You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #1: That's a highly bullshit ridden article. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's a highly bullshit ridden article.
"Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby."

Highly enriched uranium is not a liquid. It's a metal. It can't drip. It's not measured in gallons. If you can't get that kind of basic fact right, your entire argument is suspect.

And I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that nuclear power has never killed a single human being in the US. The only radiation fatalities we've had are derivative from nuclear weapons testing and manufacture, which is a whole different thing.

"The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986."

So one major accident, caused by a grossly flawed plant design being used in a knowingly dangerous test, which deliberately circumvented the safety protocols, is applicable to all times and places? Good to know that if a wind turbine ever falls over and kills someone, it means that all wind power everywhere is unsafe.

"No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978"

Because a handful of people made it their life's work to convince the public that if nuclear plants were built it would mean the end of the world. Meanwhile, 60,000 tons of radioactive material are pumped into the air every year, not from nuclear plants, but from coal.

"Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release greenhouse gases."

And they're right.

"The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process far too slow to make a difference on global warming."

If you'd rather not be energy independent in fifteen years or so, that's your choice. Go ahead and keep staging your demonstrations, and keep letting your leaders take the checks--knowingly or not--from the coal industry and the Saudis. Were it not for the paranoia of a handful of grossly unscientific activists running scare tactics on the public, we would probably be energy independent TODAY.

"What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks."

Actually, no, there aren't. There are things that people pretend are alternatives, but none of them can actually produce more than a few percent of our power needs. Feel free to prove me wrong with actual math: you won't be able to. The only other form of green power that can rival a nuclear reactor in terms of continuous gigawatt-level output is a large hydroelectric dam. Hydro plants are great, but there are only so many places where we can build them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -No to nukes (OpEd, LA Times) jpak  Jul-23-07 05:47 PM   #0 
  - That's a highly bullshit ridden article.  TheWraith   Jul-23-07 06:37 PM   #1 
  - studies found increased cancer rates near nuclear power plants  philb   Jul-23-07 08:22 PM   #4 
  - Ahh, we're done with lies, and now on to statistics.  TheWraith   Jul-24-07 12:12 AM   #11 
  - Erwin uranium spill cloaked in secrecy  struggle4progress   Jul-23-07 10:12 PM   #6 
  - Enriched uranium solutions can pose a criticality risk, because water is a good moderator  struggle4progress   Jul-23-07 10:22 PM   #7 
  - Uranium salt solutions are a slightly different thing than highly enriched uranium. NT  TheWraith   Jul-23-07 11:58 PM   #10 
     - Thank you, Captain Obvious. And solutions of HEU salts can pose a criticality hazard:  struggle4progress   Jul-24-07 02:26 AM   #13 
  - You are wrong - there was a release of HEU at Oak Ridge  jpak   Jul-24-07 11:18 AM   #14 
     - And the results? No deaths. No injuries. Several chewings-out.  Pigwidgeon   Jul-24-07 11:46 AM   #16 
  - Right-Wing Newspaper says "No Nukes"  Pigwidgeon   Jul-23-07 07:01 PM   #2 
  - It's great  losthills   Jul-23-07 08:13 PM   #3 
     - Really? There are cheaper, cleaner, fater alternatives with none of the risks?  NNadir   Jul-23-07 08:50 PM   #5 
     - Its not just Neo-cons who like Nuclear Power  VTMechEngr   Jul-23-07 11:32 PM   #8 
     - The owner of the LA Times is a neo-con  Pigwidgeon   Jul-23-07 11:41 PM   #9 
     - Post proof or retract and apologize.  TheWraith   Jul-24-07 12:15 AM   #12 
        - No need to. They know it all.  Pigwidgeon   Jul-24-07 11:27 AM   #15 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC