BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?

Subject: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 02:49 AM

Here's a photo diary
by a girl who rides her motorbike through the Chernobyl dead zone.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 07:41 AM

Stunning. Fascinating. Scary.

And, yes, I do -- less than 15 miles from TMI.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Snoozer
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 08:33 AM

I live less than 5 miles from the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. I can't see it from my house though, and most of the time I don't even think about it. And it doesn't bother me anyway to be this close (the plant was here before I moved here). There just doesn't seem to be any point in worrying about it. Hey, my house (or myself) could be struck by lightning, too, but I don't worry about that either!
Snoozer

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Mooh
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 09:31 AM

Thanks for the link. I live about 40 minutes (at 80km/h) from the Bruce Nuclear Facility in Ontario Canada. A disaster here could wipe out the lower Great Lakes basin and beyond. Frightening!

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 09:56 AM

Serious thought.

I'm pleased that the Maine Yankee nuclear plant is in the final stages of being decomissioned. However, we'll have custody of the casks of spent fuel for the next 100,000 years or so, a tempting target for some generation of international or domestic terrorists.

For years people living downwind of the plant were concerned about the "unexplained" increased incidence of various cancers among their friends and neighbors. And for years people worked hard to challenge the siting of the plant, and to close it down once it became operational. Now that it's finally closed, 10 years before its license expired, the power companies are actually saving money and energy costs have dropped about 10%.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 10:07 AM

I'm much less concerned about terrorists regarding those spent fuel casks than I am of corporate malfeasance, neglect, and negligence. Experience teaches us we can count on being poisoned by leaking, poorly maintained spent fuel casks.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 10:55 AM

Why, no.

I live near about a dozen, including EBR-1. Really. And a LOT of the nuclear waste shipped from around the US.

You see, about 50 miles away -- an easy drive -- is INEEL.

People around here don't worry much about it. Oh, sure, during the summer a couple of left-over WW2 500 pound bombs might spontaeously detonate, but they're way way out in the sagebrush and sand and they do little but kick up dust. And periodically a drunk will make a wrong turn and try to run a security barrier (one word about that: don't!).

This place if BIG! Back in the late '40s they exploded 250,000 pounds of TNT there -- the explosion was heard in Boise, 234 miles away. BIG.

No, radioactives DO NOT pass through the towns around here!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:15 AM

There are approximately 450 operating nuclear reactors in the world today. We ALL live near one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:18 AM

It's a small world after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

Right you are brucie. If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention, ESPECIALLY when it comes to nukes.

In the West, the power plants aren't your sole problem--as Rapaire points out, there are the hundreds of missile sites, the bases, the waste dumps, the processing facilities, the test grounds, etc. If you live in the Northeast, CA, Midwest it is the plants and the storage facilities you need to worry about. The South is all fucked up with so much military/industrial shit, you should probably just move.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 01:33 PM

Plant, heck, I live a mile or three away from 165 nuclear aerial bombs which they admit to, I don't know what they don't admit to, in the shadow of a nuclear carrier, with the only thing separating us being a significant earthquake fault. I just hate earthquake weather. Nice out today, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 02:40 PM

That is a stunning website. It gives one a lot to think about.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 03:56 PM

Every summer the people in our town sponsor about 12-18 kids to come here. They are called the Children of Chernoby, and the summer gives them time to clean out their systems, eat healthy food, and get excellent medical attention. The dentists in town do work on their teeth, and the host families welcome them into their homes and lives. I have passed the website 'blue clicky' on to the man who heads the C of C organization that does the fund raising, family placements, and the other organizational stuff that helps make it happen. Thank you very much.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,Lyle
Date: 03 Apr 04 - 04:43 PM

WOW!! What a fantastic web site. Thanks for posting it.

Lyle

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Kaleea
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 05:02 AM

Golly gee, ya'd think the gvm't has told untruths to us er sumpin' 'bout them thar newk-yew-ler power places. Why, they wouldn't tell untruths to we the people, would they?
    A person I knew very well went to 3 mi island yrs back, & as a poor, broke-all-the-time college student he had better equipment to more accurately measure the level of radioactivity in the atmosphere & surrounding area (nearby waterways included) than did the neuclear regulatory commision personnel who were there to assess the situation. You cannot imagine the vast amount of mis-information, much less the level of cover-ups in the info re nuclear power facilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 05:07 AM

Berkley Power Station is less than 15 miles away. The nearby castle is famous for the untimely demise of Edward II. Those that don't know the story he was - er tortured is such an inadequate word - with a red hot poker.

As he said - "I'll be buggered if I tell you......"

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 09:27 AM

Kaleela, and that "vast amount of misinformation" is?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Fossil
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 02:00 PM

Have just looked at the site of the clicky and read my way through the 20+chapters of text. Very powerful, stunning images, very sobering commentary. Don't get sidetracked by the trolls who mow seem to have found this thread - look at the site, these pictures and tell me that nukular power is, every can be, safe! No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 02:21 PM

The website shows pictures of what ANY town near to a nuclear plant, waste dump, or research facility could look like when things go wrong.

I do hope that the young woman that posted these images doesn't make a practice of running her motorcycle through that doomsday landscape.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 02:27 PM

Brief comment: When the Chernobyl accident happened, within 24 hours the world was aware that a nuclear event had occurred somewhere. The USSR didn't release the info right away. However, a monitoring station in or near Vancouver, Canada, let folks know that all was not right with the world. There are steps people can take to make themselves less affected by radioactive particles, but put enough into the atmosphere and we will pay an awesome, ugly and inevitable price. However, it seems to be a bit late to rething things at this point. Maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 06:33 PM

I have lived near them most of my life as civilian power stations or military hardware. My father served aboard a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser (he is still very well thankyou!).
Are they a mistake? Time will tell. But scareing people about the possible effects of an accident is no better than telling them there are no problems with having them.

We currently live in an area with no nuclear power plants.
At least five persons in our small neighborhood are sick or dead from various cancers with no radioactives from a powerplant playing any part in it.

There used to be a neighborhood in Baltimore, MD where more than 50% of the deaths were caused by cancer. Again there was no radiation from nuclear power plants (the closest being Peach bottom in Pennsylvania) to be blamed. The cancers were mostly from exposure to petroleum industry, chromium, pesticides, etc. It used to be the largest concentration of people with cancer in the whole state, up until most of the afflicted people died and they raised the neighborhood.

The fossil fuel industry is currently our only other feasible source of power for homes and industry. I wish they would develop solar/tide/windpower but they haven't as of yet. Compared to the number of people hurt, maimed and killed in the exploration and development and employment of fossil fuels, the number of deaths and diseases caused by the few nuclear accidents that have been experienced is minimal. More people have died from hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, etc.

We must be careful and overly cautious with this technology. Scaring people about it is unethical.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:15 PM

Maybe so, CC, but not all plants in the world are run a safely as they could or should be. It isn't really irresponsible to inform people that nuclear reactors can be unsafe. We tell kids about power lines, and electricity has its hazards, too. If the Chernobyl photo-essay scares people, maybe it's time they were.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 07:19 PM

CC, I agree (hey, that rhymes).

I once listened as a graduate student in engineering told another grad student that Uranium 238 was what would be used in a self-sustaining chain reaction.

Nuclear energy could kill you. Ignorance will.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: hobbitwoman
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 10:17 PM

Ok, that is a seriously freaky website. I'm sittiing here imagining what it would be like to suddenly have to just drop everything and leave my home, never to return. The author's comment about people being driven away with a military vehicle and marched through some kind of shower made me think of the Holocaust victims... how did these people know the same thing wasn't happening to them? Would anyone think that the nuclear reactor had been detonated purposely? Or is my boss right, and I have a way too active imagination.

I should know more about these events... Chernobyl and TMI. TMI is a few hours' drive from here - it seems like a long way, but I guess it really isn't. I remember when that disaster happened, a neighbor of ours signed on to go to work repairing the reactor, and the rest of us used to tease him about glowing in the dark. Like it was funny. Gallows humor, I think.

I think I'm going to do some research now.

