BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 10:28 PM

"Fermi built the first nuclear reactor in a Chicao squash court."

Actually, it was underneath Amos Alonzo Stagg Field---the football stadium at the University Of Chicago. It's gone now-- and so is football at that university. A monument to the power and the horror unleashed there stands at that location. It's quite impressive. You can't go past the place without taking notice---and quietly thinking about it---shake your head, and wonder what and where it will all lead.---

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 07:01 PM

It was wrong before Bush proposed it, DougR. Now that he's proposed it, that doesn't make it any more right.

Carol C: if you were right, Bush would be pushing for more fossil fuel. After all, his friends are all oil men, right? I don't recall reading or hearing that he has a lot of "Nuke" buddies.

There's an awful lot that you've never read or heard about. He is pushing for more fossil fuel. And he's also pushing for more nuclear power. Remember this? ...

"MAKE THE PIE HIGHER"

--Pres Geo W Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:20 PM

Carol C: if you were right, Bush would be pushing for more fossil fuel. After all, his friends are all oil men, right? I don't recall reading or hearing that he has a lot of "Nuke" buddies.

Jeeze. You folks moan and groan about Bush and his energy policies for four years, going on five, and when he tries to provide solutions to the fossil fuel problem, you bitch at that!

Bunnetc. is right. Just because Bush proposes it does not make it wrong.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST,A wandering Minstrel (dodgy cookie)
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 08:05 AM

Bunnabhain,

Did your extensive education in Nuclear Generation include reading Walter Pattersons excellent book "Nuclear Power"? The chapter entitled "The Charge of the Light Brigade" should be enough to make anyone worry about building commercial reactors. As long as you want two cars and thre TV sets you have a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New NukesMore nukes
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:22 AM

More nukes! More wars! More poor people! More money for the fewer rich! More, more, more! In fact, why not $75 barrel for oil so the rich can get richer? More pollution of our oceans, more smog, EPA should go easy on the big corporations, after all they have to make a few trillion dollars in profits, don't they? Capitalism--don't ya just love it? Let's see to it that more foreign interests own MORE majorities in "American" corporations? Why don't we just sell MORE oil companies to foreign countries? Why not More real estate to citizens of foreign countries? While we're at it, why don't we just hand over the keys to the crapitol buildings? We evidently won't be needing them much longer.
I think I'll go outside & watch for flying saucers. Aliens have to be less dangerous than humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Crystal
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 04:51 AM

"Yes, and suggesting that radiation induced cancer is actually caused by undue media attention, and not radiation exposure, really puts forth a strong case to support THAT contention."


AAAH now this is MY area! (I know very little about nuclear anything, but I do know cancer!)
there are a lot of documented cases where people have developed unexplained tumours after a big media scare about food/ nuclear waste/ the pill/ whatever, totally out of proportion with anything that actually happened. Many cancer scientists agree that people can give themselves cancer by worrying that they will get cancer. My research group is starting a collaberation to look at the links between mental attitude and cancer incidence/ survival. Apparently the link is far greater than it should be.

On the power side of things why can't somone find a way to use the rain to create cheap, clean power? After all the UK dosn't have enough sun to use solar power all year round, but we sure do have plenty of rain!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 04:05 PM

Back to it then. Nuclear power, because of the huge costs associated with building the plants, running them, and finally decommissioning them and dealing with their waste products, makes nuclear power about the most unaffordable means of generating electricity on the planet.

And that isn't even taking into account the insurance liability. But hey--if you can pass the liability off to the government, as was done to birth the nuclear power industry and get it going strong before Three Mile Island--then you don't have to concern yourself with all those pesky safety issues. And because the state, local, and federal governments all give the nuclear power industry exemptions on the storage and disposal of the waste--ie ignoring it--you don't have to worry about that highly expensive stage of the nuclear fuel cycle either.

