"SAY NO TO NUCLEAR ENERGY" AHAHAHA!

[originalpckelly]

These Aussies are giving the finger to GE on Live Earth Australia, just look at the banners and shirts!

[originalpckelly]

1. If you don't get it, let me fill you in...

GE is helping with this concert, hence its appearance on NBC.

The real reason they are doing that is so they can push their nuclear reactors, which don't emit CO2.

The only thing green about nuclear power is the way it makes you glow once you're irradiated.

[IndyOp]

3. I was seriously wondering why the little video showed

nuclear energy results in 0% carbon emissions when, in fact, getting a nuclear facility up and running causes as much carbon emissions as about 10 years worth of burning coal... Sorry, no link, I just remember Helen Caldecott talking about this. Further there is NO FREAKING need for nuclear energy - except to keep the filthy rich, filthy richer. Wind power and solar are ready to market and we have the batteries we need for EV cars to be powered from the grid.

[Bjornsdotter]

5. Yep

:hi:

The wind turbines off the coast of Denmark almost look balletic when you are driving over the bridge.
Wind and solar power, I wish we would get on board.

Cheers

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. You wish we would get on board? As in The U.S.A.?

West Texas wind farm;


Tehachapi, CA windfarm;

Palm Springs, CA windfarm;

There are other major windfarms in Oregon, Washington and the are appearing in the Midwest.
Sure, more need to be built but ten years ago, there was hardly any wind generation in Texas. Texas now has the largest wind farm in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm

[Bjornsdotter]

28. The difference

...is that you can drive in Sweden or Denmark and see a small farm and they will have a couple of turbines to help. They are all over and not at all unusual to see.

We are behind not only with wind turbines, but in other ways also. Mass transit, the use of bikes instead of cars, energy consumption, fireplaces (which may soon be banned if not up to certain standards).

The city of Vaxjo is amazing in their efforts.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/19/233154/942/?source=daily

Yes, we have a long way to go....

Cheers

[IndyOp]

26. I heard that the U.S. is currently 3rd or 4th TOP nation for wind-power...

Jerry Brown, when Governor, gave perks for building wind power and there are miles and miles of windmills in Northern California.

I was amazed and pleased to hear this...

:D

[deadmessengers]

6. How much energy does it take to get a coal facility up and running?

I mean, if we're going to throw around figures like "getting a nuclear facility up and running causes as much carbon emissions as about 10 years worth of burning coal", I figure we should make a fair, apples-to-apples comparison about it, and count the energy output of getting other kinds of plants going, such as wind and solar (gotta mine the lithium and nickel for the batteries somewhere (like the Sudbury mine]). And that's the big problem with wind and solar: energy storage, and the environmental disasters (like the aforementioned Sudbury) associated with it. They also don't scale up awfully well, whereas our experience with France shows us that nuke plants do.

The bottom line is, there's still no good source of energy. There's bad (nukes, wind, solar, hydro), and worse (coal, petroleum). The only answer is to use less of it.

[originalpckelly]

7. What do you want to do with the radioactive waste?

[deadmessengers]

13. There *are* options

on-site reprocessing of spent fuel rods, for one thing. Vitrification & subductive disposal are a couple of others. Then, there's Yucca Mountain. (flame away - it's *not* an awful option).

[ThomWV]

31. You would be shocked to learn just how little radioactive waste there actually is

In comparison to the waste from coal plants it is essentially nonexistant. Also, and most people do not know this, there is radioactive contamination spread in the waste plume from coal fired plants too.

[diane in sf]

8. Scaling up is a concept related to centralized power production. The future

of energy is small and smaller scale, local, distributed. Much like the rise of the internet vs, old style, top down media like network and cable tv, massive ownership of radio, etc. The grid can be used as a leveler and connected to many small power generators as with the internet.

