babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
April 4: OPG Darlington Nuclear Newbuild EA Submission Falls Short
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/OPG-Darlington-Nuclear-Newbuild-...
"Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has not met the requirements of the Darlington nuclear newbuild environmental assessment process. This is the conclusion of a report presented today by the Canada Environmental Law Association (CELA) to the federal Darlington nuclear newbuild licensing hearings..."
Nuclear Plant Spills Tritium Into Lake
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/742225--nuclear-plant-spills...
"Negligence at a nuclear reactor can lead to catastrophic consquences. It's an unforgiving technology..The spill come a month after the Sierra Club of Canada criticized Canada for allowing tritium levels in drinking water that are 70 times higher than in the European Union and 473 times higher than in California..."
US Neighbours Oppose Underground Storage At Bruce Plant
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/980897--u-s-neighbours-oppose-un...
"...What fool would put nuclear waste under the Great Lakes?' demands Doug Martz, who chairs the Water Quality Board in Macomb County, Mich., one of the municipalities that makes up the Detroit Metropolitian area.."
You're right, Simon. But those who argue against nuclear without explaining what Homo sapiens does in the remaining period of fossil-fuel energy have simply decided that their progeny (if they have any) will just have to tough it out in that wonderfully stormy, violent climatic era to which they've sentenced them. I see it as the capitalist's cop-out of the last libertarian era. (Get ready for the fulsome reply by the followers of wind, sun, and utopian science that always follows).
QFT, and I also think that we need to get back to a greater conservative science curriculum in our education system, because all we're turning out are know-nothing ignoramuses.
The real choice is between having TB and emphasema (sp) or between being heated for the winter and being cooled in the summer, as well as being able to cook your food. What do you want?
Sorry chum, Chernobyl, Fukushima, nukes ain't it.
Neither is intermittent electric power, but you seem to love it a whole lot.
shrot answer is Yes. That said, industrial wind turbines backed with natural gas for when the wind doesn't blow and fully backed by big dirty oil is green washing at it's worse. Wind energy should benefit the local communities who are having their landscapes blighted by these things and set backs need to be much larger due to reported health concerns.
I swear, if one more small minded person says "Chernobyl" or "Three Mile Island" as an argument, I'm going to cry.
Chernobyl, occurred because they went out of their way to purposely disable several safety systems. It wasn't a freak accident that no one could see coming, or that we could ever expect to happen again.
Three Mile Island (unit 2), had ZERO human casualties, and in fact, Unit 1 still produces electricity to this day. People still work there and no one is dying. I personally see TMI as one of the nuclear industry's greatest achievements. The safe containment of a serious accident. The safety technology doing exactly what it was designed to do.
Fear of the nuclear industry is based entirely on ignorance. Not science.
And I agree with nuclear Jeff.
What should we do with all of that nuclear waste that remains toxic for tens of thousands of years?
The nuclear industry itself is based on lies, deceit, incompetence, and the pursuit of profit at all costs:
Socialist Worker "You may republish if you include an active link to the original."
I don't know but what do we do with industrial wind turbines backed up by fracked natural gas that is poisoning our water systems, you know the stuff we need to drink. It's a problem. At least, I know where this waste is rather than it being spewed into the air, or poisoning our drinking water.
Yeah, so do I - it is dangerously and badly stored along the shoreline of the Great Lakes. Could spill or spew or poison our drinking water at any time.
2012 Is The Year To Finally Bury Nuke Power
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2012-is-the-Year-to-Finall-by-Harvey-Wa...
"The year 2012 has opened with news that Fukushima's radioactive cloud may already have killed some 14,000 Americans, according to a major study just published in the International Journal of Health Services. Gemany and Japan, the world's third and fourth largest economies along with numerous other countries, have definitively turned away from the 'Peaceful Atom' But it hasn't yet been buried. That's up to us. And 2012 is the year to do it..."
One does not necessarily flow from the other. While I will argue quite strongly that wind power in general is better for the environment than nuclear, I will not try and excuse what is happening in your particular case with industrial wind.
I think the big mistake here is that people are looking for a "zero impact" source of energy. The truth is that energy generation has an impact on the environment, whether this energy is generated by coal, natural gas, oil, hydro-electric, geothermal, tidal, solar, or even wind. So we need to have an honest conversation about these impacts, and then make an informed decision about which trade-offs and impacts we are willing to live with.
Exactly what the last 50 years of research says we should do. Deep geologic disposal. We have the technology. We have the money. All we lack is education of the general public when it comes to assessing the risks of radiation and nuclear waste, so as to gain enough public support to get moving on the project.
Most people think nothing of getting in a car and driving to work. But over a million people are killed in car accidents every single year. You can't even come close to that many deaths and injuries from nuclear waste over the past 50 years combined.