And let's not forget, the industry also hasn't cleaned up it's uranium mining waste from the 1950s onward either. Why? Because they didn't have to! They were allowed to sell the tailings pile as construction materials in homes and schools! What a great plan THAT was!

Hint, hint--I wouldn't buy an existing home built in Grand Junction, Colorado if I were you!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 03:56 PM

"The effects from Three Mile Island were rather small. The small increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area actually had a closer correlation to the amount of media attention on the fall-out, than the actual fall-out recived. On that basis, newspapers are more dangerous than reactors."

Well, I think you should go to the home of my mother-in-law and one sister-in-law, who are residents of the Three Mile Island area and have cases of radiation related cancers from the accident (according to the PA epidemiologists who put them in the follow-up studies), that their cancer is no big deal, and caused by the media.

"I have had I have had quite a bit of education in the area. "

Yes, and suggesting that radiation induced cancer is actually caused by undue media attention, and not radiation exposure, really puts forth a strong case to support THAT contention.

It is crystal clear you don't know jack shit about the risks and benefits of nuclear generated power. But hey--you don't need to. It's the internet. You can parade yourself before the forum as The Fool who proclaimed himself Nuclear Expert for a Day. You go, fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:05 PM

It's all about money, Amos. More of it for Bush's cronies, and less of it for the taxpayers and energy consumers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 12:57 PM

Nano-deconstruction is one answer to nuclear waste. Focussed light is one answer, probably the best, to high-risk energy methods. If one tenth of the money spent on killing people of all sizes in Iraq were spent on researching the maximization of light-energy transport and use, we'd be able to roof our own homes with enough scavenging devices to power them with a surplus in most of the regions of the country. In addition the utilization of our hormongous gravity pump is almost completely ignored (read: Moon), yet it shifts millions of tons of mass up and down as much as 12 feet every day. Scavenging just dispersed energy is a problem to be solved because low-density energy is costlier to accumulate, but it is distinctly possible IMHO that micro rengineering could hold the key to it.

With all this, pursuing non-renewable resources, or highly toxic designs like nuclear fuel rods strikes me as a bit mad, a condition I have always attributed to Bush's dyslexic, power-hungry, egotistical style of thought.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 12:55 PM

"Sorry, Fermi built the first reactor in a Chigargo squash court. The idea of a nuclear weapon didn't come until sometime after that."

I am sure that the people in Hiroshima will be glad for that correction!! What came first the Chicken or the Egg.

"I have had I have had quite a bit of education in the area. "
Good for you.

I will still protest vigarously against the building of any such Plants in this Country and on the subject of protesting issues I disagree with anything that endangers the People and the Enviroment of the Country I love. I have had quite a bit of education in THAT area.

We simply differ in our opinions Bunnahabhain
Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 12:39 PM

There are a few things that can be done with the waste.

Most of the high level waste is spent fuel. This can be reproceesed to yield more fuel, and a small amount of residue.

Most of the other waste generated is the plant itself. The best way to deal with it is to leave it alone. You build the replacment reactor next door, as the site is suitable, and you there you have the security for the old reactor. When it has become harmless( a few decades for virtually all of it), then you deal with it.

There is a relativly small amount of high level waste generated that does need secure long term storage. This is an engineering problem, and can be solved. The US would only need one national site, in a sparsley populated area. Nevada has been proposed.

It's not wonderful, but its's a better idea than relying on fossil fuels. The reason I don't propose the really radical solutions is simple. They would involve too great a change to peoples lifestyles, which is something a large proportion is very resistant.

Telling people 'You can't do this' is veryt hard work. Telling them 'we've got to do it this way now' is far easier.

Three Mile Island was horrific, imagine 6 or 7 Three mile islands all at once.

The effects from Three Mile Island were rather small. The small increase in cancer rates in the surrounding area actually had a closer correlation to the amount of media attention on the fall-out, than the actual fall-out recived. On that basis, newspapers are more dangerous than reactors.

