Guest guest Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Jim wrote: > Reasons why Nuclear Power in its present form will never fly again: > > 1. Uranium is not a renewable fuel! Oil probably is. If you drop all > of the ancient wives tales associated with it and read Gold's > book, you know he is most likely correct. > > Maybe not, but it gives us plenty of time to develop better energy sources if oil really does become scarce. It is an interesting idea, which needs proving first, if true and oil is replaced quickly enough, in sufficient volumes, in accessible locations *, it makes this thread of dubious merit! * the war on Iraq was never about terrorism or democracy, so Iran is probably next; the US obviously wants to gain control of enough oil reserves to meet their energy and strategic global economic/military needs. > 2. The families around TMI had the assets frozen when the accident > occurred... they had no means of escaping the fallout that nearly > killed them at a high rate. This always occurs when banks become aware > of a possible run on their accounts. > A well designed plant should not have a melt down, for some reason the designers chose a design which was vulnerable to melt down. > 3. Large stashes of spent fuel rods as well as active plants will > always be a great target for terrorists. They thought that the twin > towers were impossible to blow, but it was done quite effectively. > Does anyone belief that ingenious terrorists can't hit a nuke plant? > > The twin towers were known to be easy targets before the attack, there were known flaws in the design, apart from the fact that there is too much suspicious evidence around 9/11 for there not to have been at least complicity with the attackers, some have provided evidence of funding too; from what I gathered, the final destruction of the towers had all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, the Pentagon attack was even more damning. I doubt that governments would be so brazen as to allow nuclear facilities to become vulnerable, for various reasons, unless they do it in a controlled manner, to act as an excuse to attack other countries on their list. > 4. When all of the intrinsic costs are included in any nuke plant built > in the U.S., none has ever made any real energy and it is unlikely that > any ever will unless a new technology arises that provides for the > actual reuse of spent fuel rods. Nuke plants are very thick concrete > structures and concrete itself is a very energy intensive material. > Building is a one off cost and probably only a tiny fraction of the energy generated during the working life of a plant, some older reactors used seriously flawed designs and may not have be as efficient as newer designs, so I don't know enough to comment on the total cost of fuel rods, the life span of a well designed reactor or what the refurbishment/disposal or demolition/disposal costs of an end-of-life, well designed reactor are. > 5. The costs associated with the risk of a failure have made > construction of new plants a near impossibility. Unless the power plant > owners are totally immune to those risks via laws passed by congress, > that could never happen. Are you willing to give up your rights just so > they can build new plants based on 1, 2, 3 & 4 above? I doubt it > unless you are an insane fanatic. > If the political will is there the plants will get built (sane or not), laws can be repealed as many already have (e.g. US protection against the military involvement in civil situations), if you haven't noticed, your rights in the US are eroding anyhow, luckily the same fake 'war on terror' moves are being resisted to some degree here. > > > > a1thighmaster wrote: > > >> Does this mean that someone has found an actual solution for the safe >> and clean disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants? >> Until that solution is found nuclear power remains a dirty, unwanted, >> and unwarranted solution. >> >> Best regards, >> Celeste >> >> Hans Conser wrote: >> >>> If you think that global warming is real and caused by greenhouse >>> gases, then the only way out is nuclear power, and just the term gives >>> most of the non-thinking chattering classes the heebie-jeebies. We >>> need to put physics and chemistry back into the high schools so people >>> aren't so gullible. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but >> under no circumstances should any information published here be >> considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified >> physician. -the owner >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Where can we find more information about this study? Thank you Ian > > ncreased Cancer Risk For Children Living Near Reactors: Study > > Children younger than 5 years old who lived near nuclear power plants > were much more likely to develop cancer than those in the general > population, a German government study found. > > Children who lived less than five kilometers (three miles) from a > nuclear power plant had about a 60 percent increased risk of cancer. > When investigators looked at leukemia alone, there was a 117 percent > increased risk, Agence France-Presse reported. > > Jerome Mittelman, DDS, FAPM > jmittelman@... > For free sample of The Holistic Dental Digest PLUS, reply with your > street or pob address. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2007 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 My town is located close to a nuclear plant, and I always heard that we had the highest childhood leukemia rates in the country. Don't know that is true, but I do believe you are right about the increased rates. Sad. jp > ncreased Cancer Risk For Children Living Near Reactors: Study > > Children younger than 5 years old who lived near nuclear power plants > were much more likely to develop cancer than those in the general > population, a German government study found. > > Children who lived less than five kilometers (three miles) from a > nuclear power plant had about a 60 percent increased risk of cancer. > When investigators looked at leukemia alone, there was a 117 percent > increased risk, Agence France-Presse reported. > > Jerome Mittelman, DDS, FAPM > jmittelman@... > For free sample of The Holistic Dental Digest PLUS, reply with your > street or pob address. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.