French nuclear accidents

[cedric]

French nuclear companies are hoping to play a central role in the UK government's plan to build a new generation of reactors. At home, however, the industry has been buffeted by a series of mishaps. Angelique Chrisafis reports from Bollène.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/25/nuclear.industry.france

[glowing]

1. Yeah, they also want to build many in the USA as well....

kinda makes the nuclear is safe theory kinda silly... this is the reason people do not want them in their back yards... especially when it costs so much less to develop solar and wind technologies.

Its kinda like McCain trying to say drilling in the Gulf is safe, and then a huge spill happens from a barge. Its like mother nature is fucking with the "industries" that would do us much harm and charge us more. In FL they are increasing the rates (like we aren't burdened already with a ton of fees and charges) to pre-pay for 2 nuclear reactors.. I may not even use that energy. I can't say I will be here in 5 to 10 yrs to enjoy "cheaper" electric.. By then, they will find another reason to increase the rates. Personally, I beleive energy needs should be controlled and operated by the govt... so that there is no "profit" needed to be had by men in suits.

[madokie]

2. Well we folks here in Ok stopped one dead in its tracks early in the '70s

And we are ready to do the same again if need be. This site for blackfox is only about 15 miles up wind from where I live now. Here is a link to the story of the lady who gave up everything so I wouldn't have to worry about this one. I remember the times well, all the protest all the lies that we were told then echos still today, same lies just different mouths uttering them.

http://www.carriedickersonfoundation.com/
(snip)
Then one day in 1973, Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) announced plans to build Black Fox nuclear-power plant near Inola. Then began the environmental work that pervaded the remaining four and a half decades of her life. Finally in 1981, an anticipated Corporation Commission decision prompted by the work of CASE (Citizens' Action for Safe Energy), the organization she founded to teach the public about the dangers posed by nuclear power, led to PSO's cancellation of the project.

[HamdenRice]

3. Is it safe yet?

I mean safe to discuss the flaws and dangers of nuclear power on this forum without being called murderous, coal loving, illiterate idiots?

[Nederland]

4. Yes, it is safe

Although I don't think I'm anywhere near as rude as NNadir, I do sympathize with his point of view. People seem to hold nuclear plants to such a different standard than coal power plants it frequently comes across as a bias in favor of coal. I know people around here don't intend it, but I you see far more posts in this forum detailing nuclear's problems than you do coal's, and coal's problems are far worse.

[kristopher]

5. Coals problems at currrent ratio of production

"I know people around here don't intend it, but I you see far more posts in this forum detailing nuclear's problems than you do coal's, and coal's problems are far worse."

Coals problems at current ratio of production between nuclear and coal may be worse, but with a large scale build out of nuclear the associated problems would be staggering. Costs aside for the moment; dependence on centrally controlled fuel supplies from outside the country, legitimization of nuclear technology for every country (read that as a nuclear weapons proliferation threat), and an unsolved 50 year old problem of where and how to safely dispose of wastes are real concerns that are routinely sluffed aside by those pushing this right wing agenda.

Tell us how and by who the fuel will be supplied?

Tell us how it will be possible to deny reprocessing rights to countries that claim it is inherent to their national security?

Tell us the solution - a real permanent solution that doesn't just provide us with electricity while passing stockpiled poisons down to our descendants - to the nuclear waste issue and then you will be making your case. So far, no such information has been forthcoming, just a claim that "nuclear is the only answer to global warming and energy" crap that has been disproved a thousand times.

[Nederland]

6. Again

This is not a partisan issue. It is a human issue. Stop referring to this "right wing agenda" as if everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of right wing hack.

[kristopher]

7. When you use right wing propaganda it is fair to show that is what you are doing.

Address the points of the negatives of nuclear raised and repeated ignored and you might be successful at swaying opinion to your point of view.

Ignoring those problems does you no credit.

[Nederland]

8. Successful at swaying the opinion of whom?

The 1/3 of the the electorate that is Democratic? You need to stop making this a partisan issue.

[kristopher]

9. Kotae nasai

That means: answer the questions:

"I know people around here don't intend it, but I you see far more posts in this forum detailing nuclear's problems than you do coal's, and coal's problems are far worse."

Coals problems at current ratio of production between nuclear and coal may be worse, but with a large scale build out of nuclear the associated problems would be staggering. Costs aside for the moment; dependence on centrally controlled fuel supplies from outside the country, legitimization of nuclear technology for every country (read that as a nuclear weapons proliferation threat), and an unsolved 50 year old problem of where and how to safely dispose of wastes are real concerns that are routinely sluffed aside by those pushing this right wing agenda.

Tell us how and by who the fuel will be supplied?

Tell us how it will be possible to deny reprocessing rights to countries that claim it is inherent to their national security?

Tell us the solution - a real permanent solution that doesn't just provide us with electricity while passing stockpiled poisons down to our descendants - to the nuclear waste issue and then you will be making your case. So far, no such information has been forthcoming, just a claim that "nuclear is the only answer to global warming and energy" crap that has been disproved a thousand times.