Annie

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Apr 04 - 10:56 PM

No.john

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: open mike
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 02:56 AM

This has been mentioned in this link too .
I am 100 miles north of the nuke plane neat Sacramento ,Ca.
I believe it has been de-commissioned. Once it was shut down
when someone dropped a wrench behind the control board when
trying to change a lightbulb and something got shorted out
by that. The cooling ponds where the water was stored after
geing used to cool down the heat (or whatever the cooling ponds
were used for) were said to be the breeding grounds for mutant
frogs one of which was suppposed to have won the Calaveras Frog
Jumping Contest. I also live within a few miles of the RR tracks
where a "nuke" train has been known to travel. The nuclear waste
carried in this train comes from Asia, where nuclear power plants
have been exported by the U.S. The waste products are carried across the ocean, and then across land to a NUCLEAR DUMP SITE. Possibly in Idaho. There is also waste stored in Hanford, Washington. Plans
are in progress to locate a resting place for radioactive waste in
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The waste products are the most questionable
part of the nuclear power industry. This and the connection with the nuclear weapons industry make the whole radioactive business terrible.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: el ted
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 03:40 AM

no.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: sledge
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 03:41 AM

Back in the early ninties when I was working in Russia I was talking to one of the interpreters about Chernobyl. He told me that during his period of National service, The political types would lecture them about the evils of the west and one of theses evils was that the accident was caused deliberately by the CIA. For several years he actually believed this.

Cheers

Sledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: s6k
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 07:13 AM

no.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Grab
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 09:38 AM

The website shows pictures of what ANY town near to a nuclear plant, waste dump, or research facility could look like when things go wrong.

Fraid you're wrong, Charlie.

It shows what can happen with an undermaintained and poorly-designed reactor with criminal negligence by employees. That model of reactor isn't used in the West, simply bcos it's too damn dangerous if something does happen (as it did). And even then it would never have happened but for criminal negligence by the operators. Russia never gave much of a damn about people or environment though. Waste dump - well, you'd *really* have to try hard, and even then you won't get much to happen. The Japanese incident didn't manage to do much more than break some windows with the bang and kill the people immediately by the tanks, and that was caused by the silly bastards ladling the stuff around in buckets, instead of using the proper reprocessing equipment! Research facility - very unlikely, given that the scientists know the effects better than anyone and are consequently the *most* likely people to be cautious!

Re "unexplained increased incidence of cancer", it happens all over. There's a leukaemia hotspot at Sellafield, but apparently no increase in other sorts of cancer. There's also a whole bunch of cancer hotspots around Britain which don't have any obvious environmental cause. And there's a bunch of nuclear plants with no hotspots round them. People have found an effect, but whether its cause is the plant or random chance has never been shown.

To declare my interest, my dad was the environmental officer at BNFL's reprocessing plant at Salwick. I'm pretty damn aware of how dangerous this shit is. I'm also pretty damn aware of what people in the West go through to keep this stuff safe, since the accidents in the early days of nuclear power.

Just a note re the "government misinformation". While my dad was there, Greenpeace and FoE did a hydrology study on a model of the Ribble estuary, which they said showed that there was radioactive build-up occurring in some places in the estuary. BNFL then commissioned a study (in which my dad was involved) to see whether this was true or not, by examining the actual estuary instead of models. Turns out that (a) there's no build-up, and (b) the models were so inaccurate a representation of the actual movement of water in the estuary as to be useless. Trouble is that "Nuclear reprocessing plant is safe after all" doesn't make much of a headline...

Sure, worry about the pollution from nuclear plants. But also worry about dioxins, heavy metals in soil and groundwater, radioactive emissions from coal-fired power stations (oh yes, you didn't know about that?), sulphur from coal-fired power stations causing acid rain, volatile organic compounds from gloss paint, etc, etc. Everyone in Britain (and most of the way round the world) knows about the Windscale fire, but hundreds of people in Lancashire and Cheshire being evacuated from their homes because of chemical leaks in nearby petrochemical plants doesn't make more than the local news unless it's a very slow day. Why? bcos chemical plants aren't big news like nuclear.

Brucie, I agree that it's not irresponsible to say that nuclear plants can go tits-up if they're not run properly. Nor is it irresponsible to say that a coal-fired plant, an oil refinery or a petrochemical plant can go equally badly wrong, or that power lines can fall down. All those keep the real risks in people's minds. But it *would* be irresponsible to say that power lines should be banned because they could fall on people and kill them, no?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 09:58 AM

How many of you posting have acutally been in a nuclear plant? I have.    A few facts about nuclear energy.    Today it is one of the cheapest forms of energy in the market place.    In this era of rising gas prices, rising oil prices, and rising electricity prices, nuclear has become a viable option again.

