Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Wyden Sounds The Alarm on Fukushima (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Add up all the deaths from coal-fired plants (6+ / 0-)

    andplants and stack them up against nuclear fatalities. It isn't remotely close. France has been getting 80% of its electricity from nuclear for decades. It can be operated safely but not by Companies.

    Fructose is a liver poison. Stop eating it today.

    by Anne Elk on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:48:04 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Tired (23+ / 0-)

      That's a tired argument.

      Yes, let's shut down the coal plants too.

      We have a nuclear reactor 93 million miles away that delivers more energy to the surface of this planet every single day than will be delivered by all fossil fuels combined over the course of their existence.  Let's use that one.

      I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

      by CharlieHipHop on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:50:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, use less power (14+ / 0-)

      We don't "need" all that electrical power. Human beings were alive on earth for a wee bit of time before electrical utilities came along.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:09:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but now there are nine billion of us. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Imhotepsings

        When you cut back electric power production, you're talking about less power to pump water from wells and through pipelines.

        Unless you can think of a way to convince every woman on Earth to have one baby and no more, we need to talk in terms of phasing out unsafe power, not shutting it down.

        Have you noticed?
        Politicians who promise LESS government
        only deliver BAD government.

        by jjohnjj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:08:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hence, conservation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisVoter, ozsea1

          Pumping water does take a tremendous amount of power, but there's so much energy use that we could cut way down. Heck, we could cut down our water use as well.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:41:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There are 7 billion of us. (6+ / 0-)

          The wonderful thing about water is that you can store it in reservoirs.  Wind and Solar power are ideally suited to that task.  

          We need to convince most women to have two babies.  Then we need to convince wealthy nations to subsidize CFL's for developing nations and we need to get nations like India and China to adopt Energy Star type programs.

          Yes, population is a problem, but there's a reason CA uses half as many kilowatt hours per person per year as Texas.

          Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

          by JesseCW on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:10:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. there is a reason... (0+ / 0-)

            It's not as hot there.

            •  You evidently don't know a lot about The Inland (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dave925

              Empire.

              Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

              by JesseCW on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 10:39:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes I do. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm from Arizona.  But you're taking average electricity use across the entire state.  On average California is a LOT cooler than Texas (or Arizona).

                •  Huge areas of this state, with substantial (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elfling, Andrew M

                  populations, are very very hot for much of the year.

                  Large chunks of the rest of the population get to put up with weeks of insane temps during Santa Anas.  

                  Texas 14,179 kwhrs per capita

                  Arizona 11,395 kwhrs per capita

                  California 6,721 kwhrs per capita

                  Now, if we were just talking about hot days, Arizona would trump Texas, easily.

                  It doesn't.  It's primarily about conservation efforts.

                  Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

                  by JesseCW on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:05:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Texas vs California (0+ / 0-)

                    Twelve major US cities have a daily mean temp above 65F.

                    4 of them are in Texas (Houston-5, San Antonio-7, Austin-8, Dallas-11).  1 is in California (at the bottom) and that is Riverside-12

                    Top 13 cities with the highest average daily maximum temperature.

                    Same cast, with LA squeaking into spot # 13.  The really really hot areas of California have nowhere near the population.  Precisely why your "per capita" numbers fail.

        •  No, there are not (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Russgirl, ozsea1, Dave925, Simplify

          nine billion of us. There are 7.007 billion of us. Mostly concentrated in regions and nations where the average person doesn't even have electricity (or running water). I see no reason to blame the poorest humans on earth for the so-called 'First World's greed and conspicuous consumption habits.

    •  All true, but also true is that a single (16+ / 0-)

      nuclear disaster can create magnitudes more damage than those coal-fired plants in a matter of days or hours as opposed to years.

      So we're trading less pollution now for a possible global tragedy later, by using nuclear in place of coal.

