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
Google

Reply #114: What if they have designs that can't DO worse [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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-16-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #90
114. What if they have designs that can't DO worse

There are designs for reactors that have 0% chance of meltdown, nearly 0% waste and last 100 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Nuclear Power, What say you? Bennyboy  Feb-16-10 05:56 PM   #0 
  - This is great leadership by President Obama. It's inevitable so let's get started, 30 years late.  timeforpeace   Feb-16-10 05:57 PM   #1 
  - First meaningful thing he's done in months..  ddeclue   Feb-16-10 06:08 PM   #16 
  - What about the waste  packerbacker53   Feb-17-10 12:52 PM   #214 
     - Beats the hell out of the waste that we generate every day from coal fired power plants.  ddeclue   Feb-17-10 04:19 PM   #227 
  - No, actually it isn't inevitable.  MadHound   Feb-16-10 06:09 PM   #19 
     - Those terrible snowstorms which had little wind but days of cold and overcast didn't make a little  timeforpeace   Feb-16-10 08:10 PM   #79 
     - And if we were operating on a decentralized power generation system combined with a smart grid  MadHound   Feb-16-10 10:05 PM   #118 
     - Sunny and 80 degrees Fahrenheit here in Southern Ca today and yesterday.  JDPriestly   Feb-18-10 03:59 AM   #241 
     - I'm with you, Madhound.  JDPriestly   Feb-18-10 03:53 AM   #238 
  - not a fan. Choosing between the two "evils" of coal and nuclear, I opt for coal.  KittyWampus   Feb-16-10 05:58 PM   #2 
  - Are you serious?  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:09 PM   #20 
  - I disagree with your assertion that nuclear power plants haven't killed a single person.  KittyWampus   Feb-16-10 06:16 PM   #29 
     - Disagree if you like, but the facts are on my side.  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:18 PM   #32 
        - and how many people in the Chernobyl area are STILL suffering?  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 08:07 PM   #78 
        - Chernobyl is not in the US.  verges   Feb-16-10 08:24 PM   #85 
        - and you really think there is NO possibility of that happening here?  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 08:31 PM   #86 
           - American standars are much higher.  verges   Feb-16-10 08:34 PM   #89 
           - THREE MILE ISLAND.  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 08:38 PM   #91 
              - Actually, very little radiation was released  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:37 PM   #110 
              - mrem is not a measurement of radioactivity release. in fact, it's not a measured unit of any sort  struggle4progress   Feb-16-10 10:24 PM   #121 
                 - Really?  Confusious   Feb-16-10 11:31 PM   #134 
                    - I do not wish to argue whether mrem "exists" - I merely want to point out it is never measured and  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 12:02 AM   #141 
                       - Well now that's a specious argument.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Feb-17-10 12:04 AM   #144 
                       - The question was whether "much" radiation was released at TMI. Respondent provided mrem figures.  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 12:22 AM   #151 
                          - The unit's fine, and you pretended otherwise.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Feb-17-10 12:25 AM   #152 
                          - Whether the unit is "fine" or not depends upon its use. In a laboratory accident, where  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 12:44 AM   #160 
                          - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-18-10 03:59 AM   #240 
                          - There was no question  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:37 AM   #159 
