No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

Eisboch wrote:

"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


I have the distinct honor of living about equidistant from a coal plant
east of here and a nuke plant south of here. Neither causes me any great
concern, though I do think more about catastrophe at the nuke plant.

One of the problems concomitant with a disaster at a nuke plant is that
there is no real way to get out of the way of radiation. That's probably
true near most nuke plants. There may be roads, and good ones, but
population density is such that evacuations would more closely resemble
gridlock.

I remember after TMI a friend who worked for a science consulting
company was the lead investigator on federal government evac plans for
areas around nuke facilities. We were both sailors in those days, and he
told me about a part of the plans that based the "best" ways to evac an
area around traditional and historial prevailing wind patterns. We both
thought that was hysterical, since winds can shift at any time, and
suddenly.

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

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.

Well that's true. But the Question was, (see above)
There was a hydrogen explosion at TMI.
There was actually a third incident, but I don't remember the name of it.

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"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


I have the distinct honor of living about equidistant from a coal plant
east of here and a nuke plant south of here. Neither causes me any great
concern, though I do think more about catastrophe at the nuke plant.

One of the problems concomitant with a disaster at a nuke plant is that
there is no real way to get out of the way of radiation. That's probably
true near most nuke plants. There may be roads, and good ones, but
population density is such that evacuations would more closely resemble
gridlock.

I remember after TMI a friend who worked for a science consulting
company was the lead investigator on federal government evac plans for
areas around nuke facilities. We were both sailors in those days, and he
told me about a part of the plans that based the "best" ways to evac an
area around traditional and historial prevailing wind patterns. We both
thought that was hysterical, since winds can shift at any time, and
suddenly.

That was the point of my original post. With the rupture of a container
of Carbon Dioxide gas there is not an option for evacuation, you would
not even know there was a problem "until you wake up dead". With a
radiation release you can be evacuated and if exposed possibly recover.

As I originally said I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant
than a coal fired plant with hundreds of tons of stored carbon dioxide.

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

jim78565 wrote:

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.

Well that's true. But the Question was, (see above)
There was a hydrogen explosion at TMI.
There was actually a third incident, but I don't remember the name of it.

Hydrogen explosion can occur in any plant that works with metals. When I
was working at a chemical plant in Cincinnati we put the top of a large
reactor on the roof with a hydrogen explosion.

Hydrogen explosion can occur in any situation where there is
electricity. The battery on your car, whether it is a hybrid or
traditional, can have a hydrogen explosion.

I suspect in the proper situation where the gas was contained and
concentrated, the corrosion in your boat could cause a hydrogen explosion.

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:07:21 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

As I originally said I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant
than a coal fired plant with hundreds of tons of stored carbon dioxide.

I would rather live on a hilltop. One thousand tons would cover a 2000
foot square four feet deep. Propane will cover the exact same area per
weight.

Casady

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

www.boat-ed.com/ wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:

"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

It is hard to keep up with who is whom? But are you the one referred to
as "**** for Brains"? I also read it as a nuclear explosion, so I might
be **** for Brains II.

--
Boating Safety Courses

http://www.boat-ed.com/


I am sure many have called me **** for brains in the past and will in the
future. Regardless, there was no nuclear explosion at either referenced
power plant.

The fuel used in nuclear power plants is not anywhere near pure enough to go
Ka-boom and even if it were, there is no method to cause it it happen. You
could set off a "real" nuke bomb within the reactor area and the power
plant's fuel rods would not explode as a "nuclear" reaction.

They were steam explosions that damaged the confinement systems and then
released radiation.

Eisboch

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

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?

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

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

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:26:44 -0400, "http://www.boat-ed.com/"
www.boat-ed.com/ wrote:

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?

That seems like a great reason for the US not to build any of the US
Nuclear Power plants in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

I'm not sure we have the capability of stopping a plan of attack in
the US given that our weaknesses haven't been tested.

No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
 

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:52:11 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:26:44 -0400, "http://www.boat-ed.com/"
www.boat-ed.com/ wrote:

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?

That seems like a great reason for the US not to build any of the US
Nuclear Power plants in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

I'm not sure we have the capability of stopping a plan of attack in
the US given that our weaknesses haven't been tested.

Gosh, Ms Pelosi, maybe we should increase the size of the TSA and
inspect every single container after they're unloaded from the ship.

We could triple the size of both government and taxes easily, and
accomplish nothing!
--
John H

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