Against all Nuclear Power, Weapons and Waste.
Nothing than was an after thought from a WMD that's sole purpose was to KILL as many people as possible can ever be called safe energy.

Sorry, Fermi built the first reactor in a Chigargo squash court. The idea of a nuclear weapon didn't come until sometime after that.


This is just my opinion, but I have had quite a bit of education in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 10:39 AM

Bunnahabhain, how do you propose we safely dispose of the nuclear waste?

If Bush was sincere about wanting to cut back CO2 emmissions, he would be championing the many other, more cost effective ways to cut back on CO2 emmissions, ones that don't present the problem of where to put the nuclear waste.

Bush is pushing for more nuclear reactors because it helps to enrich those whose money put him in power in the first place. At the expense of the taxpayers and the energy consumers, I might add.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 10:25 AM

... just because the Bush Administration is proposing this doesn't make it right either.

This Administration is only going backwards. In a number of their attempts to regurgatate proposals that have been shown to be ineffective. There has not been an original idea from this Administration since the get go.
They are dealing with past proposals that failed then and will if approved, most likely will cause untold problems down the line, long after these People are no longer in the White House.
There is no SAFE Nuclear Energy. Simple. Having countless Nuclear Reactors across this Country is not Safe..Cheaper power in about 10 years when the 600 Billion dollars of incentives have been spent to build these Plants maybe...although I strongly doubt a lot of people who will want one built near them. I most certainly would not.

What about the Nuclear Waste all these Plants will genarate. What's to be done with it all? Where will it be stored. It never loses the danger attached to it!
The advancements in alternative energy sources other than the Nuke option are actually astounding and to return to this issue is frankly stupid! Guess we need to intimidate Iran... with our Building abilities and it's only for Energy purposes right!!!
Anyone bringing this energy source back into the picture is wrong regardless of who is suggesting it.
What's so wrong with Convincing the country it doesn't need its cars, A/C units, etc. Exactly what is so wrong about that!
...and why didn't Bush sign the Kyoto treaty, an attempt to get the rest of the world to cut CO2 emmisions including the US! (one of the hightest contributers of CO2 emmisions!!)

"Decide you don't mind rising sea levels. We don't mind Louisiana, Bangladesh etc being underwater..." That may happen regardless of wether the US builds countless Nuclear Plants anyway. Decide if you would like to see a higher cases of Child Leukemia and Radioactive Waste Dumps littering the Country!

"One other thing. The two larest sources for nuclear fuels are North America, and Australia. I'd rather send money there, rather than the Middle East."
I'd rather spend the money on a bigger picture of Energy efficiency. One that cannot harm People or be targeted by Enemies resulting in a graver danger to the People where these "Power Plants" may be built.

I will say this at talking speed, not slowly for I am sure there are those who are bright enough to read and absorb at an normal rate.
Not very much of what Bush proposes makes sense in a lot of areas, this one issue is no exception.

Nothing personal Bunnahabhain just my take on the subject.
Three Mile Island was horrific, imagine 6 or 7 Three mile islands all at once. NOT WORTH THE RISKS INVOLVED and the problems resulting from these plants will last for 100s of years. No thanks.

Against all Nuclear Power, Weapons and Waste.
Nothing than was an after thought from a WMD that's sole purpose was to KILL as many people as possible can ever be called safe energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Stu
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 09:05 AM

. . . but it doesn't mean it is right either.

Shame he doesn't have the vision to guide his own country to cut CO2 emmissions and embrace sustainable sources of power, like that huge great nuclear reactor belting down free energy on us every day called "the sun". Or honor the Kyoto protocal because fat yanks love their hummers too much (and we have fat Brits who love them just as much - we call them Chelsea tractors here).

Anyone would have thought he was funded by and has been part of the oil/energy industry or something. Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 08:46 AM

And he should.

Nuclear power is not entirely safe. Nothing is. But yelling Cheynobyl whenever Nuclear power is discussed is plain stupid. It was an unsafe design, and do you know why it went wrong? The engineers turned off all the saftey features, and ran it over design limits, to see what would happen.

