"Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[GliderGuider]

8. Well, on the one hand you nave "nuclear armaments", on the other you have "nuclear power"

Notice how the word "nuclear" appears in both phrases? They're obviously identical.

Speaking as someone who was gripped for several years by an all-consuming dread about the global collapse of civilization I fully understand how fear can short-circuit one's reasoning. But I have no patience with the type of fear-mongering context shift that's being attempted in the OP. It's an illegitimate debating tactic that undermines the debater's credibility.

Not that I think my objections are going to make a shred of difference -- this is just not an issue that lends itself to reasoned, dispassionate debate.

[madokie]

11. What I'm saying is if the truth as it is was widely known then we would never have opened this genie

to begin with. I have a lot of respect for you and what I've read that you've written. For the most part I see Nuclear energy as a big lie as it has a lot of pie in the sky type reasoning for its being. I have been lied to and I'm still being lied to, that is not directed at you.

I do not and never have seen the mandatory use of nuclear energy as a life or death decision for us as a civilization. CO2 is killing us I agree and I knew the implications way back when I was protesting blackfox being built in my back yard and now that people are waking up to that we'll be fine as soon as we get, for the most part away from fossil fuels. I will not embrace nuclear energy as it stands today. Personally I'm just glad its only co2 we're having to deal with today and not radiation poisoning on a much larger scale as more nuke plants would indicate to me as it would be. Remember I said I've been lied to and am still being lied to by that industry.
but that of course is just me.

[Brotherjohn]

20. You do realize it is not just CO2 we are dealing with today? It is NOx, SO2, Hg, etc.

The output from coal, gas & oil-fired plants kills thousands of people a year. That is happening now.

[madokie]

48. Yes I do and I also understand we're talking about a very dangerous

direction you're wanting us to embark on. I say we stick with solar and wind for now and put our efforts toward that. If there was a solution to the waste of nuclear energy wouldn't you think it would be found by now after all the money spent and time wasted? At least it appears to me that way. Nuclear energy has not been proven to be the savior and thats after much effort so don't you think it maybe is time to try something else? I do agree that fossil fuels is killing us but I'm not ready to head any further on down the nuclear road. Fix the waste problem and I'll be all for it, leave it to the future generations to deal with, as seems to be the case now and I will be just as strongly against it tomorrow as I am today or I was yesterday.

[Brotherjohn]

52. Of course, nuclear is dangerous. My point was that, today, fossil fuels are moreso.

And those are the only 2 viable options for large scale energy production today.

It's a question of relative danger, and possible consequences.

Every currently practical and available large-scale mode of energy production comes with inherent dangers and can damage our environment and harm people. We have to assess what poses the least danger. In my mind, as possible dangers go, thousands dying every year now FAR outweighs the potential for thousands to die in the future, should something go wrong. It's not even a possible danger. It is a very real and current danger that is taking lives as we speak.

"Stick with solar and wind for now"? Well, unless we cut our energy consumption by 90-something percent today, that just isn't an option.

"Put our efforts toward" solar energy? I agree. We should put orders of magnitude more resources and research into solar and wind, and harvesting tidal energy, and efficiency, and any other strategies that can reduce our emissions and waste production. But nuclear is already viable. We should certainly put more efforts into improving it, however, and into finding a better solution for long-term storage and/or disposal of waste.

"Don't you think it maybe is time to try something else?" Yes, something else from fossil fuels, and NOW. Every other option available to us; especially available non-CO2 emissions options (including wind, solar and nuclear). Back to the relative danger argument above,the relative danger of future nuclear radiation is also far outweighed in my mind from the current danger from increasing CO2.

Your stated assumption is that there will never be a solution to nuclear waste storage. That is just that, your assumption.

You would rather not head down the road of more nuclear. But you would rather continue with the thousands of deaths a year even though substituting fossil-fuel plants with nuclear plants would start saving lives the day they go online. I would rather take the risk of lives lost for actual lives lost any day.

Again, it's a question of relative dangers, and we ARE, TODAY, experiencing death and perhaps irreversible destruction of our environment from fossil fuels. Something needs to be done, and yesterday. We don't have the luxury to wait for solar, wind, etc. to become the norm. Yes, we should invest, and heavily, in those and other renewables. But until they come to fruition, we should do whatever we can to move away from fossil fuels. And nuclear is one component of that, and probably the most practical and promising in the short term (and the short term is when we need options).

[madokie]

53. well not really because there is no way to ramp up nuclear energy

so as to make any difference today but if you'll notice they have been building a lot of wind farms and lots of advances are being made in solar. I'll take my chance on those two filling the bill myself. The relative dangers with nuclear is explained with one part and thats its radiation is measured in half lives. big dif if you ask me.

Only one question and it is on my assumption, where, what do you propose to do with the waste we already have let alone any new waste.

Nucular at best is several years out, at worst decades so how is that now. It never has lived up to its promises and I doubt now that it ever will. I doubted it from the start and thats why I took the road I've taken. You want more nuclear energy and all that comes with it, good for you but I don't.

Right now promoting and hoping for more nuclear energy is only taking time and money away from some viable solutions to our co2 problems.