Environmentalists around the world are very split on nuclear.   Many as evidenced in this forum think nuclear is the worst form of energy in the history of mankind.    Others, who are concerned with clean air think that nuclear is the best form of energy.   A recent world environmental organization gave France it's award because 70% of their energy is from nuclear.    If you have ever been on a tour of a coal plant (I had a personal tour of the 5th largest coal plant in the world- 30,000 tons per day) you would immediatlely see the difference in how much clearn the nuclear plant is.

In terms of safety- I am Ok with the current safeguards.   After three mile island, the government required numerous redundencies to ensure safety.   These have worked.   Davis Besse in Ohio is a good example how we shut down a nuclear plant if we think there is a problem.   I feel comportable about our own safeguards. I am not so comfortable with outside threats such as terrorism.    I think our security is better, but not nearly good enough.    I worry about the effects of a terrorism attack.

Certainly I would love to see more renewable energy in the future.   right now the price is not competitive.   Nuclear is a very viable option today for clean energy at a low price.   The biggest problem is NIMBY- no one wants a nuclear plant nearbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,satchel
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 10:36 AM

Oh yes, Larry and Graham, and we all trust the government to look out for our best interests, don't we?

Why is it that only nuclear power requires an official escape route and plan? Sure, other power industries have problems, hurt and kill people, and have caused people to be evacuated from their homes. Only nuclear plants are required to have an evacuation route on the books. Is this because nuclear plant operators care more about people than coal- or oil-fired plants? I doubt it. These plans are there because when nuclear goes wrong, it goes VERY wrong, in far more dangerous fashions, than conventional power. The results last for much longer, too.

All power pollutes, even solar panels during the manufacturing process, but acid rain doesn't have a half life of 10,000 years or so.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that nuclear power is "clean." Waste disposal wouldn't be a problem if it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: open mike
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 02:25 PM

on the surface the generation of power by nuclear fission, fusion or other means seems cheap, but no one knows the total long term costs, as the waste remains radio active for many thousand years....there is no wayu to put a price tag on this EXPENSE...

of course there are down sides to other means of power generation...
coal, oil, wind, hydro, even solar panels need to be manufactured
possibly involving some polluting. Some are finite, using limited resources, some add pollution to the air.

But non have the hazardous waste that nuclear power leaves behind.
There is a plna to bury radiioactive waste in salt caves...well,
water is always able to dissolve salt....

the plume form Chernobyl drifted over many countries,
contaminating children's play grounds, reindeer grazing
grounds and many were effected.....not just the surrounding
territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 02:28 PM

Satchel,

Up until 9/11 there was a law that required petro/chemical plants to publish the same type of info. The regs were killed due to secutrity concerns that it would help terrorists pick targets. The "safe room" directions, duct tape and plastic sheeting that the Prez mentioned for terrorists attacks was primarily part of "shelter in place" instructions for those near chemical plants. If you check with your county/parish you should be able to find out if they have an LEPC (Local Emergency Preparedness Comittee) who's job it is to bring together personnel from industry, response, Gov't, and the local populace to evaluate threats, prevent and prepare for incidents. One on which I served was trying to establish an escape route for a community near industry that only had one way in and one way out. I won't provide specifics as that may be too compromising.

Yes, nuclear waste does exist. I would rather it be accepted from foreign countries for disposal here in the U.S. than to let it be disposed of at multiple sites world wide where lesser control may be exercised. Having it under our control means that it's not laying around as possible ammo for a dirty bomb. The current means for dealing with the waste is to dig a big, deep hole and bury the waste in concrete casks until a few dozen half lives have passed. Not truly a satisfactory answer but better than anything else suggested.

By the way you'd have waste dumps one way or another because each oil well drilled comes up with what is known as N.O.R.M. (Normally Occuring Radioactive Material) which must be processed and disposed of. There is also waste from medical use of radioactives (maybe not the same quantity but still radioactive).

Compare nuclear waste to what is generated daily by coal mines, oil and gas rigs. Compare nuclear waste to air pollution from plants and industry that use these fossil fuels. Compare nuclear waste to incidents like EXXON VALDEZ, TORY CANYON, PRESTIGE, NEW CARISSA, TENYO MARU, MOREY CANYON, TREASURE OIL. That doesn't begin to cover the number of smaller spills that go unreported every day.

