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
thanks, well that's a load off my mind.
You're making insulting assumptions about another babbler. So not cool. In fact, if you can't stick to the discussion and keep the personal out of it, you'll be severely hampered in your ability to participate here.
That said, you're clearly a cheerleader for the nuclear industry. This is not the place to convert people to your perspective. Argue your point, for sure, but cross the babble policy line and you'll be arguing with the air.
Speaking of insulting assumptions... http://rabble.ca/comment/1311259
Chernobyl: A Million Casualties (vid)
http://blip.tv/file/4922080
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf
The second link is to the text of the book that is being discussed in the video in the first link. It's a big (4.29 MB) file.
Six days after the interview, Fukushima blew up.
One of two published reviews of the book in question: http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bfc-3b35-434f-8a5c-ee5579d11dbb&t=634507382459270000
Right back at you.
California Nuclear Plant Shut Down Over Radioactive Leaking
http://rt.com/usa/news/california-nuclear-leak-onofre-269/
"A leak at a Southern California nuclear facility that regularly provides power to roughly 1.4 million households has caused the plant to shut down a reactor. Despite officials insisting that everything will be perfectly alright at the San Onofre nuclear site, this is not the first time as of late that power plants have raised serious questions about their safety in America..."
...yeah pretty sure me showing the error of everything you seem to post, proves that it is in fact not I who is incompetent.
Once again, a safety system operated correctly to identify a problem and stop everything to ensure safety. The amounts of radioactvity that "may" have been released according to the NRC, are so low that they are not detectable outside the plant.
I get it.
Every time there's a sudden accident at a nuclear power station it only goes to prove how safe nuclear power is!
Yes. The pinciple is known as 'defense in depth.' Many layers of redundant overlapping safety that keep minor incidents from turning into major accidents. Minor incidents occur in all industries for many reasons. The difference with nuclear is people automatically equate even completely benign incidents to catastrophic failure, resulting in sensationalist headlines that spread fear among the public.
The real difference is that a nuclear accident has the potential to spread far, far beyond its physical base, unlike an industrial accident at, say, General Motors.
Well that depends on how you look at it... a small error at GM could result in impairing the function of airbags, or seatbelts, resulting in many deaths across north america. Enough people die from cars already too, so it's not really a good choice for comparison.
How much are you paid for this bullshit, NuclearJeff?
When bulls start excreting logical statements, that'll start to make some sense...
I am not paid to advocate the industry, but even if I was, it wouldn't change the fact that you cannot seem to find fault in what I said.
this is why no one trusts politicians or in this case political partisians - screw any objective truth - if you're against something - focus on the negative and ignore the positive
Boom Boom's attitude is quite childish. Debate the merits and dangers of Nuclear power without the condescending attitude.
Each time you post, I respect you that much more. Well Done!
He's a peach isn't he?
Toxic Hearing: Cameco in Port Hope Day 1 (and vid)
http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/story/toxic-hearing-cameco-port-hope-day-1/9634
Three days for five years: Cameco's license renewal hearing at the CNSC
"Cameco is using Lake Ontario as a nuclear waste dump..."
Nuclear Power and Water
http://nuclear-news.net
"It is a laugh that nuclear power is touted as a solution to global warming. More likely, global warming is the death knell for nuclear power. Very many nuclear reactors are located along coastlines, where they are vulnerable to storms, hurricanes and tsunamis. With climate change and rising sea levels, those events are becoming more frequent and more extreme.."
Who's delusional? "A delusion is a belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence" Let's review.
Nuclear power is too expensive. False. Nuclear offers the second lowest cost per kWh (hydro is lowest) in Ontario. http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/11/17/ontario-nuclear-power-moderates-subsidizes-the-cost-of-gas-and-renewables-an-investigation-into-the-price-of-political-correctness/
There's no solution to nuclear waste. False. A technically sound solution has been available for decades, but continues to see resistance due to overwhelming confusion in the public caused by misinformation from green activists. www.nwmo.ca/technicalresearch
The nuclear industry isn't transparent and they hide the truth. False. All incidents documented by the CNSC are made available to the public. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/mediacentre/updates/index.cfm All of the major operators also publish annual release reports on their websites, outlining exactly what happened for that year/quarter. There is no secrecy. Only a lack of effort to look for information, or a lack of understanding of that information.
Nobody Really Wanted To: But They All Though They Had To
http://npogroups.org/lists/arc/eaglewatch/2012-02/msg00002.html
'Governments are lying through their teeth about nuclear nonproliferation. The Ontario government is pushing ahead with plans to build more reactors at Darlington in complete disregard for the growing opposition among Canadian people and the growing scientific evidence that nukes are bad. Not only are nuclear reactors dangerous to the people who live near them and not only do they produce a legacy of toxic, radioactive nuclear waste but this waste is the material needed to make nuclear weapons.
US military nuclear materials are currently being trucked to Chalk River Laboratories on the Ottawa river in Anishinabe/Ongwehomwe Territory. They could be transported right past our doors and we'd never know it..."
The author of that blog post, does not cite any references for the claims made in the above quote. There is no evidence that support is dwindling for nuclear in Ontario.
The "US military nuclear materials....currently being trucked to Chalk River Laboratories" are Uranium targets used to make medical isotopes. They are enriched U targets, and come from the US because Canada does not enrich uranium. There isn't a great need for enriched U in Canada because our power reactors run on natural uranium. Higher concentrations of U-235 yield more medical isotopes by weight, thus benefiting more sick people around the world. They are heavily guarded, and the benefits far outwiegh any risks.
This Nuclear Folly - by Naomi Wolf
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/10100-focus-this-nucl...
"...Although the accident at Fukushima raised global awareness about the lasting overwhelming dangers to human beings of radioactive contamination, the money that the energy lobby sees in building more nuclear facilities is just too good to rein in, catastrophe or no catastrophe.."
How To Phase Out Nuclear, Coal and Oil in 25 Years - by Russell Mokhiber
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/24/how-to-phase-out-nuclear-coal-and...
"We can phase out the three poisons - nuclear, coal and oil - in twenty-five years. And replace them with solar, wind and energy efficiency. The science and technology say yes. It's now only about politics. Or as S David Freeman puts it - about values. Freeman is the former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority where he shut down eight nuclear power plants. Five years ago, Freeman wrote a book titled 'Winning Over Energy Independence'. Five years later, we aren't much closer to that goal. Why not?
One reason - the failed environmental movement..."
ATOMKRAFT? NEIN DANKE