For those who think all nuclear power is safe: A story from just this week - Page 2

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 09:32 AM

given the rate at which nuclear accidents happen, i doubt an 'almost accident' is something to worry about

7960 · 08-07-2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

In the base-level of many quantum mechanical equations there is a force called the Zero-Point Energy.

"when everyone's super...no one will be"

hopefully this or some other research works out, but until then nuclear is actually the cleanest, safest power out there that can affect a change. All the rivers are damned, solar is decades (probably more) from being "good enough", tidal power is promising but *way* far off.............. what else?

I wouldn't want one in my back yard but I also wouldn't want a coal fired one there, either.

PsyPenguin · 08-07-2006, 10:46 AM

We have a plant near us where they refine nuclear materials (USEC). The plant is in the middle of a massive wildlife management area (WMA). The WMA is pretty much useless these days with most of the water off limits due to contamination, and even much of the land is now blocked off with those little nuclear signs surrounding it.

Now I am not saying nuclear isnt safe. But when people in this area think of nuclear power, they think of our massive WMA that is now pretty much useless and actually somewhat dangerous (US news and world report did an article a few years back about how high the contamination levels were out there in publicly accessible locations).

Concept · 08-07-2006, 11:00 AM

Right, yeah, next thing I know my damn child is going to have a nipple growing on his forehead and a finger where his penis should be.

But, then again, airplanes tend not to crash; nuclear reactors don't tend to meltdown.

hsmith · 08-07-2006, 11:00 AM

Nuclear Power IS SAFE, the safety features prevented a major disaster.

Looks like a success of nuclear power to me.

ballz2wallz · 08-07-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Nuclear Power IS SAFE, the safety features prevented a major disaster.

Looks like a success of nuclear power to me.

but it was almost not a success

PsyPenguin · 08-07-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Concept

Right, yeah, next thing I know my damn child is going to have a nipple growing on his forehead and a finger where his penis should be.

Obviously not going to happen...but you tell people that and it creates fear. The anti-nuclear folks are great at blwing this fear out of proportion. Fear is the greatest tool in any political debate. Create a viable fear of the that which you are against, and watch the masses run from it.

Concept · 08-07-2006, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by PsyPenguin

Obviously not going to happen...

That's why I was trying to be funny.

but I failed

Nonphixion · 08-07-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Concept

That's why I was trying to be funny.

but I failed

I chuckled

---

Originally Posted by 7960

hopefully this or some other research works out, but until then nuclear is actually the cleanest, safest power out there that can affect a change. All the rivers are damned, solar is decades (probably more) from being "good enough", tidal power is promising but *way* far off.............. what else?

7960, sir I am doing what I can

And as it stands the potential energy here is 10x ^103 Mega-Joules (1 million joules) per cubic centimeter.

or

10^103 MJ/cc

The uranium in a nuclear reactor is measured in millions of joules as well (per kg, not cc), but is lacking energy by a factor of what seems to be a number [objectively 10] followed by one-hundred 0's. Seeing these numbers, the potential of this quantum technology is quite enormous

6SpeedTA95 · 08-07-2006, 01:03 PM

I dont know a single person in the energy business (the one I work in) that thinks ALL nuclear power is safe

Nuclear plants today are safe, if sweden failed to follow correct procedure then perhaps this is a wakeup call for folks who were obviously too lax in this situation.

Nuclear power is extremely safe and extremely clean.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-07-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

"when everyone's super...no one will be"

hopefully this or some other research works out, but until then nuclear is actually the cleanest, safest power out there that can affect a change. All the rivers are damned, solar is decades (probably more) from being "good enough", tidal power is promising but *way* far off.............. what else?

I wouldn't want one in my back yard but I also wouldn't want a coal fired one there, either.

Actually todays coal plants are pretty impressive in terms of effeciency and how freakin' clean they are. They're building a new one here in Oklahoma thats supposed to be the cleanest ever built by a pretty wide margin and its at this point being described as a huge technological achievement. The downside is its still 4 years away from completion.

I dont mind nuclear or coal power so long as they're done right.

Ardentfrost · 08-07-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Actually todays coal plants are pretty impressive in terms of effeciency and how freakin' clean they are. They're building a new one here in Oklahoma thats supposed to be the cleanest ever built by a pretty wide margin and its at this point being described as a huge technological achievement. The downside is its still 4 years away from completion.