[Brotherjohn]

58. This will be my last post (you may have the last word). ANY power plant, wind included, takes years

... to ramp up. To say nuclear is "at worst decades out" is a vast exaggeration. The only reason it would take that long to get several plants up & running would be legal action. But the point of this discussion how best to proceed, what is more logical, safe, etc. Not who is most likely to be sued.

There is also the point of wind energy not being feasible everywhere. There are places in this country that are well-suited for it, but most are not. My research and knowledge tells me that with current and near future technology, neither wind nor solar can provide energy on the scale that nuclear can. Although, long term, we should invest heavily in them and hopefully within 50 years or so, we can be relying heavily on them because those investments will have paid off.

Yes, duh, of course, half life of nuclear waste is the issue. That's the inherent future possible danger. If it didn't have a long half-life, it would just be buried rocks. And it goes for already stored waste as well as future waste. No, I don't currently have a better solution for storage of old nuclear waste any more than I do for future nuclear waste (although this is an ongoing field of research and people are developing options). But all that is still taken into consideration when I weigh the relative risks.

You say "promoting and hoping for more nuclear energy is only taking time and money away from some viable solutions to our co2 problems." Well, promoting ANY zero emissions energy source is a solution to CO2 problems. But I see you're worried about taking away from R&D into other, less risky options like wind & solar. But I am not an "eggs in one basket" kind of guy. I think it's sensible to use ALL of our viable solutions. It's just that, as we have already made abundantly clear, our differences in opinion as to the dangers of nuclear make nuclear one of the viable solutions to me, but not to you.

To me, it's not a renewed thrust for nuclear that takes away from viable solutions like wind & solar. It is the continued, entrenched, fossil-fuel industry. Investment in all three (nuclear, wind, & solar) could and should be increased drastically in the near future. I have been saying so since the 70s. If so, we can become independent of fossil fuels within a few decades. And as solar and wind become more feasible, they would supplant nuclear and anything else that had any real risks.

I am not saying we should proceed whole-hog, damn-the-torpedoes, exclusively with nuclear energy. I am saying we have to take every available opportunity now to reduce CO2 emissions.

[madokie]

61. For the most part I see us in the same boat with the same cross to bear

All I know for sure is I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed and I do have a long memory and reasonable reasoning capabilities. I think you and I will be fine but we all have our work cut out for us.

OT but one of my old friends, gone now, went by Brother John and it momentarily brings back fond memories when I see your name

[kristopher]

62. Do you think Gore is an idiot or a liar?

He'd have to be one or the other to go in front of the world and make a recommendation that is impossible, wouldn't he?

Based on my research I say that your research is ... lacking.

[Brotherjohn]

68. See my post below. I think he's neither. I think he's a genius, and a forward thinker.

I think he believes the goal is possible, which is why he put it out there. To modify what I've posted above to the OP, I don't even really think the goal is "impossible" from a raw scientific standpoint. I think it's just very unlikely from a real-world, practical standpoint... considering we're talking about changing the way every person, and every energy company, does nearly everything... in 10 years.

But I think (and this is strictly my opinion) that even he himself realizes the goal is optimistic. He expressed it as a GOAL, as a private citizen, not a prediction as president (a la Kennedy) upon which he bases his reputation. What he's doing is trying to nudge the nation into a way of thinking that will benefit us all. That's admirable, and I think his speech, and his work in general, will get us there a lot more quickly. I don't think that makes him an idiot or a liar. I think it makes him a leader.

[kristopher]

70. OK. That is an area of common understanding. nt

[Nederland]

92. I think Gore is a politician

And that implies both, doesn't it?

[diane in sf]

71. Ramping up wind plants is much faster than nuke plants.

[kristopher]

56. So you are calling Gore a liar?

Days ago he recommended specifically replacing all fossil fuels in ten years WITHOUT adding nuclear.

Either he is wrong, or you are. There is no middle.

YOU ARE WRONG. Renewable sources can replace all fossil fuels used in this country WITHOUT ADDING NUCLEAR.

[Brotherjohn]

65. Of course not, silly.

Gore's plan is, as you say, a recommendation. It's his BELIEF and DESIRE, his GOAL. I can't call that a lie. There's no way it could even be defined as a lie. I never even mentioned Gore.

Do I think it's probable? No. And I don't think we should rule out nuclear. What I expressed was more properly called a difference of OPINION (with you and Mr. Gore).

His plan may be possible. In 10 years? I would love it. But it would take a sea change in the way every person (and perhaps more importantly, every company in the energy sector) in America thinks. I don't think that's going to happen.

But a good goal, and an admirable speech, yes. What Gore has done is attempt to move the goalposts for the better, to move more and more people's thinking to where it needs to be to make the shift to exclusively renewable, zero-emissions (and zero waste) energy. But that shift will be gradual. I think even he realizes his goal is optimistic.

"Renewable sources can replace all fossil fuels used in this country WITHOUT ADDING NUCLEAR." Yes, I agree. They can. I just don't agree it's going to happen in 10 years, and I don't think it will happen quickly enough to ignore all possible options to stave off CO2 emissions starting today.

