Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Proving that the quoted party has absolutely not the slightest understanding of nuclear reactions and cannot be taken seriously. New fuel rod assemblies are only mildly radioactive and throw off negligible amounts of heat before being placed in a reactor. Exposure to the neutron flux of the chain reaction transforms this relatively harmless mixture of a few different compounds into a witches' brew of unnatural radioisotopes of varying half life. That's how it turns into what they call HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE.
Apparently your education in nuclear physics, physical chemistry, heat transfer and thermodynamics as provided by Fox News, your business or law school, or your own wishful thinking had a few holes in it. People with no understanding of science are unqualified to make life or death decisions regarding its use.
If you lose the coolant in a spent fuel pool, the fuel elements melt, drop to the bottom of the pool, and coalesce into globs that can reach critical mass, known as prompt criticality. As opposed to prompt stupidity. In other words, intermittent nuclear chain reactions resume in the dry fuel pool , which is now exposed to the open air. As is happening right now at Fukushima.
Like I said earlier, the proof unfortunately for you is in the pudding. You can claim that flying is unnatural and that planes are dangerous but after millions of successful flights, at some point, you accept the reality.
You can claim that nuclear power is unsafe, but the facts and the numbers vehemently disagree with you.
The tragedy in Japan was an Earthquake...and as I said, you don't build nuclear plants in an EQ zone. (or a flood zone).
If you were to chart the risks your average person endures on any timeframe, daily, monthly, yearly, lifetime, etc....
There's mountains of other things that present higher risks than nuclear energy.
You can't argue with facts. If it's such a huge risk....then why aren't there more incidents? If it's SUCH a huge risk, then why can't you quote anything other than Chernobyl (which happened 3 decades ago), 3 Mile and Fukushima? If it's SUCH a huge risk......then as I said. What exactly is your solution for ridding us of this evil/harmful energy sector?
After having all of your "facts" demolished, simply shift the argument to whatever you want to argue about and make me responsible for stating alternatives to a disastrous and failed energy policy that seems to be making home grown catastrophes inevitable as the Energy Department rubber stamps license extensions of plants that have exceeded their calculated design life.
No no. I'm agreeing with you. Nuclear power is awful and dangerous. No what? You tell us. What would be your solution? What would the world be like if Zonder was in charge?
Anyone can throw **** against a wall and see if it sticks. Tell us what your solution would be.
The reason I ask, is that once you go down that path, you'll see that nuclear power isn't so awful after all.
Again, I speak in facts that you can't refute. Show me where all these deaths have resulted from this evil and corrupted system you speak about. Show us.
Your argument is akin to arguing that flying is inherently dangerous and if you fly often enough, a plane will crash. And that's true. There's bound to be accidents and incidents with nuclear power.
But the reality is the incident rate AND the death toll from nuclear power is miniscule compared to any viable alternatives.
So unless you can present a viable, realistic alternative....I'm not sure what the point of this whole thread is.
You're claiming it's such a huge risk, so tell us all what the alternative solution that would be less risky would be.
RM99, why exactly am I obligated to tell "us" how to solve these problems that are not of my making? Did I ever claim to have a solution to this problem? Unhampered by any understanding of scientific principles whatsoever, what solutions would YOU like to suggest, perhaps based on magic, or religion, or perhaps the religion of money and the "free market"? RM99, there seems to be plenty of bad news about how dangerous this all is, so where is your imaginary good news about how WELL MANAGED and SAFE it is? Are you in Public Relations, by any chance?
Uh oh, Associated Press investigation shows that the whole fleet of decrepit, past end of useful life, 1960's era US nuclear plants is a disaster waiting to happen:
"The NIA did not comment directly on the emails. "We are funded by our member companies to represent their commercial interests and further the compelling case for new nuclear build in the UK," said the association's spokesman...."
A lot of modern technology when they were first introduced were unreliable, dangerous and environmentally polluting. Planes, cars and medicines are all fine examples.
Nuclear energy is no different.
The one thing though is that nuclear energy has not had the chance is to develop into a safer and more environmentally friendly technology.
Legislation, lobbying and ignorance has prevented commercial interests from developing nuclear energy and providing incentives to R&D to make fission reactors safer.
Without the support of competitive interests to develop nuclear and make it a more competitive product over time the current situation can only lead to serious nuclear disasters in the future.
Using the US as an example, the reactors are ageing, they are based on old technology and instead of being replaced with newer, safer reactors they are just left as the status quo. We know the old reactors are dangerous but are kept operating instead of being replaced.
I wouldn't want to be in an accident inside an old car from the 70's. I'd want safety features of modern cars like air bags, ABS brakes, door side bars etc. Why is anyone surprised that a nuclear reactor like Fukushima, built in the 70's, has had the shit hit the fan?