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

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


That is what my memory of the event was. What "**** for Brains" thought
there was a nuclear explosion?




Hint.. he lives in Florida and specializes in air pollution.

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

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:34:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:18:05 -0400, 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

There is a pretty good article in the Scientific American "Energy"
supplement they just sent out about the new generation of "fast
neutron" reactors that can use reprocessed fuel rods from the
pyrometallturgical method (another new idea) That reprocesses fuel at
high temperatures without coming up with a bunch of plutonium. That
seems to be the main flaw in the current reprocessing systems.
They need the new reactor to use it tho. The waste from that reactor
has a short half life, still dangerous for a century or so but not
tens of thousands of years like the current stuff. There is also less
of it.

I looked, but couldn't find the article on the web. If you could post
a link, I'd sure appreciate it.

TIA!
--
John H

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

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:34:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:18:05 -0400, 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

There is a pretty good article in the Scientific American "Energy"
supplement they just sent out about the new generation of "fast
neutron" reactors that can use reprocessed fuel rods from the
pyrometallturgical method (another new idea) That reprocesses fuel at
high temperatures without coming up with a bunch of plutonium. That
seems to be the main flaw in the current reprocessing systems.
They need the new reactor to use it tho. The waste from that reactor
has a short half life, still dangerous for a century or so but not
tens of thousands of years like the current stuff. There is also less
of it.

If this is it, never mind my last.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-breeder-react

Thanks anyway.
--
John H

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

John H wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:34:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:18:05 -0400, 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
There is a pretty good article in the Scientific American "Energy"
supplement they just sent out about the new generation of "fast
neutron" reactors that can use reprocessed fuel rods from the
pyrometallturgical method (another new idea) That reprocesses fuel at
high temperatures without coming up with a bunch of plutonium. That
seems to be the main flaw in the current reprocessing systems.
They need the new reactor to use it tho. The waste from that reactor
has a short half life, still dangerous for a century or so but not
tens of thousands of years like the current stuff. There is also less
of it.

If this is it, never mind my last.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-breeder-react

Thanks anyway.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm
I suspect that since this is a recent article the technology has
changed, but breeder reactors have been around since the 1970 when
conventional reactors were "outlawed" by restrictive federal regulations.

There is another new idea for the use of nuclear energy for the
generation of electricity. The units are about the size of a large RV.
The unit would would provide power to a community for many years and
then be taken back to the factory and reworked. This is one article I
did not save, so don't remember the exact statistics.

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:14:27 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:34:01 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:18:05 -0400, 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

There is a pretty good article in the Scientific American "Energy"
supplement they just sent out about the new generation of "fast
neutron" reactors that can use reprocessed fuel rods from the
pyrometallturgical method (another new idea) That reprocesses fuel at
high temperatures without coming up with a bunch of plutonium. That
seems to be the main flaw in the current reprocessing systems.
They need the new reactor to use it tho. The waste from that reactor
has a short half life, still dangerous for a century or so but not
tens of thousands of years like the current stuff. There is also less
of it.

If this is it, never mind my last.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-breeder-react

Thanks anyway.

No, this is in the subscriber supplement they send out occasionally.
It is "Smarter use of nuclear waste" by Hannum, Marsh and Stanford. I
am not sure if that is on the web site. I usually read the hard copy.

Got it. That's the 2005 article referred to in the reference above.
It's he

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Nuclea...torsSA1205.pdf

Thanks for the info.
--
John H

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

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:30:33 -0400, "http://www.boat-ed.com/"
www.boat-ed.com/ wrote:

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.

Well, I guess we should close down all existing energy plants, including
nuclear, coal, solar and turbine/water, since a terrorist attack on any
of them would be devastating. Heck, let's not forget to close all
pipelines, and petrol and natural gas storage facilitates. Think what
would happen if a terrorist polluted our rivers and water reserves, time
to close them down. Heck, if they blew up a dam it would be terrible,
we better dismantle all of them while we are at it. JPS, I think you
are onto something.

You are overreacting in the same way a 12 year old would.

My concerns are far more plausible than those that were put forward to
get us into Iraq.

"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

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.