"Either he is wrong, or you are. There is no middle." Well, since we're talking about his PLAN, that he BELEVES is possible... since we're talking about a HYPOTHETICAL goal, and my BELIEF that it's not LIKELY to happen... of course there's "a middle". I never said it was completely and utterly impossible. But even if I did, there's still a "middle". We're not talking a hard FACT of what will and can happen. We're talking conjecture. Yes, Gore's conjecture is very well informed. But neither you, nor I, nor Gore, have a crystal ball and a magical ability to tell what we are going to be able to do, and what we are going to end up doing as a nation. By saying I called him a liar, you act as though Gore's speech has set in stone the progress of the American energy industry for the next 10 years. That's just silly.

[kristopher]

69. 2X You stated flat out there are ONLY 2 options - nuclear or fossil

That is directly contradicted by Gore.

It is also directly contradicted by almost every energy researcher outside of the nuclear/fossil fuel power industry.

Not only *can* renewables replace fossil, they can do it much more quickly than building nuclear. Look at the ramp up for WW2 industrial production. Low tech and easily trained skilled labor are the key differences between the timelines.

[Brotherjohn]

72. At the fore I will say I haven't read Gore's entire speech. I never got into this discussion...

... to discuss, nor was the thread about, Gore's speech. That came up because some of you accused me of calling Gore a liar (which on it's face is ridiculous and out of line since we weren't even talking about Gore at all; and when the posts were made, the two of you who did so had no idea if I even knew who Al Gore was, much less if I studied his recent speech).

However, as for the discussions I DID get into later responding to allegations of me calling Gore a liar, and my posts responding to the OP's concerns about nuclear (that's what this was about):
- I still feel the relative threats of nuclear make it a safer option than fossil fuels
- I still believe that, from a real-world standpoint, the country is NOT going to proceed according to Gore's plan (much as we all would like it to), it is not going to be that quick, and it is much more likely that the energy sector is going to include a significant nuclear component in it's move away from fossil fuels.

I promise to make a point of reading his entire speech, as I trust what the man says. If he says nuclear is significantly more time and labor-intensive to start up than wind, then I may reconsider my opinions on nuclear as opposed to wind as a viable option for the near future. But it is not the threat of nuclear contamination that would make me reconsider... I feel the current threat from fossil fuel emissions outweighs that. It would be the possibility of the option being more viable. And that may very well be, and I could be wrong about that.

But how that equates to me caling Gore a liar, when I haven't even read what he says yet, is beyond me.

[madokie]

75. I think Brotherjohn that we have a poisoned pen here in the EE forum

that has many at each others throats when otherwise we would have reasonable and reasoned dialoge, maybe thats just me typing out my elbows I don't know but I would like to see this place return to the time before this bullhockie started. :hi:

You have shown to be someone I can have and do have respect for, it matters not if we do or do not share each and every idea, it matters that we're on the same page for the most part, the small details be damned.
Peace

[Brotherjohn]

79. I take back my pledge to give you the last word (in our immediate discussion that is).

Thanks for the kind, reasonable words. It did turn kinda nasty above, mostly by others than us.

You know, I was just thinking earlier how much of this debate to me boils down to mainly what we are practically going to be able to convince the power industry to do any time in the next several decades or so. Perfect world, say Obama is President, Gore becomes his VP (co-President). Legislation is promoted encouraging and/or mandating basically Gore's recent challenge to all-renewable in 10-years. They have a very friendly Congress and it all sails through. Then the power sector hops aboard and says "Sure, we'll drop fossil fuels like a hot potato, and forget nuclear too!"... Starts to become a whole lotta very unlikelihoods adding up.

More likely, the power industry, and even Congress, is going to be dragged kicking an screaming toards any shift to renewables. The power industry, and the oil & gas industry especially, would be more than happy to keep the addiction going for hundreds of years. I fear nuclear, and some continued use of fossil-fuels, will be a bone we have to throw the power sector in order to get them to play ball. And the weaning off of fossil fuels will take longer than any of us wants, and maybe longer than the Earth needs. But maybe, if what Gore says is true, they'll realize wind is better worth their while than nuclear. But then there's still the whole restructuring the entire national power grid thing that Gore even mentions in his speech. It's no small task ahead of us all.

[madokie]

80. These discussions always do seem to get contentious for some reason

sometimes it almost seems as if some have a vested interest in keeping the discussion of nuclear, wind and solar in disarray. There's some days when I can't engage in any discussions about global warming and our energy problems at all because of it. I'm pretty safe in saying that no one can learn anything of any use from me but I do feel I can learn much as I find there to be many bright points of light here. But it only takes one asshole to poison the whole well

splchk:

[kristopher]

81. The part about Gore was to add drama to the point, nothing more.

You kept repeating that we can't make a transition away from fossils with renewables. That is simply incorrect and as evidence I offerd Gore's plan, which freezes nuclear where it is. You've expanded your comments with a recognition the renewables need to be part of the answer and you seem to have a balanced perspective.