      I'd rather deal with the pollution now and use non-nuclear fueled energy production until we have a permanent solution to nuclear waste (plutonium, transuranics and other waste by-products, like radiated coolant water); other than to just store years worth of used-uranium rods in water coolant pools, or truck it states away to bedrock areas where it gets encased in glass or lead and/or stored in underground facilities or natural formations.

      * * *
      I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
      -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
      * * *
      "A Better World is Possible"
      -- #Occupy

      by Angie in WA State on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 08:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You make a good point (5+ / 0-)
      It can be operated safely but not by Companies.
      The big problem is allowing these things to be run by private, for-profit industry. With the profit factor, there is always the incentive there to cut costs / corners, defer spending on maintenance,  and reduce training of staff.

      It is a recipe for disaster when the unexpected occurs.

      •  Nuclear power can never EVER be safe (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        averybird, Joieau, Russgirl, ozsea1, Dave925

        and I really wish people would STOP pretending it can...  sure making and using the power looks safe BUT we have absolutely no way to store the spent fuel rods and the more plants that are built the MORE spent fuel rods there are.

        the more nuclear plants.. the more unsafe to dispose of nuclear waste....  and THIS time superfund clean up will NOT work.

        "Orwell was an optimist"

        by KnotIookin on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:01:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No worries, taxpayers ALWAYS pay while 1% walk (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ozsea1, Dave925, bear83, dharmasyd

        away from their responsibilities...

        Until the Nuclear Industry is ready to accept all responsibility and liability for any incident, then why should a Nuclear Power Co. be allowed to operate?

        •    "Nuclear energy is a pact with the Devil."
        --physicist John R. Dunning, Jr.
      •  Apparently, the free market... (0+ / 0-)

        ... doesn't like nukes.  Taxpayers, for some reason, are expected to support what Wall Street finds less than promising.

        Safety's an issue, sure, but nukes are dismal in purely financial terms.  Google "grossly uncompetitive".

    •  Only if you don't count cancer deaths. n/t (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, Joieau, Russgirl, ozsea1, dharmasyd

      Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

      by expatjourno on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:48:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  France covers up a lot of leaks. France (6+ / 0-)

      still doesn't have credible long term waste storage solutions.

      Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:07:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and just because it hasn't happened (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        native, Joieau, Russgirl, Andrew M, ozsea1

        (meaning a Chernobyl or Fukushima level event) doesn't mean it cannot or will not happen.
        Streaks end. always.
        the measure of safety is in weighing the safety systems in place against the knowable risks.
        One of those risks is long term storage. Another is procurement of fissionable material which, iirc, France gets from war zones in Africa. A whole 'nuther layer of teh suck.

        Class war has consequences, and we are living them.

        by kamarvt on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 05:48:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NRC estimated years ago (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kamarvt, Russgirl, ozsea1

          that the probability of meltdown with 100 nuclear plants in operation was close to 50%, every year. That's absolutely NOT a comforting guesstimate, and our 'luck' won't hold forever. Shut 'em down.

          •  The US has had (0+ / 0-)

            100 operational nuclear reactors for about a quarter of a century now. In that time, no meltdowns have occurred. If the odds really were, "50%, every year" then the probability of this situation is roughly 1 in 30 million.

            Thus, I can conclude that either

            (1) we have been very very very lucky or

            (2) you are completely full of it.

            By the way, since you don't know, US NRC specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency requirement. That's not an NRC estimate; it's an NRC requirement.

            That is, for a fleet of 100 reactors, the probability of a meltdown in a given year is less than 1%. Modern designs exceed this requirement by a couple orders of magnitude.

            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
            -- Albert Einstein

            by bryfry on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 07:27:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Three words: (0+ / 0-)

              Three Mile Island.

              •  But Joy (0+ / 0-)

                You claimed that there would be a Three Mile Island every other year, on average. Or perhaps you just don't understand what a 50% probability of meltdown every year actually means.

                You can't be that dense, can you?