Have you ever introduced yourself Jeff, or talked about what you are here for other than to talk about nuclear?
A de facto single issue concern is one thing [if]...
Coupling that with a moniker on every single post that says 'upset with the crap on Rabble'... sounds like a recipe for trolling.
I've just read a couple posts in this thread [only]- largely because nuclear is not a driving issue for me, one way or the other.
I came to look because of your name, and that it keeps popping up on the same topics.
The name is my introduction. I'm Jeff. I support Nuclear. I'm tired of simply reading the poorly written anti-nuclear articles posted on Rabble. I do not believe any of my remarks have been inflammatory enough to warrant a 'trolling' accusation...
Plus the 'Moniker' is the Rabble Status. It was posted months ago. Never got around to updating it. Based on what I've been reading in this thread so far, I don't forsee it changing in the near future.
I'll agree that it isnt necessarily inflamatory to state a position stridently, and want to make sure it stands. A lot has to do with approach.
But I'm still skeptical, given that you seem to feature describing the crap side.
Could be fine line in practice between troll and man with a singular mission.
I would suggest that you move your questioning of my motives to a more private forum, as your current diversion from the thread topic, and apparent need to suggest I might be a "troll," fit the wiki description of a troll to a T.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
In general, I agree with you. One quibble: "Deep geologic disposal." The very word "disposal" literally means "put away," that is, "away from my backyard." Out of sight, out of mind? Wrong wording. Deep geologic retrievable storage, please. Our technology and knowledge will certainly be greater 50 years from now. "Spent" reactor rods still contain, in fact, a lot of potential energy, as well as toxicity. The day may very well come when we want to retrieve those rods, and make more use of them and/or process them into less toxic fission products and/or put them into more secure long-term storage.
By the way, lots of New Democrats work in the nuclear energy industry. I don't, but I live in a town with two Cameco plants, both with bargaining units of the Steelworkers Union, and both those locals are affiliated to the NDP.
Fair enough. And I'm not curious or concerned enough to need to discuss it further.
Actually, geologic storage is not good, if not for the simple reason that the Earth's crust tends to move about, twist, and shape, and there is no guarantee that the containers will be able to withstand that.
And we do not know for certain that we will ever have the technology to retrieve the waste at some point in the future. Why are we storing that waste now when there is no way to deal with it, and waiting for some future hypothetical technological advancement that may never come? Blind faith in the ability of technology to solve our problems got us into this mess in the first place.
I take the point about the number of people killed in car accidents versus nuclear. However, a car accident only kills a person once. A nuclear disaster can very easily render a whole area uninhabitable or unsuitable for growing food for a long time, possibly the duration of human existence.
As for the unions and people who work in the nuclear industry, there are also jobs that are dependent on the tarsands and unions who have come out in support of the Keystone pipeline. Is that a good enough reason to support these projects? Should we turn back to coal because mining coal provides jobs and coal miners unions have supported the NDP? Obviously phasing out nuclear power will cost jobs, and we must do everything we can to support those workers and communities who will be affected, but at the end of the day, providing jobs is not a good enough reason to continue doing something that's destructive.
That post indicates that you have in fact not read any of the technical research done on deep geologic waste disposal. The idea is [not] to put the waste into a seismically unstable formation in super strong immortal containers. No container can last forever really. But, by considering the chemistry of the groundwater, the age and stability of the rock formations, and using appropriate drilling techniques, the waste [can] be safely isolated from humanity for as long as necessary. The greatest natural analogue to support the technical research is the natural reactors at Oklo, in Gabon. The nuclear age began 2 Billion years ago when naturally concentrated pockets of U-235 rich pockets went critical. Since that time, 2 billion years ago, the waste products of that chain reaction (which are the same as in modern day reactors), have moved only centimeters. Proof, that nuclear waste CAN be safely contained over vast time frames, if the conditions are right.
As for retrieval... i think that's just a pipe dream. With the improvments in thorium and breeder reactor technology (thorium is way more abundant than uranium), I can't see a reason to have to dig it all up again. I'm fairly certain that the discussion of retrievability is more to put the alarmists at ease than a serious long term energy plan. Blind faith? Not necessary. For 50 years, the issue of how to dispose of high level waste has been researched, over and over, by every nuclear nation. Global warming doesn't have 50 years of analysis and international collaboration, but everyone seems to have jumped onto that bandwagon. Why should people believe global warming is real, but safe waste disposal is not?
Although I can see where you're coming from with the idea that a nuclear disaster is more wide spread than a single car accident... i must point out that risk is calculated as a product of frequency and consequences. Car accidents have a HUGE frequency, although a relatively small consequence. Nuclear Accidents, may have a large consequence, but have an extremely low frquency. In terms of risk of death... cars still win by a landslide in terms of what is more dangerous. Especially if you want to consider how car emissions are (apparently) warming the earth, and destroying the productivity of the grain belt (that's a whole other thread though). Global famine would kill hundreds of millions of people.
