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 #28: a rare intelligent, informed post on the subject. nt [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 » General Discussion Donate to DU
GSLevel9 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. a rare intelligent, informed post on the subject. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Obama's $36 Billion Nuke-Powered Giveaway Donnachaidh  Feb-16-11 09:53 AM   #0 
  - It staggers me that we're pursuing nuclear power,  MadHound   Feb-16-11 10:00 AM   #1 
  - I am glad we are pursing nuclear power.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 10:03 AM   #2 
     - Just let those future people deal with the toxic wasteland we leave  Avant Guardian   Feb-16-11 10:07 AM   #5 
     - Toxic wasteland? Your lifetime total power consumption (not just electricity but all energy)  Statistical   Feb-16-11 10:12 AM   #7 
     - And yet the Community where the Mr. and I grew up is swimming in NUKE Waste and...  Tikki   Feb-16-11 10:36 AM   #8 
     - Nuclear weapons or nuclear power? Of course there is a distinction.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 10:47 AM   #9 
        - NUKE power only!!!...then why do we care that 'some' Countries are...  Tikki   Feb-16-11 12:19 PM   #15 
     - Can you back those decay #'s? This graph seems at odds with your post.  Wilms   Feb-16-11 10:50 AM   #11 
     - Actuallly that chart pefectly backs me up. The chart is logarithmic.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 11:19 AM   #12 
        - How long before you can sit next to a spent fuel rod? n/t  Wilms   Feb-16-11 12:19 PM   #16 
        - How long before you can sit next to raw uranium or radon gas? n/t  Statistical   Feb-16-11 12:23 PM   #19 
           - Well gee, now that you mention...  Wilms   Feb-16-11 12:47 PM   #22 
              - Sure. There are risks to a lot of things.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 02:06 PM   #36 
                 - At what point need you not worry about it?  Wilms   Feb-16-11 03:12 PM   #46 
                    - The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA says it has to be contained for a million years  bananas   Feb-16-11 04:34 PM   #52 
        - Excellent reply, explained so even a layman like me can understand it. Thanks for the post.  apocalypsehow   Feb-16-11 12:19 PM   #17 
        - Don't be fooled by the flashy graphics.  MadHound   Feb-16-11 01:33 PM   #31 
        - Except the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA say it has to be contained for a million years  bananas   Feb-16-11 04:46 PM   #56 
           - The chart is factually straight-forward: it stands un-refuted. Period. n/t.  apocalypsehow   Feb-16-11 05:24 PM   #59 
              - Here, let me refute it for you,  MadHound   Feb-16-11 05:30 PM   #60 
        - a rare intelligent, informed post on the subject. nt  GSLevel9   Feb-16-11 01:25 PM   #28 
           - Yes, it is, and note also that the only negative "replies" to it consist of personal attacks on the  apocalypsehow   Feb-16-11 02:24 PM   #40 
              - I guess you missed all those links to governmental and educational publications I have up.  MadHound   Feb-16-11 03:04 PM   #44 
     - A soda can of nuclear waste?  Avant Guardian   Feb-16-11 05:41 PM   #61 
        - Wow. This post wins most anti-science post of the day.  Statistical   Feb-17-11 07:37 AM   #62 
     - Our fossil fuel plants have already created a "toxic wasteland."  hunter   Feb-16-11 10:49 AM   #10 
     - Spoken like an industry spokesperson,  MadHound   Feb-16-11 12:23 PM   #18 
        - Wow. The amazing thing is that absolutely nothing you said in that entire post is true.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 12:35 PM   #20 
           - Trying to be the master of misdirection, aren't you.  MadHound   Feb-16-11 01:06 PM   #24 
           - 23 years without reprocessing.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 02:14 PM   #38 
              - And again, it more expensive than wind, solar or water,  MadHound   Feb-16-11 02:19 PM   #39 
                 - Hydro is limited in capacity. We have already dammed virtually every possible river.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 02:24 PM   #41 
                    - I see that you haven't done any reading at the the Stanford link.  MadHound   Feb-16-11 02:44 PM   #43 
                       - The duke study on solar power was end user cost not total cost.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 03:06 PM   #45 
                          - Oh, you want to talk subsidies?  MadHound   Feb-16-11 03:51 PM   #47 
                             - "Meanwhile, solar subsidies amount to what. . . One billion dollars."  NickB79   Feb-16-11 03:56 PM   #48 
                             - Here from the DOE.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 04:07 PM   #50 
                             - Nope. You are comparing apples and oranges.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 04:03 PM   #49 
                                - Umm, are you even reading your own sources?  MadHound   Feb-16-11 04:37 PM   #53 
           - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Feb-16-11 01:56 PM   #34 
  - $36 billion or $0 billion? So far the $18.5 billion allocated by Bush has cost taxpayers $0.00  Statistical   Feb-16-11 10:05 AM   #3 
  - You're full of great information this morning Donna!  jillan   Feb-16-11 10:05 AM   #4 
  - Build one in Chicago  upi402   Feb-16-11 10:09 AM   #6 
  - You mean right next to the Tony Rezco side lot???  Peregrine Took   Feb-16-11 11:46 AM   #13 
  - Cheney set the stage for this, and it's worse than you can imagine  Atman   Feb-16-11 11:51 AM   #14 
  - Nuclear energy IS the green-powered future. nt  Codeine   Feb-16-11 12:38 PM   #21 
  - AMEN!  Rebubula   Feb-16-11 01:06 PM   #23 
  - Really?  MadHound   Feb-16-11 01:09 PM   #25 
  - It's not Green, it's not needed, it's one of the worst options available. nt  bananas   Feb-16-11 04:40 PM   #54 
  - Spot-on observation. The bottom line is that anti-nuclear = anti-environment/Green. Period. n/t.  apocalypsehow   Feb-16-11 01:15 PM   #26 
  - Except for this,  MadHound   Feb-16-11 01:32 PM   #30 
  - I know I'm hitting it pretty close to the mark when the personal attacks start flying.  apocalypsehow   Feb-16-11 01:37 PM   #32 
     - "Personal attacks start flying?" And where did I personally attack you?  MadHound   Feb-16-11 01:55 PM   #33 
  - Nope - nuclear is not Green, it's green-washed - the Greens are against it  bananas   Feb-16-11 04:43 PM   #55 
     - Yep - Nuclear power is the cleanest, Greenest kind of energy available for human use, period.  apocalypsehow   Feb-16-11 04:50 PM   #57 
        - OK then, would you care to discuss these following issues,  MadHound   Feb-16-11 05:13 PM   #58 
  - +1...nt  SidDithers   Feb-16-11 01:30 PM   #29 
  - +1.  Statistical   Feb-16-11 02:03 PM   #35 
  - The only thing green about current nuclear energy is the radioactive  Rex   Feb-16-11 02:44 PM   #42 
  - Good, although I wish 25% of that money went to fusion research  snooper2   Feb-16-11 01:16 PM   #27 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Feb-16-11 02:08 PM   #37 
  - Low cost uranium will be used up by 2055  Scruffy1   Feb-16-11 04:24 PM   #51 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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