With the safe guards that are in place on nuclear plants and transportation and disposal of nuclear waste, I'd rather have it.

By the way, I am an environmentalist and its not just a past time, it's my job.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 03:46 PM

I've spent most of my life downwind from Hanford. That's east of it; "downstream" is to the west. Tell me all about the safeguards. But don't eat fish from the Columbia River. There have been leaks every once in a while throughout all that time, some of them leaked on purpose by Our Own Government.

The basic form of Murphy's Law "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong," isn't a mildly humorous statement, it's a factual statement about the laws of probability.

And remember "Anything that's fail-safe fails by failing to fail safely." and there's some pretty long half-lives out there.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:01 PM

"If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention, ESPECIALLY when it comes to nukes"

Pffft... then yer not close enough to one... Get close enough, and you come to the realisation that IF something goes wrong, you won't have time to worry about it...   It's a load off yer mind, I'm tellin' ya!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Grab
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 11:26 AM

Oh yes, Larry and Graham, and we all trust the government to look out for our best interests, don't we?

Since the government institution in this case had my dad as a part of it for some years, I suggest you watch where you sling your mud! ;-)

Lines like that are a cheap shot. If you *really* don't trust the government to do anything in your best interests, either dedicate your life to cross-checking every damn thing they do, go and join the government yourself to inject some honesty, or bugger off and live as a hermit on a desert island somewhere. Politicians are people like anyone else - some are good, some are incompetent and some are devious weasels. People are like that, regardless of career. You want to avoid that problem, move yourself to somewhere where there's no people.

Re the long half-lives, the longest-lived with any serious volume is plutonium. Fast-breeder reactors would make a nice dent in that, but public reaction (the "nuclear=bad" equation from people who don't understand it) generally prevents any government doing much about it.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:40 PM

As if no accidents ever happened in any other industry!
Yes, a nuclear accident can cause death and disaster. Yes it can have long term impact. This can happen with all industry.





Check this out

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 01:52 PM

The list is incomplete. If the Exxon Valdez is there, so should the Torrey Canyon be -- to cite one example only.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: sledge
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 02:45 PM

Mr Red,

I thought Berkley power station being one of the early Magnox reactors was now shut down, is that so, can't find much info anywhere else.

Cheers

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Metchosin
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 02:56 PM

Notwithstanding the ecological impact of the various methods of producing electrical power, it is worthy of note, that while nuclear power, represents only 16% of the world's production of electrical power, it would seem to have been, since it's inception, responsible for 100% of the systems failure disasters regarding generation of that power.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,satchel
Date: 06 Apr 04 - 08:15 PM

Graham, I'm sure your father was one of the good guys in government, but I'm also pretty sure that if this was a forum about the Iraq war or some other such, you wouldn't have any problem with someone criticizing the integrity of government.

I'm a professional historian and I've spent my life studying a hell of a lot more incidents of government malfeasance than just the nuclear industry. You're right--there are bad people in every profession. However, when they crop up in government, their reach and effect have much longer legs. Moreover, government is a public service, and public services are therefore subject to oversight and criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:48 AM

Metchosin - The only reason that is true is because the disasters caused by a loss of power from a fossil fuel plant are not recognized as such. How many people have frozen to death / died of heat stroke / died from failure of the machinery keeping them alive from loss of power, etc? How much economic loss was suffered because of rolling brownouts and other problems with the infrastructure? I could go on but I think we're getting into the weeds here.

Rapaire - There are a few that I can call to mind right off hand that aren't listed either. This was just the result of a ten second duck and search.

And for all of you that are against nuclear power, it has been nuclear power that has kept our submarines and air craft carriers running for years without fear of having the supply of fuel cut off by miner's strikes or OPEC playing games. There have been a few accidents with those power plants but not anything as bad as experienced by the Russians. I'm pretty sure that even if we get rid of nuclear plants in the US and UK that the rest of the world will continue humming along with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Metchosin
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 05:23 AM

Chief Chaos, sorry if I wasn't clear, I was speaking of something actually going wrong at the site of power generation, which results in injury and death, not the results on a population of temporary loss of electrical power.

