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.

Harryk wrote:
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.
Ours are not all GE reactors. Westinghouse is another.

On 14/03/2011 4:48 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 used to believe in nuclear power was the way to go.

But given Japan is now having 3 meltdowns/explosions putting radioactive
material into the atomosphere I am changing to anti-nuclear. It is
clear our politicians lie, our engineering is grossly insuficient and we
are too imature of a species to do this safely.

Headed for the US too. If USS Ronald Reagan is moving out of the way,
well, tells you all you need to know. Think, the next lot of tuna might
come with cancer included.

On Mar 14, 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.

Herring preaches about everything...EXCEPT Boats. He's a twit.

In article , 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?

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 3/15/11 4:43 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
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...


You should know that "HarryisPaul" is the former loogy here and doesn't
know or care about nuclear reactors. He only posts to take cheap and
repetitive potshots at me and another poster. Along with Scott
Ingersoll, he is about the dumbest poster who ever showed his handle here.

On 3/15/11 5:05 PM, Harryk wrote:
I have some beach front land for sale cheap too...


He only posts to take cheap and
repetitive potshots at......

This sounds like you are talking about yourself. Cheap, childish,
repetitive potshots are all you do.

In article ,
says...

On 3/15/11 4:43 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
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...


You should know that "HarryisPaul" is the former loogy here and doesn't
know or care about nuclear reactors. He only posts to take cheap and
repetitive potshots at me and another poster. Along with Scott
Ingersoll, he is about the dumbest poster who ever showed his handle here.

You are dead wrong again, idiot! Care to wager? I'm guessing you'll be a
coward.

On 3/15/11 9:05 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:43:27 -0600,
wrote:

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...

You probably should not put a nuke plant there. If it was 25 miles up
the river it would not be knocked out by a tsunami.

BTW has there EVER been a tsunami in the Atlantic?


Portugal, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have experienced them.
There probably have been other tsunamis in the Atlantic.