The tides are always turning, the wind always blowing somewhere, the sun shines intermittently. Batteries are getting better and the things we use power to run are getting massively more efficient. I have a 25 cubic foot fridge/freezer that runs all year on what it would take to power one 60 watt light bulb. The old fridge I had was only 18 cubic feet and cost 5 to 8 times as much energy annually.

In the book, Natural Capitalism, Amory Lovins, et. al. feel we could keep our current level of comfort and cut our power usage by 90% fairly rapidly. His motto: "in god we trust--all others bring data." In California we have an energy policy that rewards utilities for conserving energy, not selling it, and we have the lowest per capita consumption rate in the US and one of the strongest economies.

[originalpckelly]

9. Add survivability to that!

If we generate our own electricity, the de-centralization will promote survival in a disaster. If a problem occurs somewhere, we can still turn on the lights.

[deadmessengers]

14. pebble-bed nukes can be decentralized.

Google them for all the info you can stand.

[diane in sf]

16. Nukes are very expensive compared to efficiency and then wind, natural gas

and solar.

Thus they are dying of market forces. No one orders them except centrally decided top-down places like France and the former Soviet Union and places that want material for bombs like Iran. And this leaves out the disposal of nuclear waste problem. Private insurers are not willing to insure them so they have forced the government to subsidize their uninsurability. They only exist because of hiding their costs in our taxes.

Don't take my word for it--rmi.org--has lots of data on nukes and their economics including the story of how the Sacramento area got rid of its nuclear power plant and radically lowered its power costs and freed up millions of dollars for reinvestment in the local economy.

[Tesha]

47. Because of the risks of dirty bombs and clandestine weapons, etc...

> pebble-bed nukes can be decentralized.

Because of the risks of dirty bombs and the clandestine
extraction of plutonium to make nuclear weapons, *NO*
reactor technology will ever be truly "decentralized".

Nuclear technology is just too widespread to allow
even a small chance of the spent fuel falling into
the wrong hands. How hard do you suppose it would be
for truly motivated crazies to convert spent pebbles
into a radiological bomb?

Tesha

[diane in sf]

15. Yep, also what kind of terrorist is going to target every suburban house's solar

panels (except the bushlers who will attack them by subsidizing their carbon intensive and nuclear friends).

Everything centralized is a juicy target.

[bananas]

12. That's what Al Gore says, too

He wrote about it in Newsweek,
he said it in his policy address,
and he talked about it when he spent the day discussing these issues with congress.
Links to his policy address and congressional appearance are in my sigline.

His Newsweek article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16127831/site/newsweek/

My Turn: The Energy Electranet
The climate crisis will force a historic shift to a new global power network of small alternative sources. This network will then feed a smart electric grid. Welcome to the future.

By Al Gore
Newsweek

Dec. 18, 2006 issue - Over the past 200 years, the industrial revolution has created vast wealth and huge improvements in the human condition—in a few dozen highly industrialized countries. The engine of that revolution was fueled by coal and then supercharged with oil—multiplying the productivity of human labor many, many times over. Although we have reaped many benefits from this intensive use of energy, we are now faced with an urgent crisis—a crisis that is altering the very nature of the Earth's climate.

<snip>

[diane in sf]

17. The people who have spent years studying this stuff and on where our technology is

going agree with this.

I did my masters thesis on people's attitudes about global issues--especially environmental, where our technology is going and how that affects our consciousness. (Consciousness and technology interact to develop each other.)

[bananas]

25. That sounds very interesting.

Where do you think we're going?

[diane in sf]

20. Thank you, these are really great links!

[ljm2002]

27. Thank you!!!

We absolutely need to get away from the idea that power must be provided from some central source. In fact, distributed solutions can be much more efficient and are more robust since there is no single point of failure. It's a different mindset and it's time that we all started thinking along those lines IMO.

[havocmom]

36. Nuclear power = same ol robber barons and pollutants for the little people.

They put their $$ on Nuke in the Rich & Powerful Casino and they want to protect their interests, whether it is good for the world or not.