Disaster would ensue to those "downstream" if a hydroelectric dam structurally failed, through human error or intent or by force of nature, but so far, only nuclear power plants have garnered that dubious honour in their relatively short existence.

The embrace of the technological use of nuclear power, without adequate thought as to the safe disposal of it's horrendous by-product and the rush to sell reactors to other nations, of possibly even less scrupulous infrastructure, is just a little too Werner Von Braun for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Grab
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 08:34 AM

Satchel, I wouldn't have a problem with people criticising specific things said by the government, bcos specific things can be proven or disproven (as Blair and Bush are finding out to their cost). But generally saying "the government always lies to us" gets us nowhere. (To drift off-topic, the protesters against UK GM field trials fell into that trap, and were stumped by a flawless government-funded research effort.) By all means, we should check that the government line matches the evidence we know about, but we shouldn't automatically reject a statement just because it came from the government.

Metchosin, "systems failures" for coal-fired power stations must also consider coal mining, which is where the fuel source comes from. Check out Chief Chaos's link, and how many incidents on the list are coal mining disasters.

Incidentally, failure of dams is definitely not unknown (search Google for "dam disaster"). The Shimantan hydroelectric dam in China is apparently the world's worst dam failure, having killed a quarter of a million people. I don't think even the worst estimates for Chernobyl talk about it reaching that number. As a PS, the Three Gorges project shows every sign of repeating the same failures of Shimantan. My previous employer Alstom was bidding for work on Three Gorges, so I got to know a little about it - it scares the hell out of me.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:03 AM

I only partly agree that mining disasters should be linked to electric generating failures. And if we want to include environmental consequences (a la Chernobyl), then shouldn't the effects of the hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest on the native salmon populations be included -- the consequences from this have had an impact on many aspects of the region.

And let's not, in this regard, forget about the effects of acid rain.

Frankly, I don't see ANY electrical generating scheme which has no potential to harm the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Mooh
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:15 AM

Wind farms? Bet they knock a few birds out of the air.

There are several wind turbines (is that the right term?) next to BNPD (Bruce Nuclear Power Development), I suspect more as a public relations ploy than serious generation.

To my mind though, wind farms might be the least harmful alternative. Is there evidence to support this?

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 09:32 AM

Okay, that's clearer then.
You're right, nuclear power plants are much more dangerous to those running them than fossil fueled plants. There have been numerous deaths over the years with the various mechanisms and processes involved in running the plants but I can't think of any deaths that resulted from any spectacular failure of the plant itself.

I'm sure at first we did run rather blindly towards this technology but we've had it since the late 40's and there has been ample time to study it. I still feel at this time that it is our current best bet. Coal fired plants are getting older and the industry refuses to make any upgrades that would clean the process. The mines that produce the coal are safer but are by no means disaster proof and will run out sooner or later. The long line of coal trains have been involved in numerous vehicular accidents and can be easily derailed leading to shortages of power. Throw in some strikes anywhere and you've got a system that is slowly grinding down.

I think we've already covered to a great extent the pros and cons of the fossil fuel / nuclear energy plants. How about alternatives?

My best bet for endless supply is wave action generators. They can be attractive and cost little to build. They can be shoreline based or offshore with cable leading to shore. They provide shelter and habitat for smaller life forms (think floating reef like the sargasso)and unless the oceans go dry (and then we've got bigger problems to worry about) they will always generate power.

I believe there was a city that was experimenting with small wind vanes on the concrete dividers of the highway. They made good deflectors for light from oncoming traffic and used the winds generated by a vehicles passage to turn a small generator. It's not a continuous source but every drop in the bucket helps fill the bucket.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:10 AM

HOW NEAR IS NEAR????

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 10:11 AM

But I do have some pansies in the garden and seedlings in the greenhouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Grab
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:41 PM

Metchosin, forgot to say re the disposal of byproduct. Many of the nuclear operators (BNFL in particular) have busily stockpiled plutonium on the assumption that it can go into fast-breeder reactors. Except Chernobyl came along and suddenly no government was prepared to invest the time in telling people why Chernobyl couldn't happen to the new fast-breeder reactor round their way. So you've got this toxic stuff hanging around which would happily run nuclear power plants for ages and be changed in the process into stuff much less hazardous, but until someone builds the power plants then it's just a liability to be stored at significant cost, rather than an asset to be used. Basically the nuclear operators got screwed by political factors.