I disagree about the need to throw the utilities a bone in the form of nuclear. IMO there will be enough new $$$ winners created with renewables to offset the political influence of those standing to lose by a transition to a carbon free grid.

I recommend again US weapons production during WW2 as a model of what can be accomplished in a given time frame. It might end up taking 12-15 years, but the key is moving investment into manufacturing infrastructure. It is an area where overbuilding wouldn't be a bad thing since there are another 6.2 billion people in the planet who also need clean cheap energy. That is a hell of a potential market that would be available if we built the capability to transition in 10 years.

[kristopher]

59. You have it right. They are arguing falsely by creating a false choice.

The approach, in general is like this. Only nuclear and fossil can provide power. Nuclear is less immediately dangerous than fossil (debatable), so we should go with nuclear.

The false elimination of renewables and the dogged insistence on turning all discussions to a comparison of the real dangers of fossils versus a sugar coated version of nuclear is a cheesey underhanded dishonest tactic.

[Brotherjohn]

73. I never said those were the ONLY choices; I in fact argued for pursuing ALL choices.

I did end up saying they were the only "viable" choices; but a lot of what was driving that is not only what's possible technologically, but politically and practically (as far as convincing the power sector to do it). And your posts and others' are leading me to consider the immediate viability of wind as well, from a technological standpoint.

While my arguments may have mirrored some used by the power industry, that was not my intent. I was having a specific discussion with the OP on the relative dangers of nuclear vs. fossil. The thrust of the discussion was more like this: OP thought that nuclear shold not be included in consideration in the mix of future energy options, I thought it should.

I think every available penny we have should be invested in pursuing alternative fuels. I don't think using nuclear is the best case scenario. But I think it's going to happen as part of the mix and short-term solution, and I think the result will be an improvement in the CO2 and general pollution situation. Maybe not as much of an improvement as if we went with wind to the exclusion of nuclear (and we will go with a decent % wind generation as well), but an improvement nonetheless.

[cosmik debris]

10. Please help me understand

I followed your first link and found a post about nuclear arms workers, but nothing about using nuclear energy. Did I get the wrong post?

[madokie]

12. its about the lie that is safe nuclear anything

Anyways I didn't come to get in a pissing match and won't as I have other things to do today

[cosmik debris]

13. safe nuclear anything?

bananas? smoke alarms? sunshine? x-rays? nuclear medicine?

You are surrounded by nuclear everything.

If you believe that nuclear means unsafe, you are on the wrong planet.

[madokie]

14. as I was saying up post

have a good day

[cosmik debris]

15. If you had a point, you failed to make it.

Comparing nuclear arms to nuclear power is a poorly reasoned argument.

I expected more, is that all you've got?

[madokie]

16. I was not making a comparison nor am I now

I am talking about radiation and the lie that is safe nuclear energy and yes for the most part thats all. I suspect on the other hand that you want to discredit what I posted more than anything and if I'm wrong there then I'll apologize but I haven't been shown that to not be true as it stands now. I would love to think or believe that nuclear is the way to go for our energy but I can't and don't

[cosmik debris]

18. I don't need to discredit what you posted

You did that pretty well with this quote from the other thread:

"For the most part all I know about nuclear energy is that the radiation is very dangerous and long lived and I'm against using it."

Arguments based on ignorance and fear don't need to be discredited.

[madokie]

19. So you think that I should be a 'what' to be against nuclear energy

exactly. I see your purpose as a try to put a stop to discussions only. nothing personal to you but I see this all the time here. Mention nuclear waste and boy o boy will you ever be vilified to no end. Oh well :-) I knew it was coming, I just didn't know who the carrier would be. as I've said before, have a good day and if not I do now.

[cosmik debris]

23. I'm not trying to "put a stop to discussion", quite the opposite.

I'm trying to encourage you to present a defensible coherent argument.

So far all you have said is that nuclear arms workers are being screwed so all things nuclear are too dangerous to have around.

Your whole position so far seems to be based on the fact that you don't know beans about radiation, so you fear it.

If you have a better argument than that, please present it.

[madokie]

25. OK whatever

Actually I wasn't wanting to make a statement at all. I am not trying to pass off that I am anything other than what I am and that is I am against nuclear energy as it stands today. And one of the reasons for that is I have been lied too about this subject back through the years so much and it continues today. It took some serious arguing to finally get one of the pro-nuke people here to admit that yes there is no viable safe way do deal with the waste. I read lots of if, and and buts but not much substance.

[SidDithers]

22. This post makes no sense...nt

Sid

[cosmik debris]

26. It doesn't need to.

It has many of the elements of a great post, but not enough to make it to the greatest page.

It is PRO-worker Hooray!

It is ANTI-government Double hooray!

It is ANTI-scary things That's a big plus!

He takes a strong stand against "tragic mistakes" and "lies". How can that be wrong?

If it has all that, it doesn't need to make sense, does it?

[madokie]

28. as I was saying earlier

[madokie]

27. I suppose that could be true for you

[SidDithers]

30. I guess I don't see how US govt. mistreatment of nuclear arms workers...

supports criticism of a source of energy that, in many countries around the world, is safe and clean.

