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 #76: this is a matter of reading what I write and not words stuffed in my mouth [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
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #57
76. this is a matter of reading what I write and not words stuffed in my mouth
First, I'll thank you to refrain from casting aspersions on my science education, about which you know literally nothing. Incidentally, I'll add that I know nothing of yours, either. After all,...

Perhaps I'm a dog! ;)

Second, in no way does my saying that 10% of the material is treated as radioactive waste imply that I assume, believe, or in any way remotely suggest that the returned material is anything other than mostly stable material with a mixed-in portion of radioactive material. That's true, for all practical purposes, virtually any radioactive waste that I can think of - even things hot enough to kill you!

I'm simply reporting what the article in the OP said:

They were going to stay there permanently, but Bruce Power learned about a Swedish company that could recycle 90 percent of the machines, Peevers said.

The recycling process reduces the radioactivity of the material, which can then be used as scrap. The remaining 10 percent is too contaminated to recycle and will be returned to Bruce Power for storage. (emphasis added)

The fact that the material was depositing in the generator by the coolant is immaterial. I never claimed that the activation occurred in situ; I was merely pointing out that the radioactive material is actually present within the physical object they are shipping. And that would pass any reasonable test for saying "the object is radioactive." For instance, one time I was in my shared office taking a background reading on a survey meter before doing a routine set of measurements and got a big countrate. One of the guys in my office said, "Oh, I just came back from having a thallium scan." Under any sane use of language, he was radioactive beyond the usual natural radioactivity we all have in our bodies. But by your reasoning, I'd be wrong to say this, because the thallium wasn't produced in his body by direct irradiation, but by becoming lodged in his tissues following injection?!?!?!

