edgarblythe
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:00 am
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:04 am
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.


Naturally, no. But compared to the 4 million tons of radioactive uranium let out into the atmosphere by burning coal every year, three mile island doesn't seem as much of a disaster.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:17 am
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.

No, but they are misunderstood. The plant design at Chernobyl was unexceptable when it was built. No commercial reactor in Europe or the US has ever been built with the potential for problems that Chernobyl had. Chernobyl shows you the potential of poor design and the need for government oversite. TMI actually shows how good the safety systems at these plants are. Despite people over-riding all the safety systems and turning them off, the damage at TMI was amazingly contained. If you stood at the fence of TMI during the entire accident, you would have received an additional 3mrem of exposure. That's insignificant. To compare, the average exposure at sea level due to natural sources is 100 mrem/yr. At one mile up (Denver for example), it is 300 mrem/yr.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:20 am
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.



My Aunt was highly placed with security for B&W when 3 mile island happened. Although she couldn't talk about much of it... my clear understanding was tha it was the result of human error.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:24 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.



My Aunt was highly placed with security for B&W when 3 mile island happened. Although she couldn't talk about much of it... my clear understanding was tha it was the result of human error.


So, we've conquered human error?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:25 am
no... but it can always happen in any situation and if we eliminated every thing that human error could f*ck up we'd be cooking wild game next to a campfire and howling at the moon.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:29 am
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.

Chernoble was due to serious cheapskatism during the hurtling decline of the USSR.

I can't say about 3 Mile. However, I CAN say France hasn't had one accident---and the alternative (what we're currently doing) is ******* up the air we breathe.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:45 am
Ticomaya wrote:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7326/obamasealsmallva8.jpg

Vero Possumus!

Long live possums?


I was going to guess "truth of possums"!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 12:04 pm
Clinton says her husband determined to help Obama

By Thomas Ferraro 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton brushed off suggestions on Wednesday that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, does not seem to share her enthusiasm for campaigning for Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama.


"He has said he will do what ever can and whatever he is asked to do," Clinton said, a day after her husband's spokesman issued a one-sentence statement of support for Obama, who will face Republican John McCain in the November election.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 12:11 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
no... but it can always happen in any situation and if we eliminated every thing that human error could f*ck up we'd be cooking wild game next to a campfire and howling at the moon.


Were you at deer camp last year? Some idiot always steps in the hot coals.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 12:14 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.


Naturally, no. But compared to the 4 million tons of radioactive uranium let out into the atmosphere by burning coal every year, three mile island doesn't seem as much of a disaster.

Cycloptichorn
Engineer delivered the facts of both incidents accurately. Chernoble was an accident waiting to happen when it was built. It would never have been licensed here, with or without fear mongering. 3 Mile Island wasn't a disaster at all. It was a shining example of fail-safes working effectively. As Engineer said; camping out at the fence perimeter would have damaged you NOT AT ALL.

Some of today's designs are literally walk away safe. In at least one design; you can literally, deliberately, switch off every single one of the safeties, let her go and head out and get some lunch with ZERO worries. Yet another gets buried in the ground like a giant battery, for many years at a time, without any human intervention at all, and can serve up to 50,000 people.

Just believing nuclear=scary is the product of ignorance and propaganda, and can easily be overcome by anyone interested in laying their fears to rest, simply by learning what they're talking about. A half hour on Wiki would probably suffice.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 12:58 pm
mysteryman wrote:
sozobe wrote:
I'm curious, does the fact that Bayh has endorsed Clinton make a difference to you? (No agenda, just curious -- I'm interested in the subject of what effect endorsements have, if any.)


Not really, because I have enough respect for Bayh to allow him that one mistake Laughing

Seriously, his endorsement of Hillary really doesnt mean much to me, because he has been a supporter of her for years,so it wasnt unexpected.

I would have supported him for President, even though I dont agree with most of his positions.
It was the little, intangible things that cause me to support him.
Those things that you cant quantify or explain, but you know what they are.

Things like he looks you in the eye when he talks to you, he remembers your name, he actually listens to people, even those that disagree with him.

Its all of the intangibles, not his positions, that cause me to support him and hope he decides to run in 2012.


This exchange was a while ago... now I'm curious, would Bayh as Obama's VP make you more interested in Obama?

Don't know if Obama will be asking, but Bayh seems interested:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/25/1167591.aspx
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:14 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.
It's kind of been touched on already, but those types of reators are no longer built and with 3-mile, the type of user error has been safe gaurded on the remaining reactors of that kind.

Nuclear may not the most "eco-friendly" but it is most likely the most "eco-efficient-friendly" option currently known. We are still finding creative ways to dispose of the leftover material and make less and less waste material.

Sidenote: There is some really interesting theories out being tested about the use of used nuclear material to develop new therapies for cancer patents. The idea is to bond a sinde nuclear isotope to a protein strain that targets cancer cells. If therapies like this prove succesful and practical, they could be a wonderful replacement for treatments such as chemo which can additionally have very devistating effects on an individuals health. Everybody root for science on this one.

There are very few left.
K
O
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:29 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.
It's kind of been touched on already, but those types of reators are no longer built and with 3-mile, the type of user error has been safe gaurded on the remaining reactors of that kind.

Nuclear may not the most "eco-friendly" but it is most likely the most "eco-efficient-friendly" option currently known. We are still finding creative ways to dispose of the leftover material and make less and less waste material.

Sidenote: There is some really interesting theories out being tested about the use of used nuclear material to develop new therapies for cancer patents. The idea is to bond a sinde nuclear isotope to a protein strain that targets cancer cells. If therapies like this prove succesful and practical, they could be a wonderful replacement for treatments such as chemo which can additionally have very devistating effects on an individuals health. Everybody root for science on this one.

There are very few left.
K
O


So what is the most eco-friendly, feasible energy resource?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:30 pm
Hoping feasible negated windmill power .... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:31 pm
I would think solar power fits in there someplace.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:34 pm
I wonder if solar power can meet demand and be reliable enough...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:35 pm
What about putting liberals in a room, giving them everything they've always wanted, then watch them spontaneously combust when they realize that's all there is.

That could power a few cities.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:37 pm
cjh, Your BS is much more powerful, except its use is very limited to your own system of values.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 01:39 pm
Lash wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
3 Mile and Chernoble are figments of the imagination.
It's kind of been touched on already, but those types of reators are no longer built and with 3-mile, the type of user error has been safe gaurded on the remaining reactors of that kind.

Nuclear may not the most "eco-friendly" but it is most likely the most "eco-efficient-friendly" option currently known. We are still finding creative ways to dispose of the leftover material and make less and less waste material.

Sidenote: There is some really interesting theories out being tested about the use of used nuclear material to develop new therapies for cancer patents. The idea is to bond a sinde nuclear isotope to a protein strain that targets cancer cells. If therapies like this prove succesful and practical, they could be a wonderful replacement for treatments such as chemo which can additionally have very devistating effects on an individuals health. Everybody root for science on this one.

There are very few left.
K
O


So what is the most eco-friendly, feasible energy resource?

Nuclear power.

I think you missed that I was in agreement that it is superior. I was only pointing out that there is still some engineering to be done before it's totally friendly.

Hell, if we could put all the waste product of coal/diesel/gas consuption in a consentrated form in a barrel, I'd be totally stoked. Since we can't it leads me to believe that the waste we can manage is better than the waste we can't.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 946
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 12:25:34