Sid

[madokie]

32. Well Sid I don't know what to tell you then

arguing for the sake of arguing is not my forte. I'm talking about the lie that nuclear energy is safe. and this post was an example of how it is that so many think thats so, possibly you too because of what you don't know that you just know you do know. whew, I know it sounds like rummy there but surely you get my jest

[NNadir]

34. You seem to think your selective attention and views of crap in isolation are impressive.

They are not.

As usual, like all of your yuppie crap, it's not even about ethics, but about money.

Get back to me when you give a shit about the 2.3 uncompensated people who died in 2002 alone from the kind of drivel that the anti-nuke cults spout.

http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

The probability of me treating you with anything other than contempt is zero.

Ignorance kills.

[madokie]

37. and you think I don't know that

I'm really surprised you haven't started your bullshit before now, if you really want to know the truth. I see you as a fraud, maybe an imposter would be a better discription, you make the choice. I will ask you once again if you are so fucking intelligent then why do you have to resort to name calling in your arguments? We crossed paths on my first post questioning what to do with the waste and when I wouldn't buy your bull then the shit started. Have fun, I am.
I remember it well, well enough to know that if you talked to me in person like you type hiding behind your keyboard there would be hell to pay. That I do know for sure, nnadir. Now go away I am not buying anything you are selling

[Javaman]

91. Man, you are like a habitual gambler. You just don't know when to quit.

you were completely baited into this and you fell for it.

If you stopped ranting long enough and stopped insulting people and presented a valued argument perhaps people would be more open to listening to your point, but alas, I know that won't happen.

so mr. rant and rave, continue to drink your koolade.

[depakid]

74. The simple fact is that Americans have a choice: burn filthy coal or build more nuclear power plant

or else face electricity shortages over the next decade(s).

Most of you don't have the luxury of living in areas where renewables are abundant enough to make up the difference.

See for yourselves: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/electricity.cfm

[madokie]

76. The whole deal with the grid is we are right next door to each other

I don't see that as a problem that is all consuming. Something to be dealt with for sure but its not a death knell.

[depakid]

77. Transmission loss can be substantial over distance

The Dakotas can't power the Eastern Seaboard with their turbines, for example.

[madokie]

78. transmissions losses are huge no doubt but its something that can be dealt with

building new lines designed for higher voltages is an option. The higher the voltage, all things considered, the less the losses. I don't believe for new construction that we've reached that upper limit yet.

[kristopher]

82. They are also marketing "superconducting" transmission lines.

Long Island Power Authority just ran the first one.

Albert Cavallo did a study in 95 of wind power and transmission, his conclusions:

High-Capacity Factor Wind Energy Systems
Alfred J. Cavallo (1)
Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies,
Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544

Wind-generated electricity can be fundamentally transformed from an intermittent
resource to a baseload power supply. For the case of long distance transmission of wind
electricity, this change can be achielved at a negligible increase or even a decrease in the
per unit cost of electricity. The economic and technical feasibility of this process can be
illustrated by studying the example of a wind farm located in central Kansas and a 2000
km, 2000 megawatt transmission line to southern California. Such a system can have a
capacity factor of 60percent, with no economic penalty and without storage. With
compressed air energy storage (CAES) (and with a negligible economic penalty),
capacity factors of 70-95 percent can be achieved. This strategy has important
implications for the development of wind energy throughout the world since good wind
resources are usually located far from major demand centers.

On the East Coast we have offshore wind located in very close proximity to some of the heaviest load in the country.

The argument is another nuclear red herring.

[depakid]

83. When you can show me an economically viable scaled up system,

or practical plans for one, let me know.

As usual- you're simply spouting more cornucopian fantasy.

[kristopher]

84. By your logic we would still be in trees.

Your basic claim is that since it isn't an accomplished fact, there is no sense pursuing it as a course of action. Are you saying Gore is also engaging in a Cornucopian fantasy? His plan is exactly what I've been saying since I started posting here.

BTW, the "economically viable scaled up system" is being built around you even now. Just read the paper.

[depakid]

85. Living in the reality based community requires making choices

based on present abilities to adjust and adapt with realistic budgets and legacy constraints.

Which btw, is what's going on right now in the Pacidic Northwest.

[kristopher]

86. By your logic we would still be in trees.

Your basic claim is that since it isn't an accomplished fact, there is no sense pursuing it as a course of action. Are you saying Gore is also engaging in a Cornucopian fantasy? His plan is exactly what I've been saying since I started posting here.

You neglected to answer anything. As usual, you ignore the inconvenient realities (such as the Cavallo study) and go off on an unrelated tangent or some other irrelevancy.

You said transmission losses are fatal for widespread development of wind, I demonstrated you were wrong.
You then try to prove that transmission losses are fatal by saying it isn't built yet; then you start labeling me in order to be dismissive.

Just answer the point. Is Cavallo wrong, or are you wrong? Judging by the recent studies made in Texas on the subject (among many others), I'd say you are wrong.

Is Gore also engaging in a Cornucopian fantasy?