If you want to cut CO2 emmissions, then there are a few things you could do.

Build some Nuclear power stations, or

Convince the country it doesn't want its cars, A/C units, etc, or

Get the rest of the world to cut CO2 emmisions. Nuking it back to the stone age would do, or

Decide you don't mind rising sea levels. We don't mind Louisiana, Bangladesh etc being underwater...

One other thing. The two larest sources for nuclear fuels are North America, and Australia. I'd rather send money there, rather than the Middle East.

I will say this slowly:
Just because it's Bush doing it , it doesn't have to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 08:26 AM

At first I thought this pertained to the thousands of small low yeild atomic weapons that have gone into US production against all treaty directives since 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 08:19 AM

Now if somebody could only come up with a way to generate clean energy from BS...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 11:28 PM

Nuclear energy is not cost-effective anyway. Sadly, this fact is always ignored in discussions about what kinds of energy we should be focusing on for the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 11:08 PM

Ever hear of the "no nukes" movement? It was about nuclear energy--you know, Three Mile Island and all that--as well as the nuclear weapons industry. Certain materials generated by the nuclear power industry historically have been used by the military to build nuclear weapons.

It's called the nuclear fuel cycle.

But the point is, nuclear energy generated by nuclear power plants is extremely dangerous and we've had plenty of catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents around the world to prove that point. It is not safe, as Bush claims it to be, nor is it an affordable or sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.

And as to the taxpayer "insuring" the nuclear industry--who the hell wants to touch that with a ten foot pole? Maybe while he is at it, he can have his boys at the Security Exchange Commission appointed as the nuclear industry "watchdog". They've done so well guarding consumers from Wall Street crooks, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 10:55 PM

Please don't drop that H-bomb on me
Please don't drop that H-bomb on me
Please don't drop that H-bomb on me
Go drop it on yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 10:18 PM

Wekk, well, well....

Is it any wonder that our National Energy Policy, written in the dark of night by folks that Dick Cheney has used "executive priviledge" to keep the American people from knowin' about, comes up stinkin' o' big oil???

Oh sure, there maybe another reactor fired up but, bottom line, take yer eye off big oil and yer gonna' get yer pockets picked... Allready happenin'.... Geeze, how could this happen under a big oil adminstration????

Don't take a weatherman to say which way the winds blow...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST,And another troll.
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 10:02 PM

The link does not work.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST,Another Troll
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 09:56 PM

Nukes implies weapons. This is about energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 09:37 PM

This environmental satellite photography website explains a bit about why we might not want to be too damn gung ho for new nukes.

Subject: BS: Bush Pushes for New Nukes
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 09:21 PM

In a blatant attempt to reverse the last 25 years of "no nukes" US energy policy, Bush today made the first appearance by a US president in a nuclear power plant, since 1979 when Jimmy Carter went to 3 Mile Island. To assure us there was never any danger to the public.

In his bully pulpit appearance today, Bush proclaimed "Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy."

The Bush energy bill, currently wending it's way through Congress (again), calls for a number of incentives to spur construction of nuclear plants, including a renewal of federal risk insurance and tax credits for companies that develop new reactors. In addition, the Bush administration has launched a $1 billion initiative to help underwrite the cost of licensing plants.

No new plant projects have been undertaken since the Three Mile Island accident, when the reactor core partially melted down, and substantial amounts of radiation were released into the environment.

While Bush told a whopper of an outrageous lie today when he claimed that the 103 operating nuclear plants generate 20% of the nation's electricity "without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases", he failed to mention that pesky, still unresolved problem of finding a permanent disposal site for spent radioactive reactor fuel, which continues to accumulate.

Keep voting for Republicans and appease the right centrist Democrats folks. They are doing a fine job destroying the nation and the world in the name of "less government" and "lower taxes".