Japan reactors pose no risk?

I was going to insert a pic of Ansley in a habit but my jokes aren't funny.

Can I get a little respect here people?

Can I get a little respect here people? Originally Posted by pjorourke

It's my observation that they give you "little" respect PJ.

I was going to insert a pic of Ansley in a habit but my jokes aren't funny. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Go for it!
I don't know Ansley, but here are a couple of Holy shots I did of my muse Lindsey.

If there's one thing D&T could use more of its photos of T&A.

Back off DG. I saw her first. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

NP; my horizontal tango dance card is full at the moment

It's my observation that they give you "little" respect PJ. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I thought respect needed to be earned?

where as solar and wind. . . don't actually have potential for anything but wasting money at the current level of technology. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I agree in hoping the worst is over in Japan but have to disagree with the above statement.

Advancements even in the last few years in wind and solar have come a long way. It really depends on what technology is used in what region. I know a solar engineer at DOE and the compact nature of the new panels for their output is quite impressive.

The better more cost effective wind and solar technology will never be brought to the forefront until more focus is taken off of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It's the same with any political arena.

Nuclear energy is purported to be so cost effective yet the only ones who benefit from cheap production is the plant owners and shareholders. This was evidenced at Peach Bottom in PA when locals opposed the plant but were told they'd be paying "practically nothing" on electric bills once the plant went in. Friends who live there have only seen a massive hike in their utilities and never a decrease from the inception of the plant.

Then factor in the added taxes paid for nuclear waste disposal/building of the waste repository in NV that isn't even going to be completed now...not really cost effective for the masses.

Once you get the plant up and running, the actual generation of the energy is much cheaper for the company itself, than most current methods in use. But just because the production cost is cheaper doesn't mean that the kw/h are being sold to consumers at a cheaper rate.

I don't slight the nuclear owners for doing what they do. They're in business and as long as they're allowed to do something they will. If the gov't took the billions allocated for nuclear energy and tossed it to the same nuclear companies for use the solar/wind/geothermal/wave evolution, you'd probably see a rapid transition. (Of course then you'd get into the issue of who gets what funding and that's it's own three headed monster.)

I've seen a decent amount of videos, and comments on blogs, news articles, and Twitter feeds with people screaming that EU and US media is hyping the situation out of control. I also have friends who live in Japan who are more terrified than anyone I've chatted with in the US, because the people of that country know what nuclear accidents can do in worst case scenarios and they also know that their gov't is rather hush hush on anything that may add to the widespread panic already taking place over there.
Originally Posted by Grad Girl Next Door

Hi Grad Girl Next door!
Thanks for this long and informative post. Its really confusing to build up an opinion of your own with all that pro and anti nuclear activism going on. Friends of mine who live part time in Austria and part time in Japan try to be rather calm about all of this. I still don`t know what to think, but - let me express it that way - i expect the worst. And its saddening.

Oh and i just read you are new here! Welcome! Me too loves to read more from you in the future!

Great! Then the new technology can stand on it's own in the marketplace without government support! Glad to hear it. Meanwhile, Britain almost froze because their turbines wouldn't work when it got cold. Of course most of the "billions allocated for nuclear energy. . . are in the form of rules regulations and inspections, not support.

In other words, the new technolgies will never be able to compete. . . until they are competitive.

Certainly nuclear is an agenda. . . so is anti-nuclear.

The better more cost effective wind and solar technology will never be brought to the forefront until more focus is taken off of fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It's the same with any political arena.
Originally Posted by Grad Girl Next Door

I could not agree more with what you stated. A lot of support into some technologies is based on lobbyism and politics and financial gain of investments. Its not that other arena`s are less productive its just that some people would loose their power and financial and political benefits if the focus gets divided into other resources as well. I do think that slowly slowly there might be a change happening.

I love crony capitalism.

With luck the casualties from the Japanese nuclear reactors won't be as bad as Three Mile Island, where deaths approached those of . . Chappaquiddick Island. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

You do realize that one person is confirmed dead and two others are missing and presumed dead at the plant, right?

Not such a funny line when there's already bodies being recovered.

You and Gilbert Gottfried . . .

Great! Then the new technology can stand on it's own in the marketplace without government support! Glad to hear it. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Hmmm...then with that argument nuclear energy can stand on it's own without government support as well...government support that includes funds to campaigns via nuclear lobbyist, etc. One thing I will give many of the hard core tree huggers is that they'll still be out there fighting nuclear energy for no money whatsoever. Whereas if you took away the funding of the so called "grass roots campaigns" that promote nuclear energy... once the paychecks are gone, they will be as well.