                       - Alot of things in science are  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:18 AM   #149 
              - Not a single dead body from that incident. Nor any civilian reactor in the US  Pavulon   Feb-16-10 09:39 PM   #113 
                 - so as long as there are no visible bodies, it's okay?  Donnachaidh   Feb-17-10 06:53 AM   #184 
           - Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor with no containment vessel  Merchant Marine   Feb-17-10 12:09 AM   #145 
        - You probably think Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion...  Merchant Marine   Feb-17-10 12:11 AM   #146 
        - If you do a search, you'll find deaths from Three Mile Island  immoderate   Feb-17-10 12:29 AM   #154 
        - Have you heard of Santa Susannah in the SImi Hills here in California?  JDPriestly   Feb-18-10 04:06 AM   #242 
  - You are misinformed. Coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear plants.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 06:18 PM   #31 
     - "Coal is literally pure death. It has killed more people than every other form of power combined."  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:19 PM   #33 
     - I most certainly am not "misinformed". I prefer Renewables & investing in technological innovations.  KittyWampus   Feb-16-10 06:26 PM   #43 
     - Then you are intentionally choosing the far more lethal form of power.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 06:38 PM   #49 
        - No, I'd choose not to invest massive amounts of money in another addiction.  KittyWampus   Feb-16-10 07:39 PM   #68 
        - cryingshame usually does.  Jax   Feb-18-10 03:57 AM   #239 
     - coal plants do not "emit more radiation than nuclear plants." there are many serious problems with  struggle4progress   Feb-16-10 10:30 PM   #123 
     - You sure about that?  Statistical   Feb-16-10 10:40 PM   #125 
     - I've done the calculations and posted results here repeatedly. Coal contains traces  struggle4progress   Feb-16-10 11:44 PM   #137 
        - I think I prefer the word of the editor of Scientific American  Confusious   Feb-16-10 11:56 PM   #139 
           - Vide infra #140  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 12:04 AM   #142 
     - What do you do, that you don't know this stuff?  Confusious   Feb-16-10 11:31 PM   #135 
        - Can you do arithmetic?  struggle4progress   Feb-16-10 11:58 PM   #140 
           - The only problem with your calculations  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:34 AM   #158 
              - You didn't understand the secular equilibrium argument: given a natural mixture of radioisotopes  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 01:12 AM   #170 
                 - Perhaps you're thinking of another argument  Confusious   Feb-17-10 03:04 AM   #177 
                    - Hmm. Suppose we start with one isotope. It decays at a certain rate.  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 04:12 AM   #179 
                       - I still don't see the point of talking about secular EQ  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:35 PM   #211 
                          - Same argument works for branched chains: again, just high school manipulation of inequalities;  struggle4progress   Feb-17-10 06:14 PM   #228 
     - I seem to recall a chemistry prof. saying that the radioactive elements in coal are retained...  Umbral   Feb-17-10 01:39 AM   #173 
        - The EPA says different.  Confusious   Feb-17-10 03:08 AM   #178 
           - MEH. What does the EPA know anyways? I trust peoplez on the intertubes over the EPA.  Statistical   Feb-17-10 09:31 AM   #202 
  - Nope  gratuitous   Feb-16-10 05:59 PM   #3 
  - I can't tell you how many people I know from the Hanford area who developed  gateley   Feb-16-10 06:06 PM   #14 
  - I like it. n/t  bbinacan   Feb-16-10 05:59 PM   #4 
  - No. We need to develop renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.).  invictus   Feb-16-10 06:00 PM   #5 