If nuke power is so safe, let them keep those spent rods in their own neighborhoods and stop trying to send them all out west.

[Tesha]

45. I'm no fan of nuclear, but your "stat" is plainly bullshit.

> I was seriously wondering why the little video showed
> nuclear energy results in 0% carbon emissions when, in
> fact, getting a nuclear facility up and running causes
> as much carbon emissions as about 10 years worth of
> burning coal...

I'm no fan of fission nuclear power, but this statistic
is plainly bullshit; I doubt you can come up with a
valid citation to back this up.

Do you have any idea how much coal a coal-burning power
plant consumes in ten years? Here's a hint: Our local
coal plant gets an entire *TRAINLOAD* of coal delivered
twice every week. And we're talking a train with dozens
and dozens of many-ton hopper cars, each loaded with
(essentially) 100% carbon to be converted to CO₂.

Tesha

[cui bono]

10. Yeah. And green isn't just about C02 emissions.

Sheesh. Do they think we don't know about the radioactive nuclear waste that nobody wants dumped in their own backyard?

[originalpckelly]

11. I don't think so.

They've even got Speaker Pelosi recanting on the nuclear issue, she was a big activist in the area against nuclear energy, yet at the House hearing on global warming not too long ago, she talked about nuclear energy and even considered it to be acceptable.

[cui bono]

21. That is really sad.

Time for some more No Nukes concerts.

[Rex]

53. Hey now, nuclear power is very safe

if you're immune to radiation!

[ChazII]

2. Doesn't France use nuclear power? n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

19. Yes. They have 56 facilities, all the same design.

Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover, management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in America.

They completely satisfy their electrical needs and even export electricity to neighboring countries.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

The last paragraphs of the article deals with their issues regarding nuclear waste. It is an ongoing problem for the French as well as the US

[pinto]

4. Some simple Live Earth goals:

I PLEDGE:

1.To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2.To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"

3.To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

4.To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5.To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6.To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7.To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

http://liveearthpledge.org/msn.php

[spoony]

22. The ignorance about nuclear energy

is played on the same way the ignorance of Muslims is. The nuclear bogeyman, the 9/11 bogeyman, same fear tactics different side of the coin.

This NIMBY bullshit has killed thousands.

[MadHound]

23. Excuse me, but I've worked at a nuclear reactor,

I know full well what goes on at one, both the good and the bad. And frankly it is my sincere wish that we never build another goddamn nuke, ever.

There are two reasons for this, what to do about all of the waste(and I'm not just talking spent fuel here, I'm talking about everything from paper to the containment vessel itself) and the ongoing inability to rid the system of human error.

Sure, we haven't had any big TMI or Chernobyl type incidents for the past couple of decades, but that doens't mean that there haven't leaks, emissions, vents, what have you. There have been plenty, however they simply are glossed over, as are most of things that go down at a nuclear plant. Unless it is a large event that the public has no choice but to notice, these events are swept under the table. Groundwater leakage, release of radioactive steam, venting of radioactive material to prevent a full blown meltdown, etc. etc. These are common yearly events yet we're never told about them, nor the danger.

Until you find a suitable solution for waste, until you eliminate human error, and above all until you get rid of the greed factore, nuclear plants are unsuitable for our country. Especially considering that wind alone can provide for all of our power needs cheaply and cleanly.

The NIMBY folks have got it right on this one, and frankly I would fight like hell if one of these monstrosities was put in back yard also. Nuclear plants present too much of a risk, both short and long term.

[Odin2005]

24. nuclear waste can be recycled back into fuel.

And the newer reactor designs are such that radiation won't be leaked into the environment if something goes wrong, or so I've heard by some posters in the Environment/Energy forum.

The anti-nuclear people are chasing after outdated technology and thinking it is a flaw with nuclear energy itself.

