| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. If they make a serious attempt to solve the energy problem, they won't be able to keep the uninformed in a panic. That could cost votes. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. The best thing to do with nuclear waste is to bury it in the yards of right-wing racists like John H (Herring) and other right-wing retardos, so long as they could be isolated in a community where the radioactivity would only impact them. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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? |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:53:20 -0400, HK wrote:
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. The best thing to do with nuclear waste is to bury it in the yards of right-wing racists like John H (Herring) and other right-wing retardos, so long as they could be isolated in a community where the radioactivity would only impact them. Yes, notice how popular the notion is in Arizona and Nevada. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
"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. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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? |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
"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 |
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". |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
"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 |
No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com