  - +1, and I'll add  DevinKline   Feb-17-10 01:09 AM   #169 
  - I say there is nothing clean about nuclear. Given a choice between Nuke and coal I choose Solar Wind...  Vincardog   Feb-16-10 06:00 PM   # 
  - Agree -- and even though I've heard some negative things about those  gateley   Feb-16-10 06:04 PM   #10 
  - Nuclear is natural.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 06:25 PM   #39 
  - thunderous applause! The money wasted on Nuclear could go into Green Technology  KittyWampus   Feb-16-10 06:38 PM   #48 
  - One of which no one is using at all right now  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:35 PM   #109 
  - Lets just irradiate everything  quinnox   Feb-16-10 06:00 PM   #6 
  - I'm really not thrilled about it,  Blue_In_AK   Feb-16-10 06:01 PM   #7 
  - Against it regardless of the cost -- the waste scares the hell out of me.  gateley   Feb-16-10 06:02 PM   #8 
  - the potential for f*ckups both accidental and on purpose scare the crap out of me  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 06:07 PM   #15 
  - Yes -- the potential for disaster is there, regardless of how we try to  gateley   Feb-16-10 07:12 PM   #61 
  - What is our problem?  GoCubsGo   Feb-17-10 08:25 AM   #198 
     - Yeah, the question was pretty much rhetorical, but you're right, of course. nt  gateley   Feb-17-10 03:33 PM   #222 
  - Actually  Rebubula   Feb-17-10 07:44 AM   #192 
  - Yes.  GoCubsGo   Feb-17-10 08:18 AM   #196 
  - There is already a nuclear plant where the new one is to be built.  GoCubsGo   Feb-17-10 08:17 AM   #195 
  - The waste shouldn't scare you.  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:15 PM   #27 
     - I'm still scared -- we're "messing with Mother Nature" by doing whatever we  gateley   Feb-16-10 07:09 PM   #58 
     - Well bad news is the geothermal reactor will eventually run out of fuel in ....  Statistical   Feb-16-10 08:05 PM   #75 
     - Help me out here.  immoderate   Feb-17-10 02:01 AM   #175 
  - Actually, it's 18.5 billion.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Feb-16-10 06:04 PM   #9 
  - I'm against it. But I'm also against outsourcing jobs,  LisaM   Feb-16-10 06:05 PM   # 
  - not a fan  amborin   Feb-16-10 06:05 PM   #11 
  - having had family members who worked in the nuclear biz during 3 mile island  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 06:05 PM   #12 
  - You...  Rebubula   Feb-17-10 07:48 AM   #193 
     - Are you familiar with the Santa Susannah disaster in Simi Valley in S. California?  JDPriestly   Feb-18-10 04:15 AM   #243 
  - Nuclear energy in conjunction with a decent electric car ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 06:05 PM   #13 
  - US reactors consume 62 million lbs of yellowcake each year - the US produces only 2 million lbs/yr  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:10 PM   #21 
  - No, it's not. There's an ample supply of uranium if we want it.  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:12 PM   #23 
  - If we want to buy it from someone else - & oh yeah, the US was NEVER uranium self-sufficient  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:14 PM   #25 
  - Actually we can produce more than enough uranium by seawater leaching.  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:16 PM   #30 
     - LOL! the concentration of uranium in seawater is 3.3 micrograms per liter  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:24 PM   #37 
     - not quite. there have been limited feasibility studies, suggesting that under optimal  struggle4progress   Feb-16-10 11:05 PM   #128 
  - all of which must be mined. Processed. Disposed of.  KittyWampus   Feb-16-10 06:39 PM   #50 
  - The US only produces 2 million lb BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED MORE.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 06:21 PM   #34 
  - Ummm...we NEED 62 million lbs per year to run our reactors, we PRODUCE only 2 million lbs/yr  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:26 PM   #42 