I dont mind nuclear or coal power so long as they're done right.

The coal plant itself isn't the only dangerous part of coal power. You also have coal miners. Not saying coal mining isn't safe, but compared to "harvesting" uranium, there's no contest.

6SpeedTA95 · 08-07-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The coal plant itself isn't the only dangerous part of coal power. You also have coal miners. Not saying coal mining isn't safe, but compared to "harvesting" uranium, there's no contest.

Thats very true.

Dumpy Dooby · 08-07-2006, 03:33 PM

Atomic energy is an excellent alternative to what we're using. However, renewable resources would be better than any limited resources.

7960 · 08-07-2006, 03:41 PM

actually here's something I haven't seen...

For those who think all nuclear power is safe: A story from just this week

for all the extremism in your thread title, "

NUCULAR IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!

" how about you find me a dangerous thing that happened last week, or the week before, or the week before............. or last year......

Start here;
Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

Dumpy Dooby · 08-07-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

actually here's something I haven't seen...

For those who think all nuclear power is safe: A story from just this week

for all the extremism in your thread title, " NUCULAR IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!! " how about you find me a dangerous thing that happened last week, or the week before, or the week before............. or last year......

Start here;
Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In a extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000

Uhh

An "extensive" study found that it went from 22 to 26? That's retarded. That's not a difference at all. That's just coincidence.

7960 · 08-07-2006, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The distance from a nuclear power plant also has a direct affect on things such as breast cancer. In a extensive study it was found that, women living near a nuclear reactor had an average of 26-28 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. Women living far from one averaged 22-23 deaths per 100,000

Uhh

An "extensive" study found that it went from 22 to 26? That's retarded. That's not a difference at all. That's just coincidence.

I would bet my paycheck that it was reported as "research shows living near a nuclear power plant increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 18% !!!"

I mean, going from 22 to 26 is increasing it by 4, and an increase of 4 over an original sample of 22 is an 18% increase, right???

Nobody is going to give the REAL numbers (if they're even real):

living far away = 0.022% chance
living close to = 0.026% change

"Lying with Statistics"......best math class I ever took

Dumpy Dooby · 08-07-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

I would bet my paycheck that it was reported as "research shows living near a nuclear power plant increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 18% !!!"

I mean, going from 22 to 26 is increasing it by 4, and an increase of 4 over an original sample of 22 is an 18% increase, right???

Nobody is going to give the REAL numbers (if they're even real):

living far away = 0.022% chance
living close to = 0.026% change

"Lying with Statistics"......best math class I ever took

Did you see Penn and Teller's episode from last season entitled, "Numbers"? It was a good one. It showed how statistics and verbiage can be skewed.

I'm going to see if I can find a class like that in my area. I'd be really interested in taking that.

archangel003 · 08-07-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Atomic energy is an excellent alternative to what we're using. However, renewable resources would be better than any limited resources.

Uranium is something the world should probably thank us for using up.

7960 · 08-07-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Did you see Penn and Teller's episode from last season entitled, "Numbers"? It was a good one. It showed how statistics and verbiage can be skewed.

I'm going to see if I can find a class like that in my area. I'd be really interested in taking that.

I didn't but would like to.

I needed a math elective but I'd already taken all of the calc, number theory, and probability classes so I took "lying with statistics." It was easily one of the best classes I've ever had (that and poetry... don't ask

). Our 'textbook' was a 60 page soft cover that had a bunch of 2 page stories that revolved around a report or a story or something like that and used math/statistics to justify the answer. It ended up being less of a math class and more of a "find the problem" class.

Most of the time the math was dead-on, but the assumptions made the entire story just plain stupid. One of them was a story that the Navy distributed (this was real) that said "if you join the Navy you're 89% less likely to die in the next 8 years" or something like that. The underlying assumptions that are ignored are

1) you have a physical before entering so they don't take anyone who is sick or has a physical problem, and
2) almost everyone who joins the navy is about 18-20 years old.

So, put that together and you've got them claiming that anyone who has no physical problems or illnesses, passes a physical, and is between 18 and 26 won't die. :duh:

Very cool class.