In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/14/11 7:09 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.
So there are seismic areas everywhere.
The problem in Japan was cooling shut down, at least with limited info
published. They perhaps could have not had a problem with something as
simple as adequate back up diesel generators or pumps.
What would you do? Pick out a cave yet?



What I wouldn't do is make a pronouncement that our nuclear plants are a
"lot more sophisticated and more redundant safety" than the Japanese
plants, since both probably were designed and built by the same US
manufacturer, GE.

What about Westinghouse, dip****? And I do hope you know that just
because the reactor itself is made by a certain company doesn't mean
that every piece and part was.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.

Damn you are stupid.

On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.

Damn you are stupid.


Stupid is spending your on-line life trying to elicit responses from
someone who obviously ignores you/blocks your posts and has no intention
of responding.

Have a nice day, Loogy.

On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.

Damn you are stupid.

No need to restate the obvious.

On 3/15/2011 9:43 AM, paul@byc wrote:
On 3/15/2011 9:29 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In articles4idneA9KrOkPePQnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/14/11 7:04 PM, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 6:58 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 3/14/2011 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of
nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.



There is not a no risk utopia.
We have to learn to safely handle nuclear power, and coal, etc.
Ultimately nuclear wins out.
Japanese are not
ultimate technologists. Our Nuclear Power Plants are a lot more
sophisticated and more redundant safety.


Oh, really? Please provide proof that our creaky old nuclear power
plants are a lot more sophisticated and more "redundant safety" than
the
equally old (or new) Japanese nuclear power plants. I understand at
least one of our nuke plants, in California, is literally built over an
earthquake fault, and that several plants in the South East are also
built in areas of seismic activity.

Oh, and all the reactors at the plant in question were designed by...you
guessed it...General Electric. All but one were built by...you guessed
it...General Electric.

But *our* nuclear power plants built by...you guessed it...General
Electric...are a lot safer.

Damn you are stupid.


Stupid is spending your on-line life trying to elicit responses from
someone who obviously ignores you/blocks your posts and has no intention
of responding.

Have a nice day, Loogy.

Stupid is sitting in your basement wasting your life away, on line. I
can't imagine why the little lady lets you get away with it.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, Harryk wrote:

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

Thanks for putting the dip in his place.

(That was your March response, BTW.)

Scotty, take heed.

On 3/15/11 10:20 AM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:26 -0400, wrote:

On 3/14/11 6:48 PM, True North wrote:
Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

Thanks for putting the dip in his place.

(That was your March response, BTW.)

Scotty, take heed.


This from John "ever the asshole" Herring, rec. boat's resident racist.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 02:19:14 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote:

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected
second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup
power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are
a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however.
The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an
emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous
maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration
practices, etc.

Why not just put a big water tank on top of the building... then all
you need is gravity.

On 15/03/2011 7:21 AM, HarryisPaul wrote:
In , princecraft49
@gmail.com says...

Was that you, Johnny.... always preaching about the benefits of nuclear
power?
Good I guess, as long as you don't have an earthquake.

You stupid ****! Do you realize that in the U.S. the standard design for
nuke plants for sunamis, earthquakes, flood, etc. is to use a 10,000
year event span?

So does Japan claim the same. You trust these *******s to tll the truth?

I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...

On 15/03/2011 12:19 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:35:01 -0400, wrote:

I haven't been opposed to nuclear power. I live about 20 miles from one.
But this latest incident in Japan sure gives one pause.

I think the significant thing is that the problem wasn't the 9.0
earthquake, it was the tsunami. That makes most of the US reactors
somewhat immune to the biggest problem.

It does highlight how vulnerable the cooling systems are to unexpected
second order effects. The Japanese had diesel generators for backup
power and then the diesels got knocked out by the tsunami. There are
a lot of other things that can knock out diesel generators however.
The track record of standby diesels performing reliably in an
emergency is spotty at best. It takes an extremely rigorous
maintenance and testing regime starting with fuel storage, filtration
practices, etc.


All reactors should and can be designed in a way they can remove core
elements and stop the reaction. Why were these 4 reactors not designed
this way?

Cheap design? Poor engineering? How many more like it are out there?