     - We only need 2 M RAW URANIUM becuase MOX from nuclear stockpile makes up the difference.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 06:38 PM   #47 
        - That's just plain wrong - MOX is Mixed OXide fuel (U and Pu) and there are NO US MOX reactors  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:51 PM   #52 
           - Stand corrected I mixed up MOX with weapons grade program...  Statistical   Feb-16-10 07:06 PM   #57 
              - 13% of world reactor requirements is not a "majority"  jpak   Feb-16-10 07:21 PM   #65 
                 - I don't think your original post was about the world it was about THE UNITED STATES.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 07:35 PM   #67 
                    - ummm....the US uses 25,000 metric tonnes U/yr, global blend-down U production is 10,000 tonnes/yr  jpak   Feb-17-10 06:05 AM   #180 
                       - Apples and oranges. You are confusing uranium (yellowcake) with LEU  Statistical   Feb-17-10 07:12 AM   #188 
  - You can turn yellowcake into useable uranium  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:06 PM   #94 
  - I'm not sure how much and of what type ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 09:38 PM   #112 
  - I'm not sure the disposal and safety issues are technically solvable. Well,  gateley   Feb-16-10 06:15 PM   #28 
  - Because wind, solar and whatever have zero possibility ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 06:21 PM   #35 
  - Have you got anything other than hot air to back that assertion up with?  MadHound   Feb-16-10 06:24 PM   #38 
  - Umm ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 06:36 PM   #46 
     - Ummm...wind, biomass and hydro produce ALL the electricity used in my county in Maine  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:54 PM   #54 
     - Let me restate my assertion, since you may have misunderstood  MadHound   Feb-16-10 06:56 PM   #55 
        - Wiki may be unreliable but you cite nothing ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 09:08 PM   #95 
        - Ah yes, that old lame canard  MadHound   Feb-16-10 09:56 PM   #116 
           - Am I missing something, I see no link in your reply #116?  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 10:13 PM   #119 
              - Forgot to include the link, it is now up for you  MadHound   Feb-16-10 10:39 PM   #124 
                 - The theme is to be insulting when no insult was given.  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 10:49 PM   #127 
                    - Ah yes, the last refuge  MadHound   Feb-16-10 11:18 PM   #130 
        - For all I know you could possibly be right ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 09:58 PM   #117 
        - As your little blurb states right up front, that is just one scenario  MadHound   Feb-16-10 10:20 PM   #120 
        - Really?  Confusious   Feb-16-10 11:42 PM   #136 
        - Sorry, I deal with the world of academics  MadHound   Feb-17-10 06:42 AM   #183 
           - A lot of people felt the same way about Linux.  Confusious   Feb-17-10 01:06 PM   #215 
              - Well, since you didn't add links, I really can't properly judge your piece now can I  MadHound   Feb-17-10 01:51 PM   #218 
                 - So we are doing serious academic research here?  Confusious   Feb-17-10 02:28 PM   #220 
        - Wind, solar and to a lesser extent wave are all intermittent sources.  TheMadMonk   Feb-17-10 12:31 AM   #155 
           - Yes, they're all intermittant sources, that's why you have a smart grid  MadHound   Feb-17-10 06:53 AM   #185 
              - The sun don't shine at night.  TheMadMonk   Feb-17-10 10:08 AM   #203 
              - No, but the wind does blow at night  MadHound   Feb-17-10 10:39 AM   #205 
                 - Wind tends to drop at night too. And widespread calms are not unheard of.  TheMadMonk   Feb-17-10 07:35 PM   #230 
                    - Again, you're locked in the past  MadHound   Feb-18-10 06:55 AM   #245 