                Maybe math is not your forte. At least you can count to three. ;-)

                Commercial generation of electricity from nuclear power in the US has accumulated over 3500 reactor-years of operation. There has been only one melt-down in all that time.

                Aside from scaring the bejeebies out of a scientifically unsophisticated public as a result of irresponsible reporting by an "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" media (and a Jane Fonda film), this one meltdown harmed nobody and nothing except the bottom line of the owner of the plant and its private insurance company.

                Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                -- Albert Einstein

                by bryfry on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 08:39:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Are you saying nothing has melted ? (0+ / 0-)
              no meltdowns have occurred
              http://www.nrc.gov/...

              "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

              by indycam on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:04:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reading and math (0+ / 0-)

                are fundamental. First, try reading what I wrote:

                The US has had 100 operational nuclear reactors for about a quarter of a century now. In that time, no meltdowns have occurred.
                Now, work the following math problem (if you can):

                2012 - 25 = ???

                Hint: the Three Mile Island accident was in 1979.

                Extra credit: Did Three Mile Island occur before or after the US had 100 operating nuclear reactors?

                Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                -- Albert Einstein

                by bryfry on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:12:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh , so you are saying (0+ / 0-)
                  There has been only one melt-down in all that time.
                  there have been no melt downs since the meltdown ?
                  Sorry , sometimes your posts are so dense its hard to make heads or tails of what you are trying to say .
                  If I get you correctly now , because there have been no meltdowns , except for the meltdowns that have happened here and overseas , there have been no meltdowns ?  
                  Or am I still misunderstanding your position ?  

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:32:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Do you remember this classic from 2007 ? (0+ / 0-)

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  How is that working out for you ?

                  "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                  by indycam on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:37:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Does this mean (0+ / 0-)

                    That you're willing to take the bet?

                    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                    -- Albert Einstein

                    by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:51:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You want me to bet on a position I never took ? (0+ / 0-)

                      You see , I asked you to put your money where your mouth was and you tried to get me to take a position I never held . Your "bet" had nothing to do with me .  
                      Do you see the difference yet ?

                      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                      by indycam on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:25:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'll take that as a no (0+ / 0-)

                        You like to use your mouth, but you won't put your money there.

                        Thanks for playing.

                        Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                        -- Albert Einstein

                        by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:32:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You still don't get the concept of (0+ / 0-)

                          putting your money where your mouth is . Or you pretend to not understand .
                          It's not a no or a yes . I never took the position you wish I had , so I feel no need to bet on a position I never took .

                          Do you see how your bet does not relate ?
                          Or do you think that you need more help to understand ?

                          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                          by indycam on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:46:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ahem ... (0+ / 0-)

                            Your exact words were:

                            If this plant is up and on line , 5 years or less from now , today , you get all the money . If this plant takes 10 years or more to go on line , I get all the money . If it goes on line between 5 and 10 years from today , sliding scale payout . IE , if it goes on line in 5 years and one day you get nearly every dollar , if it goes online just one day under 10 years , I get nearly every dollar . If the thing goes online exactly spot on right between 5 and 10 years , we split the money .
                            Are you still claiming that a new nuclear plant will take 7 years to go online? That is what you claimed, after all.

                            All I claimed is that it won't take 10 years. It would take 5 years of construction if this wasn't a FOAK project.

                            Take the bet, coward. Or do you prefer to admit that the Vogtle reactors will be online by 2022? That is, it doesn't take 10 years to build a nuclear reactor and you were wrong to childishly hide rate a comment of mine that was accurate.

                            No, I expect you to dodge yet again. Dance for me please, coward.

                            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                            -- Albert Einstein

                            by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:24:43 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok , you can't tell one plant from another ? (0+ / 0-)
                            if this plant
                            And if you look you will see it was not my claim .
                            I asked you to back up your claim with cash .
                            He said 10 and you said 5 .
                            You were asked to back up your words .
                            You failed .