[MadHound]

29. Not all nuclear waste can be recycled back into fuel

In fact most nuclear waste, at least by volume, isn't spent fuel rods at all. It is paper swipes, various cans and other containers, tools, all the way up to containment vessels themselves. None of this can be recycled in any form.

And having worked in the industry, and having that sort of expertise, I can confidently state that even state of the art reactors are capable of leaking radioactive material into the enviroment. In fact some of the most recent findings regarding pebble bed reactors is leading toward finding them as dangerous as old style reactors. This is one of the nuclear industry's dirty little secrets. While they are busy touting the safety benefits of new nuke tech, their inspectors are filing reports finding have faulty those same reactors are. Hell, there are a few facilities around the country who actually budget in fine and cleanup money into their annual budgets. What does that say?

And frankly people should chase after both new and old technology. Many old reactors are still in operation, going beyond their original operating goals and putting the surrounding commmunity at risk. Some date back thirty, forty, even fifty years, with significant degridation occuring to their physical plant, yet their license gets reupped and they continue operating, a disaster waiting to happen.

As I said initially, there are two inherent flaws with nuclear energy, no matter what style plant you're using. What to do with the waste, all of the waste, and the inability to eliminate human error. There is nothing like a small nuclear mistake, they are all big. Until we can solve these problems, completely and fully, then we should stay away from the nuclear option. Especially considering that we have a much more promising alternative in wind and solar.

[spoony]

30. These characterisations are false

For one thing, the NRC has daily event reports on its website. Even the most minuscule violation is noted for all nuclear facilities. (Oh no, a missing TROXLER MOISTURE DENSITY GAUGE!) It's very easy to say that things are being covered up, it's another matter to actually demonstrate it.

Frankly, the events you're talking about are disastrous and would shut down reactors for months, if not permanently, especially your contention that it's "common" and "yearly" for the "venting of radioactive material to prevent a full blown meltdown" to happen. Such a scenario requires things to already be rather FUBAR, with the cooling process well and truly screwn and hydrogen building up under the lid, possibly with a partial meltdown already occurring (hello, TMI). Even then, the venting is not done into the atmosphere, but into the barbotage tank through emergency valves. Of course, this sort of thing tends to halt energy production, and I think we'd notice if every reactor in the country was out of commission half the time.

I'm very comfortable with a reactor in my (sort of) backyard. I greatly prefer it to choking on coal slag.

[ThomWV]

32. Thank you for a sensible response

Give me a choice of having a coal-fired plant or a nuclear plant within 100 miles of me and I'll take the nuclear plant every single time.

[MadHound]

33. LOL, OK, if it makes you sleep well at night, believe the hype, believe the media

Don't believe the guy who's been a senior HP for years at a nuke facility, who knows what's gone down, day in, day out. Your faith in the openness and trustwortyness of the NRC is touching. Misplaced but touching nonetheless. Do you normally believe everything a government agency tells you? Do you ever wonder what the government doesn't tell you? Do you realize that oversight doesn't reside solely with the NRC, but also with the DOE, IATA, and periphreally, a handful of other government agencies? That's where the shit gets buried friend.

Take for instance tritium leaks. Those aren't reported in the NRC ENRs. Those are contained in inspection reports that the public generally doesn't have access to unless they're willing to do some digging. Yet tritium is indeed leaking into the groundwater from a dozen or more plants around the country, including Los Alamos and San Onofre. The problem has gotten so bad in some instances that wells have had to be shut down, depriving people of water and injuring surrouding residents.

I noticed that you didn't address the waste issue either. Well, that should concern you, especially considering the fact that our current official consensus, burying at Yucca Mt., is so full of holes that it will come back and bite Las Vegas residents rather quickly. EPA has done dye tests and found that material leaked in the storage units of Yucca Mt. would show up in the Las Vegas water system within two weeks.

