Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
jim78565 wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island They didn't "explode". |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
Eisboch wrote:
"jim78565" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island They didn't explode. That's impossible. They simply had your run of the mill China Syndrome meltdown. Eisboch Read the second bulleted item. |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
"jim78565" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island ~~ Snerk ~~ ooops., I'd better get my bee bonnet on so i don't get stung. LMAO |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
Eisboch wrote:
"jim78565" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island They didn't explode. That's impossible. They simply had your run of the mill China Syndrome meltdown. Eisboch My recollection is that one of the reactors at Chernobyl exploded. |
#15
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
BAR wrote:
jim78565 wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island They didn't "explode". Here you go, **** for brains: On 25 April, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings. A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As flow of coolant water diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused a dramatic power surge. The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam lifted off the cover plate of the reactor, releasing fission products to the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the graphite moderator to burst into flames. There is some dispute among experts about the character of this second explosion. The graphite - there was over 1200 tonnes of it - burned for nine days, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 14 EBq (1018 Bq) of radioactivity was released, half of it being biologically-inert noble gases. See also appended sequence of events. Some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay and lead were dropped on to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze and limit the release of radioactive particles. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm |
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:38:34 -0700, jps wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? Would the small amount of extra radioactive material from the waste make any difference? But, in typical liberal fashion, you seek to show the end of the world! -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm |
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
Don White wrote:
"jim78565" wrote in message ... Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island ~~ Snerk ~~ ooops., I'd better get my bee bonnet on so i don't get stung. LMAO Stung again. You don't even know what you are laughing about. That's the sign of an idiot. Read about Three Mile Island explosion and Chernobyl explosion. |
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
jim78565 wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island Neither were nuclear explosions. In fact if you would take the time to check three Mile Island was a leak. |
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: jim78565 wrote: Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island They didn't "explode". Here you go, **** for brains: On 25 April, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings. A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As flow of coolant water diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused a dramatic power surge. The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam lifted off the cover plate of the reactor, releasing fission products to the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the graphite moderator to burst into flames. There is some dispute among experts about the character of this second explosion. The graphite - there was over 1200 tonnes of it - burned for nine days, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 14 EBq (1018 Bq) of radioactivity was released, half of it being biologically-inert noble gases. See also appended sequence of events. Some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay and lead were dropped on to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze and limit the release of radioactive particles. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm Still not a nuclear explosion. A steam explosion could occur in ANY power plant, which could burn releasing all kinds of materials. |
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message ... Neither were nuclear explosions. In fact if you would take the time to check three Mile Island was a leak. Some people are nit-pickin' here. The original comment sorta implied a nuke explosion, like a bomb. That's simply not the case and can't happen in a nuclear power plant, for a number of reasons. But, indeed, there may have been steam containment explosions or piping as the system ran away with it's self. Eisboch |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Repugs to “go nuclear” | General | |||
Repugs to “go nuclear” | General | |||
Nuclear Proliferation | ASA | |||
I have a nuclear-powered kayak | Touring |