Or is it possible that your wish to see nuclear power developed (you have to wonder about anyone that would wish for that) has blinded you to real alternative courses of action?

[depakid]

87. Not interested in continuing to play sophomoric games

You'll find out how things are soon enough.

[kristopher]

88. That's your standard answer when you've backed yourself into a corner....

[Nihil]

89. Read it. Not impressed.

Workers who are injured or killed by the incompetence (or worse)
of their employer should receive appropriate compensation.

People who suffer from pollution (e.g., toxins in their drinking water)
should receive appropriate compensation (and relocation if necessary).

The people in the government who (passively or actively) encouraged
the exposure of civilians to radiation during the era of open-air nuclear
weapons testing should be punished (though most will have probably died
at the end of a very peaceful and well-paid retirement by now).

Definitely not impressed with the treatment in that post.

Still can't see why you are trying to link points 1 & 3 above with nuclear
power though (i.e., not the same as nuclear weapons) nor why you think that
point 2 is any different for the nuclear power industry than for any other
industry.

I am largely pro-nuclear (where appropriate) but do not claim exceptionalism
on the behalf of the nuclear industry: if they do things wrong, they should
be treated exactly the same way as when any other industry do that thing.
Personally, I wish that it was a level playing field where everyone and
everything are held to the same standard ... I know but I can dream can't I?

Anyway, thanks for posting.

[madokie]

90. I'm not surprised at your

You can play this game with your rules but I am going to play by my rules, ok.

Radiation is radiation, uranium is uranium no matter if it is destined for generating electricity or to aniliate a bunch of people. the reason I put this up here in EE is because I keep reading on here by a few that radiation is nothing to worry about its really not that big of a deal, well I happen to hold an opinion that believes this is a big deal and that it is killing and has been killing people from the get go. There is no SAFE in nuclear energy, ever, never was and never will be. It is a genie that if the people had been told the truth about from that get go I mentioned earlier we would never have allowed it to get to the point where we are today. One of our Good Presidents seen way back in the '70 that we had to do something about the oil and where we get it from and what we use it for. He put up some solar panels on the whitehouse that the following republican administration, saint raygun, was falling all over themselves to remove. Can't be having the little people out there seeing that this is a viable source of energy for us, can't be having any of that now can they. Read some reports about the after effect of Depleted Uranium in say Iraq and what is happening over there with the newborns and tell me that the use of uraninum is good for anything except killing people and boiling water really hot. I would feel a little more, notice I said little, if our government ran the nuke plants we have but we can't be having any of that either as it would keep a few people, most of who couldn't care less about us from making a shit load of bucks.

I happen to know a couple people who were in desert storm and they are still suffering today from DU, well only one is still alive today but the children born to our now dead friend are still with us with some real problems, a lot worst that anything you or I have had to go through and they will have to live what life they get to live with it. Oh our government denies all that but the truth of the matter is that too is a lie. radiation sickness is serious business and it doesn't just go away, it hangs in there for generation and generations, some say as far as 5 generation out, there will be problems with the people who were unfortunate enough to have been born/fathered by that person. I can live with the co2 we have now if we will be working toward cleaning it up but if we stay on this nuclear is good mode then who knows how much longer we can survive. I was reading a report yesterday that said that the nuclear industry will, to stay competitive, have to have another infusion from our government of cash up on and beyond what we've already thrown away in its direction. I used to use the comparison to a Harley Davidson motorcycle as if you want to throw your money away then by all means buy one, same as with nuclear energy. Harley finally pulled their heads out now if only we can do the same with our energy and where we get it or what we use to make it then we, like harley is now, will be ok.

Thanks for playing and keeping the thread going as it truly needs to be read by everyone far and wide. Ten years from now there will be fewer 'exajoules' as big guy likes to put it, being produced by nuclear energy than there is today, not more. And that you can bank on.

peace

one last thing, nuclear energy as we know it today is a lie, was a lie and apparently will always be a lie. The first step to solving a problem is always admiting/finding the problem, once that is done the the rest can follow. The lie that is nuclear energy is killing people today as it has been from the start.

[Nihil]

99. "I am going to play by my rules"

Shame that "your rules" don't include reading.

If they had, you would have understood that I agreed with your post
regarding the disgraceful treatment of those victims rather than
going off on a mindless rant about the White House, Desert Storm
and Harley Davidsons.

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

93. Yes, radiation can be dangerous

What does worker compensation have to do with nuclear energy? Answer: even less than Rocky Flats, which was a weapons production facility, and even less than misguided and cruel tests on children.

It's impossible to overstate the sincerity and conviction with which anti-nukers plead their case. It's also very difficult to overstate the amount of straw man and other fallacious reasoning they use in the process.

[madokie]

94. Now ain't you a fine one to be calling the kettle black

Yes, radiation can be dangerous, he says. What an understatement if I've ever read one. You're not big guy lite now are you??

[wtmusic]

95. Hehe

If you mean nNadir I agree with him on most points regarding the relative dangers of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are without a doubt more deadly, if you are evaluating by the amount of power created per death. Radioactive materials, because they are unfamiliar to most, have acquired a sinister reputation that they don't (entirely) deserve.