I find you trust in the government touching, really, I do. But the fact is that the government, whether in regards to nuclear power or any other issue, doesn't have the health and welfare of the public as its first and foremost priority. What resides in that sweet spot is the ease of profits for corporations of all stripes, including nuclear ones. Do some research for yourself friend, talk to those who've been inside the belly of beast. The facts that you will find will chill you to the bone.

Or simply go on your way, whistling past the graveyard. But whether you choose to believe the truth or not, the facts are still out there. Nuclear power generation is a dangerous chimera, unsuitable for any sort of widescale use due to two overriding factors; no safe, certain method of disposing of the waste and no way to prevent human error. There is no need for us to use nuclear energy, since it has been shown that wind power can indeed provide us with all of our electrical needs into the forseeable future.

[spoony]

34. Whilst your condescension is amusing

it doesn't do much in the way of convincing me.

For one thing, you'd think a senior HP would know a bit more about reactors to not make such hyperbolic statements that I've already called you on.

Also, I'd be very interested in seeing this EPA study about Yucca Mt. and Vegas' water supply. What I've read not only states that it would take 1,000 years for any leak to work its way into a populated area, it wouldn't be Vegas anyway. It would be Amargosa Valley, just from the way the fissures in the geologic makeup of Yucca go.

[trumad]

35. Jesus Christ Spoony

you're getting your head handed to you but you keep getting up off the canvas for more of a beating... Stay down man.

[spoony]

38. Lol, that's an odd interpretation since

I can back up everything I say. Anti-nukers cannot. They just make shit up and all too often people do not demand that they either cite a source or stop propagandising.

[trumad]

39. OK---

In this corner---someone who has worked in the industry for years.... In the other corner--- Google guy.

[nolabels]

40. Thank you trumad, you are a fine ringmaster indeed !

:rofl:

[spoony]

41. You're making quite an arse out of yourself

with your limp little assumptions. But even if I was "Google guy"--show me where I'm wrong. You or the one you're carrying water for. Go ahead, and prove the ridiculous notions that near-meltdowns happen routinely and all that bullshit. You'll notice that "industry guy" hasn't been able to demonstrate I'm wrong, nor frankly that he actually possesses the knowledge one would expect "industry guy" to have after so many years of experience.

I'm not at all impressed by internet claims of expertise, especially when they are followed by flat out lies. And I'm sure as hell not impressed by their fans.

[MadHound]

42. I'm not impressed by people who really don't know what they're talking about

Nor people who twist statements I make into something else to fit their own preconceived agenda. I've never said that meltdowns are "routinely happening", so drop the fucking shit on that one. What I did say is that accidents and incidents are indeed happening on a regular basis, and these accidents and incidents are threatening, since they are letting out leaks of radioactive material on a regular basis.

You on the other hand are showing some true ignorace on these matters. You sound like you know the basics of modern reactors, but not the details, nor how older reactors work. Nor do you know the ins and outs of governmental oversight of the nuclear industry either, since all you are relying on is the NRC reports.

I've given you my background for expertise in this field, what do you bring to the table? So far it sounds like an unwavering mindset and a bunch of internet links. Sorry, I cannot provide you with links to a lot of this shit, because this is the sort of thing that isn't readily available to the public. If you want file a few FOIA requests, you could pry loose some of the information that I've passed on. However I think that your mind is already made up, and you are going to refuse to believe anything, even somebody in the business, that contradicts that mindset.

You don't believe my claims about my past, that's fine, believe what you want. However there are people on this board who know me in real life, and they know that what I say is true. Yet you persist in calling me ignorant, though yours is on full display. You claim I lie simply because I can't provide you your precious links. Hate to tell you this friend, but not all knowledge, not even the majority of it, is on the internet yet. So, you are left with a couple of choices, either believe those who have the background, or live in ignorance. It seems like you are choosing the latter. Oh well, your loss.

[Canadiana]

44. well can you give us

some resource? A book? Peer reviewed article? Something? Because when I look at France, nuclear doesn't seem outrageous. And when I look at China building one coal plant a week...I feel something needs to change.