Jobs, are not the same as stable long term high paying jobs. It is the latter that is required in order to stabilize an economy. Nuclear science and technology creates high paying jobs, which attract the best and brightest minds, and investment in the earths most valuable commodity, energy. Since there is actually a plan to safely dispose of the waste, it's not a destructive industry, and therefore, acceptable to sustain and move forward with it.
Of course, that could never happen again in a billion years with radioactive nuclear waste, even with a lot of help from humans in "unnaturally" concentrating it.
And if it did, think of all the "stable, long-term high paying jobs" it would create, like those lucky cleanup and containment crews in Fukushima whose jobs are now guaranteed for life (however long that may be).
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make...
I can say with confidence that your background in this is greater than mine.
To put it bluntly: so what? That means my 'vote' on whether we do this does not count as much as yours?
In principle, I accept that what you want is feasible, with the degree of security you suggest. But based on what I have heard so far, I am not buying. And I really don't care that you can run circles around me in a discussion about it.
It is up to you and whoever to make the case that sells- telling people they dont understand has a pedigree that precedes you.
I do know something about the arguments of the geology around the security claims for deep injection of of shale bed hydraulic fracturing. I realise that they are not the same thing- that you are talking about much more inactive layers. But there is a commonality in the nature of the disposal security claims.
A lay person can invest in the learning curve to be able to hold their own with the certified experts. And I have done that around hydraulic fracturing. What I have learned confirms why we should not deferr to the opinions of experts. Listen, yes. Deferr, no.
I'll tell you something about what you call 'alarmist arguments'. A great deal of it, maybe even the bulk of it, is frankly alarmist.
But it is that way for very sound reasons. Because many issues with this much environmental risk ARE extremely complex. Too complex even for most well educated citizens to really hold their own.
So as in many cases when people do not completely understand, even understand VERY imperfectly- they are arguing with only a portion of the picture clear enough.
That is no reason to dismiss them. In fact, their suspicions are well grounded in a great deal of experience.
And it is very likely that their own ignorance on a question in which you have more knowledge, is a mirroe image of ignorance of your own... an ignorance born of incomplete knoweldge given what is at stake.
The real difference between your ignorance and theirs is that your hubris is culturaly supported.
And that is for sure A24. People have this fairytale version of industrial wind which is so off and thus is missed. So drinkable water is being destroyed because wind needs backup. All those turbine deals have rights to frack their land, and also those turbines are installed with natural gas as backup. And lets not forget all the cement being poured into that usable farmland for these monsters.
I guess I can live with nuclear.
No, my real implication is that I would prefer someone demonstrate they have put some independant thought and sound logic into their research before chiming in on a topic. At lest then I could respect their comments, and then continue to have a fruitful and meaningful discussion. It's the people who believe the first newspaper article they read, and preach it like the world is coming to an end, that I give no credit to. You seem more like the latter than the former.
I couldn't agree more! The nuclear industry is dominated by scientist and engineers, known far and wide for their sub-par communication and social skills. For years I've wondered why AECL, the NWMO or OPG aren't running more education campaigns in the media. I believe there are some restrictions for the crown corps... in terms of spending allotments... but I agree totally that it is up to the industry to educate the public, and bring them around. I like to think I'm doing my part in that here. I'll refer you to the NWMO techincal reports on geosphere modelling for more information on the subject of hydraulic fractures.
http://www.nwmo.ca/technicalresearch
To a point I can agree. If you are familiar with the subject, and you see something that doesn't add up, perhaps there are times to stand up and shout "Hey look what they're doing! That doesn't look right!" However I find most alarmist statements, especially surrounding nuclear waste, are not from subject matter experts, and are completely rediculous and self serving. For example, the highly revered Helen Caldicott, and her rediculous statement to relocate the entire town of Port Hope, ON. Her claim that residents are in grave danger has absolutely no basis in reality. The speech she gave in nearby Oshawa, ON had a Q&A session at the end, where nearly every A was "the answer is in my book, available at the back of the room." And yes I read as much of her book as I could tolerate. It's a collection of cherry picked, poorly analyzed, over simplified junk.
That all being said, I do appreciate the chance to actually be heard by a reasonable person, instead of being dismissed as having "drank the nuclear kool-aid." It is those who do not listen to both sides that are the biggest threat to our earth. George Monbiot was right when he said that green activists have done more harm this year than good. Both sides of any issue need to stop and listen to what the other side is presenting and carefully consider it before dimissing it. It seems that there isn't enough listening going on, on both sides of the environmental issue.
Why, because wind power generation is impossible without fracking?
That's ridiculous. Fight the fracking, not the wind power generation.
You don't think nuclear plants need "backup"? Tell that to Fukushima.