Now I have no problem with the proposed shipment; the risks seem minimal, and if this thing sinks to the bottom of one of the Great Lakes the worst-case harm is dwarfed by, say, the coming of Asian carp. But it's hard to put this kind of thing into perspective for those worried about the effects of radioactive waste when nuclear advocates spend so much effort arguing that things that are patently radioactive, are not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Nuclear waste shipping on Great Lakes protested marmar  Sep-11-10 09:24 AM   #0 
  - Penn Power sent a hot pressure vessel down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to Hanford dump  Kolesar   Sep-11-10 09:40 AM   #1 
  - BALONEY!  DrGregory   Sep-11-10 12:24 PM   #2 
  - Another example of nuclear propaganda  kristopher   Sep-11-10 04:55 PM   #3 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-11-10 07:16 PM   #7 
  - WRONG AGAIN!!  DrGregory   Sep-19-10 02:26 PM   #59 
  - wrong - there are many kinds of nuclear waste  bananas   Sep-11-10 05:16 PM   #4 
     - Use your own quoted definition  DrGregory   Sep-11-10 07:02 PM   #5 
     - The old generators are considered low-level radioactive waste  bananas   Sep-11-10 08:30 PM   #9 
        - As I've said so many times before the pro nuclear people can't be trusted to be truthful as this  madokie   Sep-11-10 09:48 PM   #10 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-11-10 10:37 PM   #11 
           - Contagious radioactivity - I don't think so.  DrGregory   Sep-11-10 11:10 PM   #12 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-16-10 04:50 AM   #40 
              - WRONG AGAIN!!  DrGregory   Sep-18-10 04:28 PM   #52 
                 - How is the corroded part of a generator not a part of the generator?  caraher   Sep-19-10 08:09 AM   #55 
                    - ,,,your inadequate science education it seems.,..  DrGregory   Sep-19-10 01:43 PM   #57 
                       - this is a matter of reading what I write and not words stuffed in my mouth  caraher   Sep-20-10 08:02 PM   #76 
           - A very interesting post  Dead_Parrot   Sep-11-10 11:16 PM   #13 
           - Yes, when someone says "DUmmies" it's very interesting.  bananas   Sep-12-10 02:27 AM   #16 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-12-10 02:17 AM   #15 
           - DrGregory, in the Science forum, they are laughing at you  bananas   Sep-12-10 02:42 AM   #17 
           - I remember that post  madokie   Sep-12-10 07:17 AM   #19 
           - Just because they post in science forum doesn't make them experts  DrGregory   Sep-12-10 01:55 PM   #20 
              - One doesn't have to be an expert  bananas   Sep-14-10 06:16 AM   #31 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-12-10 03:13 AM   #18 
     - Under what classification is a steam generator  DrGregory   Sep-11-10 07:09 PM   #6 
        - "It's a bad idea," said Michael Keegan, chairman of the Monroe-based Coalition for a Nuclear Free  madokie   Sep-11-10 08:08 PM   #8 
        - It's not "intensely radioactive"  OnlinePoker   Sep-12-10 01:28 AM   #14 
           - Heavy Water is NOT radioactive.  DrGregory   Sep-12-10 02:02 PM   #21 
              - So then why does the company refer these as having low level radiation?  OnlinePoker   Sep-12-10 03:13 PM   #22 
                 - the reason was wrong.  DrGregory   Sep-12-10 09:15 PM   #23 
                    - Perhaps this is the reason  OnlinePoker   Sep-12-10 10:50 PM   #24 
                       - No, it's not just tritium  bananas   Sep-13-10 09:54 AM   #25 
                       - So we can calculate the amount of radioactive material...  DrGregory   Sep-18-10 11:48 PM   #54 
                          - so we have less than 1/50-th of a gram of Co-60  DrGregory   Sep-19-10 06:48 PM   #65 
                             - No, that is NOT the total radioactivity..  bananas   Oct-07-10 06:33 PM   #80 
                       - BALONEY!  DrGregory   Sep-16-10 10:56 PM   #49 
  - How toxic is it compared to a barge full of coal?  hunter   Sep-13-10 11:46 AM   #26 
  - How toxic is it compared to a bucketful of sunshine or a breath of fresh air?  kristopher   Sep-13-10 11:49 AM   #27 
  - That will (hopefully) be the more appropriate question in several years time.  Nihil   Sep-14-10 04:08 AM   #28 
  - Peer reviewed literature by a highly respected academic says you are wrong.  kristopher   Sep-14-10 05:36 AM   #29 
  - hunter: "How does poking out one's left eye compare to poking out one's right eye?"  bananas   Sep-14-10 06:15 AM   #30 
     - And another pixie-dust supporter joins in (with an invalid analogy)  Nihil   Sep-14-10 07:20 AM   #32 
        - Denying science is a hallmark of right wing thinking.  kristopher   Sep-14-10 02:49 PM   #34 
           - You are the one who is denying the facts that I stated.  Nihil   Sep-15-10 03:24 AM   #36 
           - Coal is not currently needed to replace nuclear and nuclear is not currently needed to replace coal  kristopher   Sep-15-10 01:45 PM   #37 
              - Which part of "Here & now" are you having difficulty with?  Nihil   Sep-16-10 04:06 AM   #38 
                 - Your words are clear.  kristopher   Sep-16-10 05:49 AM   #41 
           - Ah, the obfuscation of large numbers.  TheWraith   Sep-19-10 01:15 PM   #56 
              - How much land area is covered by building?  kristopher   Sep-19-10 03:34 PM   #60 
                 - "Poorly considered" in this context apparently means "Stop poking holes in my math."  TheWraith   Sep-19-10 04:28 PM   #61 
                    - How much global area is covered with buildings and roads?  kristopher   Sep-19-10 04:42 PM   #62 
                    - 0.3% of the planet's land surface is urbanized, 0.55 to 0.7% suburbanized.  TheWraith   Sep-19-10 05:31 PM   #63 
                       - *Crickets*  TheWraith   Sep-20-10 01:14 PM   #67 
                       - You haven't answered my question.  kristopher   Sep-20-10 03:31 PM   #68 
                          - Yes I did. You just didn't like the answer.  TheWraith   Sep-20-10 04:21 PM   #69 
                             - I asked about buildings and roads, not urban and suburban  kristopher   Sep-20-10 04:27 PM   #70 
                                - You asked about buildings and roads, not the areas where there ARE buildings and roads?  TheWraith   Sep-20-10 04:48 PM   #71 
                                   - You are uninformed and your conclusion is false as a result  kristopher   Sep-20-10 06:35 PM   #72 
                                      - Yet another reposting of the same meaningless spam.  TheWraith   Sep-20-10 07:03 PM   #73 
                                         - Prove it.  kristopher   Sep-20-10 07:23 PM   #75 
                                            - Talk about spam.  Confusious   Sep-20-10 10:02 PM   #77 
                                            - And the best thing about this particular spamming post ...  Nihil   Sep-21-10 03:45 AM   #78 
                                            - What's funny is that you think...  kristopher   Sep-22-10 05:29 AM   #79 
                    - At least he's consistent...  DrGregory   Sep-19-10 06:14 PM   #64 
                    - There is no math  Confusious   Sep-20-10 07:13 PM   #74 
  - That's not the more appropriate question  caraher   Sep-16-10 08:00 AM   #42 
     - That would be appropriate if the board were not an antirenewable nuclear wasteland.  kristopher   Sep-16-10 08:44 AM   #43 
        - Oh give it a break!  Nihil   Sep-16-10 09:42 AM   #44 
        - Your sampling method is self serving suckishnesss.  kristopher   Sep-16-10 09:58 AM   #45 
           - "a full time job for several people"?  Nihil   Sep-16-10 11:59 AM   #46 
           - .  kristopher   Sep-16-10 01:09 PM   #47 
              - ..  Nihil   Sep-17-10 03:00 AM   #51 
           - "nuclear power IS NOT on the progressive agenda"  Dead_Parrot   Sep-16-10 03:30 PM   #48 
           - For the good of the country....  DrGregory   Sep-16-10 11:00 PM   #50 
        - WRONG AGAIN!!  DrGregory   Sep-18-10 05:02 PM   #53 
  - In an effort to drag your sub-thread back to the subject ...  Nihil   Sep-16-10 04:20 AM   #39 
  - What are the consequences of an incident and probability?  One_Life_To_Give   Sep-14-10 10:36 AM   #33 
  - Statistically ships are much safer than trucks or rail  Merchant Marine   Sep-14-10 04:11 PM   #35 
     - Even if it falls in the lake it's not going to dissolve.  hunter   Sep-19-10 01:45 PM   #58 
        - The ship itself likely poses a greater threat to the Great Lakes  Merchant Marine   Sep-20-10 12:39 AM   #66 

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