[MadHound]

46. In regards to a lot of the issues I mentioned

You're going to have to file FOIA acts to get to it. If you're simply looking for some sort of confirmation of what I say, simply google terms like "tritium leaking into the groundwater" or "radioactive steam". As for the French or other European nuclear plants, well, the French are starting to have problems with their waste, leaking into the Champagne region groundwater, among other concerns. Not to mention all of that waste that they've dumped into the Atlantic Ocean a couple of decades back. Also do some research on the Olkiluoto plant being built in Finland, or how the drought in France a year ago shut down their nuclear facilities(lack of coolant).

There is no need for nuclear power in the US. A 1991 DOE study found that there is more than enough harvestable wind resources in this country to provide for all of our electrical needs indefinitely. Why risk the problems of using nuclear when we have a better solution available?

[spoony]

48. It's so easy to make claims that no one can check isn't it?

Just fucking quit with the "I know I'm on the inside" bullshit already. It's getting tedious. You made very specific claims about things that you say are common in commercial nuclear reactors, for which you have absolutely no proof and which also defy common sense (again, these incidents you described are major and would shut down a reactor, not exactly something you can cover up). On top of that, you imply danger from emergency venting that doesn't exist and make utterly unbelievable claims about Yucca groundwater contamination.

Until you can back any of this total nonsense up with something, anything, more than your own very very very super special status as an HP house mouse, people would do well to ignore your scare tactics.

[MadHound]

49. I gave you many ways and pointed you in the direction to get the information

Yet you choose to ignore that. If you choose to do so and perpetuate your ignorance, fine. But that still doesn't mean that the information isn't out there, available to you or others if you simply get off your ass and do some research. What do you want me to do, go scan in a bunch of documents and post them here for your gratification? Sorry, but I'm not going to open myself up to civil and criminal penalties that way. You have to follow proper channels on this sort of shit, much like military paperwork. Yet simply because it isn't in a Google based format for you, you choose not to believe:eyes:

Despite your disbelief, I did indeed work at a nuclear plant for a number of years. I know this, others on this board know this, and again, if you choose not to believe it, that's your problem, not mine.

But let me ask you this. Besides your charming personality, what do you bring to the table on this discussion? What experience do you have? Have you worked in the nuclear industry, or are you simply another armchair expert, compounding your world view from a mish mash of MSM bullshit and propaganda. I would hope that you are/were in the nuclear industry, for then it would be very easy to convince you of my resume, simply by question and answer of various terms. But alas, I suspect that you are simply another armchair "expert", knowing very little in acutality, but trying to get by on bluff and bluster.

Whatever, I'm done with you. Your unwillingness to listen and perhaps actually learn something is truly astonishing, and frankly I've better things to do. I suspect that we'll have this discussion in the future, so please, next time be prepared. Go do some of the research that I suggested, you know, the kind that isn't on Google:eyes:

[spoony]

50. What I say is demonstrably true, that's what I "bring to the table."

Versus you, who gives nothing but more and more claims of special knowledge, even in this last message! Lol. You can pretend that you and you alone hold the secrets of the nuclear industry, I don't care, but I have explained why your many claims cannot be so, and you have explained...nothing. Except that you were an HP.

It's like playing cards with someone who assures me he has four aces, even though he refuses to show them and even though I know better because I have one in my hand.

[MadHound]

51. In other words, you bring nothing.

You haven't demonstrated a damn thing, hell you don't even have any links up, and damn I thought you were the expert at that:eyes:
You haven't worked in the industry, yet you claim to be all knowing about everything concerning nuclear power:eyes:
All you really have is a lot of bluff and bluster, with little to back it up.

I'm sorry that the information I mention isn't on the 'net. Information like that generally isn't. However I have given you methods, granted difiicult ones, for obtaining at least some confirmation of what I say. If you wish to follow that up, I encourage you to do so.

