Environment & Energy

Altair_IV

(52 posts)

21. More misinformation from kristopher

Tue Feb 25, 2014, 11:23 AM

Feb 2014

They can know this because all of the documents involve are matters of public record.

Actually that's wrong; it is *not* all matter of public record. Evidently you didn't read my post #10 in this thread. There are things that the NRC considers that are *not* allowed into the public record. That was what the whole case with Mothers for Peace was about. The NRC considered information that was *not* a part of the public record and the Mothers for Peace wanted to see that information and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals *denied* their petition to see that information.

It is just *not accurate* to say that everything the NRC considers is part of the public record.

Perhaps researching the subject would result in less misinformation being promulgated. That's what true scholars do.

Altair_IV

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

67 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear Reactor Pool Fire/Huge Risks in U.S. According to Unpublicized NRC Study [View all] kristopher Feb 2014 OP

Just stop and give this some thought for a moment madokie Feb 2014 #1

Yes, they love to hide behind the difficulty in tracking nuclear related cancer related fatalities kristopher Feb 2014 #14

Without a doubt madokie Feb 2014 #15

Am not pro-nuke but if we had Yucca Mtn indie9197 Feb 2014 #2

The solution to *this* problem would be to move the SNF to dry storage kristopher Feb 2014 #3

I scanned the article, do not understand legaleze so much indie9197 Feb 2014 #5

That's not a truth; it's a falsehood Altair_IV Feb 2014 #9

No, it is the truth kristopher Feb 2014 #13

Reading Comprehension Problem? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #16

A consortium of nuclear companies that self insure doesn't really qualify as "commercial insurer"... kristopher Feb 2014 #22

ANI is not "nuclear companies that self insure" FBaggins Feb 2014 #23

That is exactly what the major accident coverage is - and they don't pay "premiums" kristopher Feb 2014 #24

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #26

"James Hansen" is not "the scientific community" kristopher Feb 2014 #27

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #29

Being "pronuclear" is not the same as proving nuclear is needed kristopher Feb 2014 #32

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #35

I said show the science if you have it - apparently you don't have it. kristopher Feb 2014 #36

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #37

No, by any standard that is not better. kristopher Feb 2014 #40

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #41

A citation for the claims you've made, please. kristopher Feb 2014 #42

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #43

You said you were going by NAS work from 1992 - start there. kristopher Feb 2014 #44

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #45

So you don't have a 1992 reference as you claimed. kristopher Feb 2014 #46

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #47

You said you have a reference and clearly you don't. kristopher Feb 2014 #48

Did you actually read the POPA report? caraher Feb 2014 #59

"We don't need citations, statistical studies, and what not. " caraher Feb 2014 #57

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #60

Nuclear power plants are not good at load following madokie Feb 2014 #49

That's not quite true. FBaggins Feb 2014 #51

You don't change the rotational speed of an AC generator to regulate the voltage output madokie Feb 2014 #53

So? FBaggins Feb 2014 #58

I didn't say it couldn't be done madokie Feb 2014 #62

You can't dodge the context of your comment FBaggins Feb 2014 #65

I corrected them too so where was I wrong madokie Feb 2014 #67

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #61

You know who is on your side? Roger Ailes et al. kristopher Feb 2014 #34

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #38

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #25

No, that's just your habit of twisting things to suit yourself kristopher Feb 2014 #28

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #30

Not at all. kristopher Feb 2014 #33

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #39

We're not talking about automobile insurance here madokie Feb 2014 #55

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #63

Find someone else to pick nits with madokie Feb 2014 #64

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #66

Remember at first she was saying she was a Physicist madokie Feb 2014 #50

Physicists aren't scientists now? FBaggins Feb 2014 #52

What ever madokie Feb 2014 #54

It isn't? FBaggins Feb 2014 #56

Nothing left over? FBaggins Feb 2014 #18

Confusion Altair_IV Feb 2014 #20

The filing to the NRC (the PDF) asks them to make changes in how they license reactors kristopher Feb 2014 #12

Whose fault is that? Altair_IV Feb 2014 #17

More misinformation from kristopher Altair_IV Feb 2014 #21

The report says just the opposite. FBaggins Feb 2014 #19

Not really madokie Feb 2014 #4

There's so much waste, it will take decades to move it. bananas Feb 2014 #6

The nuclear power companies are the ones that *want* to go to dry casks.. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #10

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #31

There was a spent fuel pool fire at Fukushima bananas Feb 2014 #7

No there wasn't. FBaggins Feb 2014 #8

That's correct. Altair_IV Feb 2014 #11