Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Nuclear Power = Pro-Genocide. (352 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Chernobyl, say? (5+ / 0-)

    Quite the cancer epidemic amongst the former workers of the now-closed Jackpile mine at Laguna and Acoma Pueblos.  Helped keep Los Alamos supplied with uranium in the peak of the cold war years.  Not as much cancer any more, because so many of them already died.

    "The river always wins" - Mark Twain

    by Land of Enchantment on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:57:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  we're fighting a uranium (4+ / 0-)

      mine proposed her in Virginia. One of the largest deposits in the US.

    •  Chernobyl was terrible. (0+ / 0-)

      However, it wouldn't happen in the US. Moreover, check out the specifics of the disaster - the plant operators were so irresponsible that it's just... nuts. They were practically asking for disaster.

      Now, even though it was awful, compare increased incidences of thyroid cancers and leukemia around the area with the prospect of forcing 3-4 billion to die from starvation or dehydration. Which do you suppose is worse?

      •  You are so funny! (6+ / 0-)

        One of those "nobody could have imagined" things?

        "The river always wins" - Mark Twain

        by Land of Enchantment on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 01:03:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it was to be expected when they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          deliberately shut off the coolant pumps, removed nearly all the control rods, and then attempted to re-insert them rapidly when the back-up pumps didn't initialize quickly enough before the reactor started melting down.

          Arguing against nuclear power because of Chernobyl is like arguing against cars because someone driving 120 mph in a 35 with a BAC of .30 got in a wreck. That's pretty much how absurdly irresponsible it was. And, of course, our designs are vastly different - and better - than the early RBMK reactors. And we have containment domes over ours, so even if a reactor did melt down, there's a very small chance of any large-scale release of radioactivity.

          Again though, this is all moot. What's your alternative? Further, why are nuclear proponents always expected to meet a double-standard?

          •  "Human error" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trashablanca, csquared

            Doesn't exist in the USA?

            •  Sure it does. That's why we have (0+ / 0-)

              multiple redundant safety systems, safer reactor designs, containment domes, and so on. And no, the misconduct and/or ineptitude, which would have been almost comical if not resulting in disaster, would not have occurred to the same extent in the US - not even close, not a chance. That I'm certain of. Seriously, look at a minute-by-minute report on the thing. It's insane.

              Likewise, it's no more merit in comparing a Soviet RBMK reactor to a new American reactor such as the Westinghouse AP1000 I mentioned above, than it is to refuse to ride in a late-model Volvo because the 1970 Ford Pinto often exploded in rear-end collisions.

              Once again though, it's useless to speculate on perceived risks if they're never materialized. Either the 109 reactors comprising the US nuclear industry is insanely lucky, or in practice and in reality, nuclear power is incredibly safe.

              This is precisely why I get so fed up with anti-nuke types. Their constant fretting over safety has zero basis in reality. The safety record of the US nuclear industry is better than that of any other in the utilities sector, hands down, no question. They've been going strong nearly 60 years now, so forgive me for having little patience with them. The feigned concern over spent fuel is even more absurd. I mean, really, how cognitively defective do you have to be to get worked up over putting radioactive material back deep underground, when we dug it out of the ground in the first place?! I swear, it's like there's just some disconnect there.

        •  A few Chernobyl points.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego, TylerFromNE

          -Electrical engineers were running the plant without assistance from nuclear engineers when the accident occurred..

          -The plant was a graphite moderated reactor. In this reactor design the removal of the coolant did not stop the reaction. In US reactor designs if the coolant boils off the reactions stops. Plants like Chernobyl couldn't open here.

          -There was no containment vessel..

          -Numerous safety regulations were simply ignored..

          This accident could not happen in this way in the United States...

          I would argue also that the death and destruction from the accident is still miniscule compared to the results of inadequate energy to produce and distribute food throughout the world if the diarist is right...

          •  What about Davis Besse? (0+ / 0-)

            Toledo Ohio?

            Great Lakes?

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 04:56:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually the graphite was not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            the problem. REally. You can use graphite very safely, the problem was the postive thermal void coefficient. If the RMBK reactors had a negative one, there would of been no 'burning of graphite', which is what happened after the steam explosion took out the so-called containment. Also there is some data indicating that the graphite the USSR used was not up to true nuclear purity. This would make it burn in atmosphere.


            Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

            by davidwalters on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 09:48:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Right. Nothing has changed (0+ / 0-)

      since the 1950s? Right? Mining methods, radon detection, that most miners do NOT smoke now, etc. Nothing has changed? your whole world is simply static limbo right?


      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 09:45:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site