"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

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.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:37:35 -0400, 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?

Let's assume the nuclear device that explodes was not part of the
reactor but delivered via any number of means...

You know that Pakistan is on the verge of being a failed state? You
know they have had nuclear technology and the means to deliver, right?
You know that the Taliban and al Qaeda are quickly taking over
territory in Pakistan and may eventually control the country?

Is it hard to connect these dots? You think it's fantasy?

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:04:32 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:37:35 -0400, 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?

Let's assume the nuclear device that explodes was not part of the
reactor but delivered via any number of means...

You know that Pakistan is on the verge of being a failed state? You
know they have had nuclear technology and the means to deliver, right?
You know that the Taliban and al Qaeda are quickly taking over
territory in Pakistan and may eventually control the country?

Is it hard to connect these dots? You think it's fantasy?

If a nuclear bomb goes off on a nuclear power plant, the additional
radiation due to material in the plant will be miniscule in effect. If
that is your rationale for an anti-nuclear plant stance, it's really,
really stupid.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
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?

You weren't clear enough. Now the usual suspects will pounce. I know you
meant a "nuclear" explosion, and *they* know you meant that too, but the
Genie is out of the bottle...

Let the games begin...

--Mike

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

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
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.



Actually lots of waste. Less than coal mining and burning causes. The high
level waste is a minority of the waste. My neighborhood is home to lots of
nuclear physicists and engineers from the Livermore National labs. Former
fishing partner is a retiree from the lab. The contaminated clothes, tools,
rags are a majority of the waste that needs to be stored. The control rods
and contents are recycled. Coal plants and coal mining release much more
radioactivity than has ever been released by nuclear plants. Probably
including Chernobyl. Just not as high level.

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

Boy, what great news. Hard to believe the liberals, the DAMN liberals,
are so good at keeping the truth from coming out.

Now, tell us about how we were all created by God, and there's no such
thing as evolution.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:34:45 -0700, Jim 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

Boy, what great news. Hard to believe the liberals, the DAMN liberals,
are so good at keeping the truth from coming out.

Amen.

Now, tell us about how we were all created by God, and there's no such
thing as evolution.

Here, read for yourself. You surely don't need me!

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis+1
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

John H wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:34:45 -0700, Jim 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
Boy, what great news. Hard to believe the liberals, the DAMN liberals,
are so good at keeping the truth from coming out.

Amen.
Now, tell us about how we were all created by God, and there's no such
thing as evolution.

Here, read for yourself. You surely don't need me!

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Genesis+1
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm

Ever notice the crazy homeless begging for money in public places? Most
have bibles and really believe, just like you do.