It's rather like stockpiling fuel oil for your boiler, and then finding out that no-one will sell you a boiler that runs on fuel oil, just bcos someone's tried welding a full tank and got burned in the subsequent eruption...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 01:54 PM

No one has yet mentioned fusion as an energy source....

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 Apr 04 - 02:25 PM

Along the north-east coast of Ireland we live as close as 35 miles from the a nuclear power station with the worst record for pollution in western Europe it is the Sellafield, formerly Windscale nuclear plant.
In 1957 this Plant sent a plume of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, carried on a south-easterly wind this deadly cloud polluted all the area in its path.
There has been a number of accidents from that time, but thankfully not on the same scales as the 1957 disaster, the Irish and Norwegian governments have tried unsucessfully to have this antiquated pile closed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Metchosin
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 03:29 AM

Grab, if you wish to put the mining of coal into the equation, then you should include the mining of uranium and the ecological and human disaster that has ensued in that endeavour as well.

The only reason its not noted on Chief Chaos's list is that the deaths are usually slow and insidious, not sudden. Fortunately, we mine uranium mostly in 3rd world countries now, where things are conveniently less scrutinized and stringent and the miners lives less valuable.

And while we're telling people why Chernobyl couldn't happen to the new fast-breeder reactor round our way, and how wonderful FBRs are at solving the problems of by-products, let's not forget to mention the few "little problems" associated with them.

For some reason or other fast breeder reactors develop serious leaks and go critical. Both France and Japan have had major difficulties with them and France has permanently shut down it's largest. But at least when things go wrong with an FBR, it doesn't just melt down, it explodes. Whoopee!

Chief Chaos, I have a further suggestion, think really tiny, think White LEDs, another incredibly useful drop in the bucket.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 10:50 AM

A nuclear explosion

Either fision or fusion: Stand beside the device, and you will be dead before your nerves can tell your brain that anything happened.

A nuclear reactor meltdown

If it goes wrong, you will wish you had been standing beside one of the above weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 08 Apr 04 - 02:07 PM

When the 1957 Windscale fire was raging in the Plant the scientists were unsure how to deal with it.
Workers were sent in relays to use scaffolding poles to frantically push out hundreds of fuel cans to try and make a fire break around the fire.
Then they tried to pump in carbon dioxide gas to try and smother the flames, but the heat was such that oxygen was produced from the gas and thus fed the flames to a greater height.
As a last resort the scientists had to gamble on flooding the reactor with cooling water.
The risk they were aware of was that explosive hydrogen and or acetylene gas could be created and then flash over into an explosion.
As this critical decision was being taken the temperatures were climbing by 20 degrees a minute.

Luckily the gamble paid offand the water starved the fire of oxygen and the reactor was brought under control.
Yet even today as the fateful chimneys are slowly taken down by shielded robots the centre of th fire crippled reactor of Pile one still contains uranium and still gives off a gentle heat.
There is still unreleased Wigner energy in the graphite and water hoses are still connected to the charge face as a final safety precaution.
Aren`t we the lucky people to be in the hands of those amazingly bright scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 09:53 AM

Don't Panic! Don't Panic!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 10:10 AM

I once interviewed a Czech former prisoner who said that after Chrnobyl, the radiated food had been distributed to prisons all over Europe, for the inmates to eat.

We have a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney. Around 1975 the reactor was described as being technologically obsolete. In 1997 the Oz Government announced that a new reactor would be built and that it would still be at Lucas Heights.

A Senate Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor – May 2001, found that the Australian Government had failed to establish a conclusive or compelling case for the new reactor. Recommendation—Chapter 11, p. 224

The project to build a new reactor on the old site is going ahead.
The surprise winning tender came from INVAP of Argentina. As it has no experience of building a reactor in any advanced country the choice came as a surprise. Its competitors were from Germany, France and Canada. Was it the cheapest offer? Who knows, it is a State Secret. It is deemed to be 'not in the National Interest' to release its content. The contract, for around $320 million, was signed without anyone seeing a technical specification. … more at
http://ssec.org.au/Nuclear.html

Subject: RE: BS: Do you live near a nuclear plant?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 04 - 11:38 AM

Poor John, he may be already have had a lung-full