But as I said earlier, I'm done with you. I suspect that even if I showed up at your doorstep with all of the reports I would need to back myself up with, it still wouldn't convince you. Nor am I inclined to give personal information to a complete stranger simply to win a debate. If you choose not to believe me, fine, don't. Plenty of others do, especially the more they know about the nuclear industry. Judging by your reaction, it is obvious that you know very little, and that your "expertise" consists of blind faith in corporate propaganda and hot air.

So make your last little insults and let us let this thread drop. It has become a pointless waste of energy engaging with you and I have better things to do

Buh bye:hi:

[spoony]

52. Still swearing up and down you have those aces eh?

And, somehow, you have gotten ahold of my CV! Lol, very well let's let the thread drop then. I'm confident anyone who reads it (with the obvious exception of the Gilligan to your Skipper, trumad) can see that you have no defence for your distortions, fear-mongering, exaggerations, and probably flat out lies (two weeks for that dye test you say? Vegas no less? Lol) except to repeat over and over like a skipping LP that you're too special to use petty things like facts and sources, but that if we want we can submit vague FOIA papers to the NRC and EPA with no specific dates, reports, documents mentioned. Surely that's a plan doomed to succeed!

[Rosemary2205]

37. Isn't wind energy known for murdering lots and lots of birds?

I don't doubt what you are saying but it seems to me no matter how we choose to power up our lifestyle we are going to have some sort of negative environmental impact.

[MadHound]

43. The reputation for wind turbines being "bird blenders" stems from one incident

At Altamont Pass in California over twenty years ago. But both technology, in the form of lower tip speeds, and an increased knowledge of how to place wind farms so as not to kill birds has progressed radically since then. Bird deaths have gone way down, and is an issue that we really don't need worry about it.

[Blue Diadem]

54. Here ya go spoony, a couple articles about falsfying data, corrosion on reactor head etc.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060918/NEWS08/609180319/-1/NEWS30

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060717/NEWS08/607170318/-1/NEWS30

edited to add link for fermi II: can't get entire story without paying

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DTNB&s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_multi=DTNB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=107DEFE5DC2FC013&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM



1. Fermi II plant shut for leak
January 25, 2005 •• 787 words •• ID: det20701718
The Fermi II nuclear plant near Monroe was shut down Monday afternoon after developing a coolant leak. No one was evacuated and the public wasn't endangered in the incident, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official said. Workers discovered the source of the leak late Monday night and promptly shut off the water, stopping the leak, said DTE Energy, which operates the plant. It wasn't known when the facility would resume operations. The plant, in Frenchtown

[spoony]

55. Yet the NRC did its job, and so did DTE

It didn't cover up anything. It's been very forthcoming, contrary to MadHound:

"I find you trust in the government touching, really, I do. But the fact is that the government, whether in regards to nuclear power or any other issue, doesn't have the health and welfare of the public as its first and foremost priority."

The oversight works! The Davis-Besse problem shows that corporate/contractor interests sometimes trump safety, but that inherent design protections and good oversight makes nuclear power redundantly safe. I find it ironic that on a Democratic site which presumably supports government programs that such disdain for the agencies that do/will oversee them is so rampant. Whilst bureaucracy is frustrating, it is also necessary and is not inherently evil nor prone to conspiracies to endanger or harm us.

As for the Fermi story, my local nuke, they didn't do anything wrong. A problem developed and they shut it down. No cover-up, no safety issues. Indeed, if anything this just proves that the kind of serious and secretive problems MadHound states are commonplace cannot possibly be, because we DO hear about them and they DO cause shutdowns that are impossible to cover up. The truth is that problems occur occasionally, they are dealt with, they are reported, and the cycle continues. Near misses are rare, pose little danger, are publicly known, and not really a matter people should waste time worrying about, much less campaigning against in (de facto) favour of bigger polluters.