                            Do try to keep a civil tongue in your mouth .
                            Your abusive act has got to come to an end .
                            Its immature and wrong .

                            "coward" ?
                            You failed to take my bet , you failed to put your money where your mouth was . Are you sure you want to go with the "coward" insult ?
                            Are you not sticking your finger in your own eye with that insult ?

                            The comment of yours was hide rated for "that's crap" .
                            It was and is completely unnecessary to attack other site users as you do .  You earn your hide rates yourself . Cut out the attacks and insults and you will get far far less hide rates , its really that simple .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:32:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You dance nicely (0+ / 0-)

                            Still won't take the bet, will you, coward.

                            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                            -- Albert Einstein

                            by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:38:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you think you should be free to insult ? (0+ / 0-)

                            You think the rules don't apply to you still ?
                            Your position is so weak that you can't do anything better than resort to insults ?
                            How said for you that you can't do better .

                            I'll bet you that you can not and will not clean up your act .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Apparently, my position is so "weak" (0+ / 0-)

                            that you will not bet against it.

                            You're the one who keeps bringing up this shit, not me.

                            Personally, I'd prefer if you'd just get a life and leave me alone.

                            Now ... about that bet ... Feel free to offer up some money any time now.

                            From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

                            Coward |Cow"ard|, n.

                            A person who lacks courage; a timid or pusillanimous person; a poltroon. [1913 Webster]

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.

                            --Dryden.

                            I couldn't agree more.

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:05:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you are saying that your not taking the bet (0+ / 0-)

                            the first time was just cowardice ?
                            And are you saying that your not taking the bet today is also just cowardice ?

                            Would that be you poking yourself twice in one eye
                            or would that be one poke in each of your eyes ?

                            Don't keep on going , you are going to go completely blind .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:14:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How long (0+ / 0-)

                            does it take to build a new nuclear reactor in the US?

                            I say and have always said that it takes less than 10 years. If you disagree, then take the bet. It's as simple as that. That is, you must wager that Vogtle will not be operational by 2022.

                            You're the one who keeps bringing up this shit, not me. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Any further comments from you that don't read, "yes, I accept your wager" will be ignored by me, because it is becoming clear that you are too chickenshit to put any substance behind your words.

                            Have a nice day.

                            A fool is nauseous, but a coward worse.
                            -- Dryden

                            by bryfry on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:02:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you admit to poking yourself (0+ / 0-)

                            over and over ?

                            put up or shut up
                            You failed to back up your words when challenged , that by your definition makes you a coward . You didn't put up or shut up . You backed away mumbling bullshit insults .
                            It's as simple as that.
                            You had your chance , you blew it . You should have been a man and taken the bet when it was offered . You failed to do so when you could have . You backed away with your tail between your legs .
                            it is becoming clear that you are too chickenshit to put any substance behind your words.
                            It became perfectly clear that you "are to chickenshit" to put up the money to back your position from the first offered bet . Your failure is all yours . You get no do overs . You get zero chance to undo your failure . No rematches for those who fail to get into the ring . You walked away when challenged . You showed that you had and have nothing . You keep on showing that you have nothing .  
                            I say and have always said that it takes less than 10 years.
                            vs
                            Sure, it takes years, but for a well-oiled nuclear industry, it takes less than 5 years to build a nuclear plant.
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...
                             

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:39:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  I have asthma. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayBat, Russgirl, ozsea1

      My allergists told me to move somewhere with clean air.  I did and still have occasional attacks due to all the coal-fired power plants around here.

      My asthma has never been life threatening but it's bad enough that those commercials with the asthmatic children tie my guts in knots.  I'm on the side of the environmental activists.

      Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

      by Ice Blue on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:40:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  unless this epic nuclear disaster occurs (0+ / 0-)

      then you won't be able to say that

      Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction

      by gnostradamus on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 07:58:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site