In article , Lil Abner
says...

On 3/14/2011 7:09 PM, 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.
Well maybe we could have Westinghouse designed Chinese, N Korean, or.....
I have no idea since I don't inspect them.
Maybe you do?

A friend of mine did, that was his job. He inspected these facilities as
they are being built, and I don't even want to repeat what he told me,
let's just say it wasn't good...

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 14/03/2011 6:35 PM, 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.

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.

Beg to differ. Could have been an aircraft, quake, fire, flood...always
an excuse.

The buildings are sheet steel, they should have been 2' thick concrete.
All reactors should have a mechancial way of assured shutdown, pull a
lever and the rods pull away ceasing the reaction. And much lower
temperature limits.

Using moulton salts is efficient, but not safe. Looks like these
reacors were designed as efficient but not safe. Politicians rather
have the money for government corruption and greed than doing it right.

Last week, I was all for nukes, this week, no way. This si the worlds
worst nuclear disaster to date and politicians are white washing it big
time. And they will get away with it. Prove the damages? Hard to do,
could be something else....

We need much better designs and quite frankly I don't trust our or their
governmetns to do it right. Pretty clear they use a bad design from a
safety perspective.

If I moved to an area that had one, I would wantt o be upwind from it
for sure.

On 14/03/2011 5:54 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , Lil
says...

On 3/14/2011 7:09 PM, 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.
Well maybe we could have Westinghouse designed Chinese, N Korean, or.....
I have no idea since I don't inspect them.
Maybe you do?

A friend of mine did, that was his job. He inspected these facilities as
they are being built, and I don't even want to repeat what he told me,
let's just say it wasn't good...

Lots of politicial presures to sign off on some big mistakes?

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 ,
says...

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:40:39 -0400, Gene
wrote:

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

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.

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.

Except the one 5 miles from my house.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station

Where is the fault that is going to cause the level 9 earthquake?

Well, the one that runs under CT is supposed to be bigger and with more
potential than the San Andreas Fault line.. It just doesn't hit as
often...

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.

In article ,
says...

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

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.

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.

Except the one 5 miles from my house.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station

Looks like a GE plant. I would consider moving.

On 3/15/11 7:45 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

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

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.

Except the one 5 miles from my house.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswi...rating_Station

Looks like a GE plant. I would consider moving.




The Japanese plants are GE, too. Ahhh, corporatism.

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?