But if you insist on going after stray neutrons, your first step should be cutting back on french fries -- then going after the fertilizer industry:

"Dissolved uranium complexes in water with dissolved fluorides, phosphates, and carbonates. When phosphate precipitates from water uranium goes with it. As a result, for example, uranium is a serious contaminant in phosphate fertilizers that are ubiquitous in crop farming. As irrigation water containing uranium is used, fertilizers that also contain uranium serve to compound the potential toxicity. Although most crops resist uptake of radioactive materials in their leafy (above-ground) components, those crops whose roots are consumed (such as potatoes, peanuts, carrots), are susceptible to contamination by uranium. Geochemical sampling and detailed geological mapping are essential early steps to knowing where irrigation water, contaminated by underlying rocks or by fertilizers may be a problem."

http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/Radioactivity/radioact.html

[madokie]

96. how can you set there and type that tripe

and expect anyone to believe its a valid point for discussion i this post. I'll fill you in on what I see it as. I see it as you don't like whats being said so you throw out a bone hoping someone, anyone will grab it and run with it. Most of us here are well aware of that type of bull and see it for what it really is, an attempt to shut down the discussion or better still to derail it, you know, move it off to something that is not relevant to what was being said or talked about.

I love finding out something I thought I knew isn't what I thought it was because I awake each morning with a strong desire to learn something new and when I do I accept it and go on about my way feeling good about learning something new and with each new thing I learn I know it increases my capacity to learn more, its a win/win for me, or in my eyes anyway.

If I wasn't on to something when I ask about the waste then why do you guys get so defensive. Why is it that after all these years yucca mountain is the best that you all can do and its heavily subsidized mind you at that plus its a total disaster, not many believe it will work. Take our governments money away from the nuke plants and they will go down like cheap whoooores, with my apologies to the whoooores, ok. If the truth was known I was probably considered to be one once myself.

Uranium is radioactive and radiation is dangerous as hell and there is nothing you or anyone else can say to change that, thats just fact. Any one of the nuke plants is a catastrophic accident waiting to happen, the question is not if, its only a when. hopefully it won't ever happen but with something like nuclear energy you never know. We as a country decided we didn't like the idea of taking a chance on poisoning our country with radiation years ago and we still don't. As soon as the talk of global warming heated up then here the pro-nuke folks started coming out of the woodwork again. Well this ole boy didn't believe a word of it way back when and with age and the knowledge that comes with that age I am even more set against it today. In hindsight my fears were well founded then as the tone and the logic today is the same.

[wtmusic]

97. You should read what you just wrote

I think you'll find that there is a lot of emotion and not a lot of information.

On one hand I read something like this:

"I love finding out something I thought I knew isn't what I thought it was because I awake each morning with a strong desire to learn something new and when I do I accept it and go on about my way feeling good about learning something new and with each new thing I learn I know it increases my capacity to learn more, its a win/win for me, or in my eyes anyway."

What a wonderful openminded attitude. But you're so set in your pre-conceived notions that you launch into:

"Uranium is radioactive and radiation is dangerous as hell and there is nothing you or anyone else can say to change that, thats just fact."

Here's fact: you live, breath and eat radioactive materials every day. The *amount* of radiation you're exposed to is critical. Now I am going to be every bit as openminded as you profess to be, and I want you to show me (with facts) how much more dangerous uranium is worldwide than coal smoke.

How many people do you think are killed by airborne hydrocarbons every year? Take a wild guess. :shrug:

[kristopher]

98. There's that false choice again...

The comparison isn't with fossil, it is with renewables.

[Nihil]

101. Not a false choice at all ...

>> Here's fact: you live, breath and eat radioactive materials every day.
>> The *amount* of radiation you're exposed to is critical.
>> ... I want you to show me (with facts) how much more dangerous uranium
>> is worldwide than coal smoke.

> The comparison isn't with fossil, it is with renewables.

His question was specific. It was a comparison between the health impact
of nuclear power vs coal power. Not a false choice, a simple question.
Some people (including you) have grasped that coal-fired power stations
put out more radioactive pollution than a nuclear power station.
Some people still haven't so it bears repeating.

The fact that renewables put out less radiation than either of the above
is a complete red herring (or straw man if you prefer) with regard to the
poster's question. I doubt that anyone is claiming that renewables put out
more radioactive pollution than either nuclear or coal so there was no need
to bring your so-called "false choice" into play.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

102. False choice for certain and sure.

The only person who pulled the dialogue to a comparison of nuclear and coal was wtmusic itself. madokie is concerned primarily with past mismanagement of nuclear materials and is tic'd off at the use of the public's fear OF CLIMATE CHANGE by the nuclear industry to try once more to put lipstick on that glowing pig.

SINCE COAL IS NOT IN THE RUNNING TO TO REPLACE COAL, THE ONLY COMPARISON THAT VALID IS THE ONE AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES.

His comparison with coal was designed to frame the issue. Whether he typed a sentence with a period or a question mark at the end the intent was the same - frame the issue (what do we replace coal with) as one limited to nuclear and coal.