                       - Humdingers are no comfort for the farmers who have turbines for neighbours.  TheMadMonk   Feb-18-10 11:01 AM   #251 
              - I Believe this is the way Europe is going  fascisthunter   Feb-17-10 12:15 PM   #209 
  - Or re-discover Tesla's approach to pull energy out of the air. :-)  gateley   Feb-16-10 06:25 PM   #40 
  - what a stupid post  jpak   Feb-16-10 06:27 PM   #44 
  - I've heard Brian Schweitzer (Gov of MT) say they have enough wind potential  gateley   Feb-16-10 07:18 PM   #63 
     - As I said above ...  Mumblefratz   Feb-16-10 09:22 PM   #102 
     - Actually the governor of Montana is lobbying for clean coal, but threw in  gateley   Feb-17-10 03:41 PM   #223 
     - I've heard all the people in the world can fit into texas  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:26 PM   #103 
  - They are. We just have to get after it, like all the other problems we've solved.  timeforpeace   Feb-16-10 08:14 PM   #81 
  - Why not rooftop solar and an electric vehicle?  Bennyboy   Feb-16-10 08:21 PM   #83 
  - Rooftop soalr maybe power a few things in your house  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:28 PM   #104 
     - "a few things in your house" - here in Maine there are thousands of solar homes  jpak   Feb-17-10 06:07 AM   #181 
        - Exactly, we gotta start convincing people that this is now and is CHEAPER....  Bennyboy   Feb-17-10 12:20 PM   #210 
        - Thousands doesn't equate to millions  Confusious   Feb-17-10 04:01 PM   #226 
  - It's not a solution. What means "realistic?"  immoderate   Feb-17-10 02:16 AM   #176 
  - Actually they cost a lot less than $8 billion per plant.  TheWraith   Feb-16-10 06:08 PM   #17 
  - Sure - as a small part of a COMPREHENSIVE energy policy.  baldguy   Feb-16-10 06:09 PM   #18 
  - About time.  Schema Thing   Feb-16-10 06:10 PM   #22 
  - i say that it's about time.  dysfunctional press   Feb-16-10 06:13 PM   #24 
  - Um the $8.5 billion is for TWO plants.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 06:15 PM   #26 
  - "lets utilities know the govt isn't going to delay construction once license has been issued. "  Tom Rinaldo   Feb-17-10 02:57 PM   #221 
  - It's about time.  Biker13   Feb-16-10 06:22 PM   #36 
  - loans at risk of default:  amborin   Feb-16-10 06:25 PM   #41 
  - Well, the cynical part of me says good.  TransitJohn   Feb-16-10 06:31 PM   #45 
  - Water usage?  Bennyboy   Feb-16-10 06:41 PM   #51 
  - Pretty much every form of power needs water  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:11 PM   #97 
  - Nuclear power needs to go, along with all other traditional, dinosaur, centralized power generation  MadHound   Feb-16-10 06:51 PM   #53 
  - You want to replace large efficient centralized power generating centers with  farmout rightarm   Feb-16-10 07:12 PM   #59 
     - Gadgets. nice.  MadHound   Feb-16-10 09:44 PM   #115 
        - How long?  Confusious   Feb-16-10 11:50 PM   #138 
        - Depends,  MadHound   Feb-17-10 06:37 AM   #182 
           - 600 billion was the budget for the pentagon this year  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:47 PM   #213 
              - Let's see, TARP and the stimulus both got over 700 billion  MadHound   Feb-18-10 06:58 AM   #246 
        - I like your idea of a smart grid.  Jamastiene   Feb-17-10 01:58 AM   #174 
        - Uh, your "bibliography"?? No, thanks but no thanks.  farmout rightarm   Feb-17-10 11:03 AM   #206 
           - Fine, just offering  MadHound   Feb-17-10 01:53 PM   #219 
  - It's a long overdue start. Nuclear plants are the only alternative to fossil fuels  farmout rightarm   Feb-16-10 07:02 PM   #56 
  - Well, it's either that, or build more coal plants and talk about how awesome wind farms are.  name not needed   Feb-16-10 07:12 PM   #60 
  - Against it, absolutely positively NO! nt  Raine   Feb-16-10 07:13 PM   #62 
  - Is it REALLY more efficient than say, a natural gas plant?  Canuckistanian   Feb-16-10 07:19 PM   #64 
  - Sure fossil fuels are cheaper as long as you don't mind puking billions of tons of CO2 into air.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 07:49 PM   #70 