Meanwhile, Britain almost froze because their turbines wouldn't work when it got cold. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

As for the frozen turbine argument ...again...as stated in my last comment, it depends on what method you use where. Also, while Britain almost froze when the turbines halted due to natural disaster, how many people got cancer, how many died, and how many generations were effected by that one unanticipated uber-cold snap? Not nearly the same comparison as the scale of Japan. We won’t fully know the extent of that ecological and physiological damage for decades.

Also, how cost effective is it going to be to rebuild the nuclear facilities in Japan? Far more than it would cost to rebuild turbines. And what exactly will be happening now while citizens up North freeze due to lack of power there now that they've lost their primary power source? Britain was back up and running long before Japan will be. Quake and Tsunami damage to the power grids aside, the time it will take to rebuild the actual reactors could be a few years even at the fastest pace.

There really is no comparison from UK to Japan, in cost, damages, or downtime.

Of course most of the "billions allocated for nuclear energy. . . are in the form of rules regulations and inspections, not support.

In other words, the new technolgies will never be able to compete. . . until they are competitive. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Regarding funding for nuclear rules, regulations and safety...there is funding within that for "regulatory" commissions ad nauseum, as well as for developing "safer" technology within the nuclear field. There's also a good portion in government grants that can be put towards new nuclear facilities.

I never said anything about using government funds to support the alternative method's infrastructure. But why the money towards the many many commissions and the "safer" nuclear tech research plus grants couldn't be equally effectively parlayed into alternative methods has yet to be seen.

Much of the studies put forth claiming alternative methods are so much more costly were in fact prepared by agencies hired by the pro-nuclear groups. Granted, that's not to say that so-called "independent" reports by the alternative methods agencies would be that much more honest or accurate.

Keep in mind most have never heard of the issues that plagued Hanford Washington. Granted, that plant was built in 1943, but no public admission of nuclear spill/leak was ever made. From what I've read, they never fully admitted if the widespread radiation was solely from irradiated cooling waters going back into the river (as they usually do) or if it was both a mix of that and other spills from where they were actually processing the weapons grade Plutonium. But the reactor itself utilized Plutonium in its cores and it is known that at least a portion of the contamination down river came from the cooling water in the reactor itself.

A lawsuit put forth by some of those downwinders in the 80’s wasn’t even settled until 2005. (Downwinders won that suit BTW.)

(Wiki Downwinders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders#Hanford )

The document: An Overview of Hanford and Radiation Health Effects. (HHIN) is no longer available on the Wash state health Dept site but is available to order through the CDC.

Summary of the document: Presents some basic information about Hanford, the radiation it released and how people were exposed to the radioactive contamination. It also provides an introduction to the possible health effects from radiation exposure, including a special section on thyroid disease. Summer 1996.

Certainly nuclear is an agenda. . . so is anti-nuclear. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Yes, there are both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear agendas. I'm not about to chain myself to the entrance of a nuclear plant wielding a sign that says "No Nukes" and screaming "We're all gonna die" to everyone who passes by.

For me, I'm not anti-nuclear...I'm pro personal well being. And until some of the pro-nuclear physicists start admitting that there are potential risks, instead of putting up this front as though new facilities are practically invincible, I think it's foolish to fully get behind nuclear energy. That kind of arrogance in various industries has screwed us time and time again.

It also should be noted that the general population will often hear the pro-nuclear side of things because there is more money behind it. This leads to conspiracy theories being tossed out by the anti-nuclear side, so when the general public has the two sides to compare, the anti-nuke side often seems like nutjob fanatics.

There is an intelligent, non-fanatical side to the anti-nuclear/limited-nuclear debate. It tends to be overshadowed by money of nuke corps and crazy of ultra non-nuke fanatics (who tend to be fanatics in other areas as well).

I just wanted to toss out a more in-depth look at the side you generally won't hear much about because it's not either buying ad space (in the corporate aspect) or creating a scene by chanting and waving signs in protest (as in some of the non-nuke fanatics).

Welcome to our world Grad Girl Next Door. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Thank you for the welcome MA A colorful world to say the least

Hmmm...then with that argument nuclear energy can stand on it's own without government support as well...government support that includes funds to campaigns via nuclear lobbyist, etc. One thing I will give many of the hard core tree huggers is that they'll still be out there fighting nuclear energy for no money whatsoever. Whereas if you took away the funding of the so called "grass roots campaigns" that promote nuclear energy... once the paychecks are gone, they will be as well.

. Originally Posted by Grad Girl Next Door

Wow, I think i am in love with you!!. You are wonderful and incredibly smart. Love your posts. Thanks for them!! I learn much from them!