As to the argument about the radioactive emissions from coal, it is irrelevant. Whether the people objecting to nuclear are specifying it or not, you know that the concern regarding radiation is related to the dangers posed by the concentrations used to provide NUCLEAR ENERGY.

Frankly y'all look like 'fools trying to make fun of smart people' when you trot out that old chestnut. No one is claiming coal is safe, whether its emissions include a bit more nasty shit or a bit less is irrelevant to everyone except the screwballs trying to poison everyone with a bucket of enriched shit.

[Nihil]

104. Fine.

> SINCE COAL IS NOT IN THE RUNNING TO TO REPLACE COAL, THE
> ONLY COMPARISON THAT VALID IS THE ONE AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES.

Even in upper case it is incoherent. Still, from past posts, I think I can
guess what you meant to say.

> madokie is concerned primarily with past mismanagement of nuclear materials
> and is tic'd off at the use of the public's fear OF CLIMATE CHANGE by the
> nuclear industry

I have stated that I agree with his concerns about "past mismanagement of
nuclear materials" and, elsewhere, have expressed my own concerns with the
ability of the US power companies to avoid a repeat of historical mistakes.

I, in turn, get "tic'd off" by people who use the public's fear of NUCLEAR
WEAPONS as a lever against nuclear power, people who make a fuss over a few
miners when URANIUM is involved whilst not caring about the vast numbers
maimed, killed or maltreated in the pursuit of any other mineral, and
people who manage to be living a few decades in the past to keep alive the
memory of old NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS whilst living a few decades in the future
to keep alive their hopes of renewable energy producing enough power to
replace the more polluting alternatives on a real-world scale.

> 'fools trying to make fun of smart people'

Not on my part - it's too much work to try to track down a suitable target
around here ...

[kristopher]

105. You are speaking to Gore and virtually every prominent energy analysts out there.

"living a few decades in the future to keep alive their hopes of renewable energy producing enough power to replace the more polluting alternatives on a real-world scale."

[GliderGuider]

106. Yes.

Gore and most "prominent energy analysts" are either unaware of or unwilling to admit publicly the scale and immediacy of the crisis humanity is facing.

For the record I think Gore is a rather bland, well-meaning but singularly unaware politician. I think David Suzuki has a bit more edge, and I think David Attenborough is one of the few who really gets it. Most "prominent energy analysts" exhibit remarkable tunnel vision, and wind up as pawns in this debate.

[kristopher]

107. Full replaceement of fossil fuels in 10 years says you have a flawed understanding

Do you seriously think he just pulled that out of his ass???

[GliderGuider]

108. Full replacement of fossil fuels in 10 years says I want some of what he's smoking.

Statements like that make me doubt Gore's true comprehension of the issues, whether it's the narrow issue of energy or the synthesis represented by the Converging Crisis. He's trying to lead with enthusiasm and vision, as any good politician should. However to accept that ten year time-line as a statement of real world possibility seems to smack more of desperation than simple optimism.

[kristopher]

109. All your reply says is that you are too lazy to sit down and do a few simple calculations.

Have you EVER worked out what kind of program would be required to do it? Or have you always used the approach you are using now - blanket dismissal of anyone who has taken that effort.

And yes, in case you missed it, that is a challenge.

Here is some basic data to start with:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=161089&mesg_id=161144

[GliderGuider]

110. I have no doubt it's technically possible.

I have every doubt in the world that we'll actually be able to do it. There is no calculation that accurately incorporates the undermining effects of self-interest, denial and outright venality. Mankind is not a rational animal, and nobody ever went broke banking on that inconvenient truth.

[kristopher]

111. So you have no idea of the technical challenge, yet you go around pooh pooh

So you have no real idea of the technical challenge (and apparently don't care to gain one), yet you go around pooh poohing the goal by saying OTHERS don't realize the scale of the endeavor?

Have I gotten that right?

[Nihil]

100. Speaking of talking tripe ...

> Uranium is radioactive and radiation is dangerous as hell and there
> is nothing you or anyone else can say to change that, thats just fact.

The first part of your statement ("Uranium is radioactive") certainly
*is* fact and nobody is denying this - it is a strawman on your part.

The second part of your statement ("radiation is dangerous as hell")
is not fact, not scientific and just pure anti-nuke dogma. Tripe.

"Certain amounts of certain kinds of radiation are dangerous as hell to
certain types of life" would be a factual way of stating it (again getting
no denial from me) but without those qualifiers, you just come across
as ignorant.

Hyperbole fails from either direction.

[kristopher]

103. Remove things from context much???

The answer is Yes. You LOVE to remove things from context. That snippet of conversation is in the context of dealing with wastes from the nuclear industry. (and don't give me the govt/civilian schism, it is a fiction where wastes is concerned) Madokie isn't talking about tritium on a watch dial, she is talking about unresolved issues related to the creation and storage of massive amounts of DANGEROUS nuclear wastes.

If you want people to support nuclear energy, then say something meaningful like "Here is how it can be stored safely and produced cheaply without the risk of giving nuclear weapons to every madman in the world that wants one."