  - My point being  Canuckistanian   Feb-16-10 08:03 PM   #72 
     - Reactors in the United States have uptime of over 95%.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 08:07 PM   #77 
        - Well then  Canuckistanian   Feb-16-10 08:12 PM   #80 
           - Most of reactors in US are now pushing 50 years and uptime has been increasing.  Statistical   Feb-16-10 08:40 PM   #93 
  - NO -- and think Chernobyl when you factor in TRUE costs  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 08:05 PM   #73 
  - Chernobyl was an epic disaster of human AND engineering faults  Canuckistanian   Feb-16-10 08:33 PM   #87 
  - you can NEVER be sure of that.  Donnachaidh   Feb-16-10 08:37 PM   #90 
     - What if they have designs that can't DO worse  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:41 PM   #114 
        - so on paper they are safe -- ever know of contractors to cost cut?  Donnachaidh   Feb-17-10 06:56 AM   #186 
           - Well, I can't argue with that level of mistrust.  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:40 PM   #212 
  - Chernobyl is not a "dead zone"  GoCubsGo   Feb-17-10 08:37 AM   #199 
  - A nuclear plant will run for 60 years  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:12 PM   #98 
  - NO  ConcernedCanuk   Feb-16-10 07:24 PM   #66 
  - I find your lack of faith disturbing  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:15 PM   #99 
  - FAIL  Sugarcoated   Feb-16-10 07:49 PM   #69 
  - no nukes  spanone   Feb-16-10 07:50 PM   #71 
  - No horseless carriages!  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:30 PM   #105 
     - Hooray Modernity!  Moochy   Feb-17-10 12:48 AM   #163 
  - I've got no problem with nuclear power. n/t  WeDidIt   Feb-16-10 08:05 PM   #74 
  - nay  mdmc   Feb-16-10 08:05 PM   #76 
  - This a good move and it's badly needed...  damyank913   Feb-16-10 08:18 PM   #82 
  - I support nuclear -- as long as there's insurance & tough regulation. /nt  philly_bob   Feb-16-10 08:22 PM   #84 
  - it's inevitable, I suppose  paulk   Feb-16-10 08:33 PM   #88 
  - The nuclear angle was hashed out decades ago  NNN0LHI   Feb-16-10 08:38 PM   #92 
  - Wow did anyone tell  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:17 PM   #100 
  - I'm against it as well.  DeSwiss   Feb-16-10 09:11 PM   #96 
  - So what about the street lights?  Confusious   Feb-16-10 09:33 PM   #106 
     - Where?, you ask....  DeSwiss   Feb-16-10 10:46 PM   #126 
        - First you have to know which box you are in.  Confusious   Feb-16-10 11:26 PM   #132 
           - That has got to be.....  DeSwiss   Feb-17-10 12:04 AM   #143 
              - I was wondering how the geothermal thing works  Confusious   Feb-17-10 12:15 AM   #148 
              - It uses existing....  DeSwiss   Feb-17-10 12:44 AM   #161 
              - Um, DeSwiss, that's a heat pump.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Feb-17-10 12:31 AM   #156 
                 - Actually you're right it is....  DeSwiss   Feb-17-10 12:57 AM   #166 
                    - Right, it's an admittedly efficient way to heat and cool a house.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Feb-17-10 01:04 AM   #167 
                    - Well actually.....  DeSwiss   Feb-17-10 01:28 AM   #171 
                    - No this is wrong.  damyank913   Feb-17-10 09:12 AM   #200 
                       - I have no idea.....  DeSwiss   Feb-17-10 10:09 PM   #231 
  - NO. nt  LWolf   Feb-16-10 09:18 PM   #101 
  - Nukes is all about pocketing money by a few...  SnoopDog   Feb-16-10 09:33 PM   #107 
  - Nuclear Industry requires huge subsidies to even exist  Moochy   Feb-17-10 12:56 AM   #165 
  - I want fission, fusion, solar and wind, especially wind and fusion.  MicaelS   Feb-16-10 09:34 PM   #108 
  - More welfare for corporate capitalism. Work on decentralized power sources instead. nt  lostnfound   Feb-16-10 09:38 PM   #111 
  - There are so many better/cheaper/less dangerous alternatives.  jtrockville   Feb-16-10 10:26 PM   #122 
  - nasty and evil  Rosa Luxemburg   Feb-16-10 11:06 PM   #129 
  - I appreciate the way you've laid out some of the downsides, Benny...  bridgit   Feb-16-10 11:18 PM   #131 
  - The last Nuclear Plant in the US was built back in the Jimmy Carter Administration..  lib2DaBone   Feb-16-10 11:30 PM   #133 
  - I'm disgusted and pissed off. But I saw it coming during the primaries when Obama  earth mom   Feb-17-10 12:11 AM   #147 
  - It won't ever happen way up here Northern California-3000 miles away in Georgia  GreenTea   Feb-17-10 12:19 AM   #150 
  - They have been storing waste onsite for 50 years.  Statistical   Feb-17-10 07:42 AM   #191 
  - Paint targets on them and have the "Nuke-Away"handy  upi402   Feb-17-10 12:26 AM   #153 
  - An airliner will bounce off  Merchant Marine   Feb-17-10 01:08 AM   #168 
  - In the 1950s the US Army shot at containment building with heavy artillery.  Statistical   Feb-17-10 07:35 AM   #189 
     - Silly to think terrorists couldn't pack nukes onto a plane IMHO  upi402   Feb-17-10 06:51 PM   #229 
        - Lol, uhhhhh if they have nuclear weapons  spoony   Feb-17-10 10:28 PM   #232 
           - did you misunderstand maybe?  upi402   Feb-18-10 12:16 AM   #234 
  - Explanation of different types:  OxQQme   Feb-17-10 12:32 AM   #157 
  - How many people died at Three Mile Island?  oldlib   Feb-17-10 12:45 AM   #162 
  - I say that TEN THOUSAND+ miners have died in the last decade from Coal workers' pneumoconiosis  cherokeeprogressive   Feb-17-10 12:52 AM   #164 
  - I'm for it  Onceuponalife   Feb-17-10 01:29 AM   #172 
  - A huge fusion generator would meet all our needs.  Orsino   Feb-17-10 07:10 AM   #187 
  - Pro - lets get out there and build them.  ThomWV   Feb-17-10 07:36 AM   #190 
  - Let's build em in W. Virginia  taught_me_patience   Feb-18-10 12:57 AM   #236 
  - The plant 10 miles from my house is leaking radioactive tritium into the ground.  Vinca   Feb-17-10 07:52 AM   #194 
  - Tritium has a half life of 12 years, ground water moves at an average rate of 1" per year  ThomWV   Feb-17-10 08:21 AM   #197 
  - It's long overdue and a serious step to weaning ourself off foreign oil.  Common Sense Party   Feb-17-10 09:15 AM   #201 
  - I support generation of electricity from Nuclear Power...nt  SidDithers   Feb-17-10 10:28 AM   #204 
  - Not interested in Nuclear engery.  Hell Hath No Fury   Feb-17-10 11:16 AM   #207 
  - no need for it... we have technology to move in a safer, greener direction  fascisthunter   Feb-17-10 11:18 AM   #208 
  - Just the mining and clean up are enough to deter me. nt.  Javaman   Feb-17-10 01:40 PM   #216 
  - It's the number one reason why we don't have widespread affordable solar and wind power today. n/t  Tom Rinaldo   Feb-17-10 01:42 PM   #217 
  - The lack of nuclear power plants in the US is the cause of that? Explain.  timeforpeace   Feb-17-10 03:47 PM   #225 
  - Against for a bunch of reasons  marlakay   Feb-17-10 03:44 PM   #224 
  - Until we figure out what to do with the waste, I'm not that keen on it..  SoCalDem   Feb-17-10 10:34 PM   #233 
  - Not jazzed about it  taught_me_patience   Feb-18-10 12:54 AM   # 
  - dupe  taught_me_patience   Feb-18-10 12:54 AM   #235 
  - I oppose opting for nuclear energy. It is much too expensive.  JDPriestly   Feb-18-10 03:49 AM   #237 
  - Don't like it  quaker bill   Feb-18-10 04:28 AM   #244 
  - If there were a great way to get rid of the waste  AsahinaKimi   Feb-18-10 07:03 AM   #247 
  - I'm with you. This looks like a Republican energy bill.  mmonk   Feb-18-10 07:05 AM   #248 
  - I hope we continue to build nuclear power plants until every last coal plant is gone.  hunter   Feb-18-10 08:08 AM   #249 
  - Nuclear power -- I don't care for it.  saltpoint   Feb-18-10 08:10 AM   #250 
  - I'm not happy with it, but I think it is necessary. We wasted over 30 years  old mark   Feb-18-10 11:09 AM   #252 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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