Yes, you's people Slumberjack, and I'm lucky to read people like you, even if I'm NDP. ;)
And the links are great, aren't they? Gravy for some folk. Sustenance for others.
Anti Nuke Power. What are we going to organize?
Mon, 2012-01-30 23:10
#52
RevolutionPlease
Tue, 2012-01-31 09:11
#53
Not exactly. Most of the people here are NDP it seems. I don't particularly like talking to them, so links is all I got to look at most days. And I'm people.
Well like my post above says, you can avoid having to deal with all these crazy NDP'ers with some basic googling skills. You likely came here because you like to discuss the things you read. Or am I way off the mark here?
Tue, 2012-01-31 09:50
#54
I'm guessing you could very well be off the mark in assuming that people might rather tune in to your nuclear industry crap as an alternative point of view.
Tue, 2012-01-31 10:59
#55
I'm guessing you could very well be off the mark in assuming that people might rather tune in to your nuclear industry crap as an alternative point of view.
I do pity your inability to be able to see an issue from a different point of view. Must make it very tough on you, constantly defending a stance you can't hope to support because you haven't seen all sides of the issue. My intent has only been to show another side to the nuclear story. To show that propoganda and misinformation run rampant in the green activist, hemp bag of tricks as well. That nuclear isn't the evil force you think it is. But in the end, I can't make you do anything. I can only suggest you take the time to look at both sides of the issue, and to make your own decisions, instead of blindly following the rhetoric of the alarmist media.
Tue, 2012-01-31 11:35
#56
M. Spector
You can shove your constant condescension, pal. You think you know everything and anyone who disagrees with you is blindly following media propaganda.
We got your message loud and clear. Judging by your posting history, that seems to be the only reason you come here. Your work is done. Time to move on.
Tue, 2012-01-31 12:01
#57
You can shove your constant condescension, pal. You think you know everything and anyone who disagrees with you is blindly following media propaganda.
What other conclusion can I reach when my rebuttles to the media articles go unchallenged? I'm sorry if my words seem condecensing to you, but it is difficult to speak with respect to someone who refuses to do the same to me. You gotta give a little to get a little.
We got your message loud and clear. Judging by your posting history, that seems to be the only reason you come here. Your work is done. Time to move on.
So long as people like you continue to muddy the waters of unbiassed factual information on the risks and benefits of nuclear power and technologies, my work is not done.
Now if you please, can we stick to the issue at hand? If you have something to say in regards to my posts, please keep it on the information, and not on me. Thank you.
Tue, 2012-01-31 12:10
#58
I do pity your inability to be able to see an issue from a different point of view. Must make it very tough on you, constantly defending a stance you can't hope to support because you haven't seen all sides of the issue.
This by way of example just goes to show that people who set out to regale others with fact are themselves not entirely immune to peddling assumptions. We have had several generations from which to assess and consider the other point of view, culminating of late with the Fukushima disaster and the entire minimalist approach undertaken by corporate media and their associated relations, governments that is, for the sake of continued corporate profits elsewhere, where they rely on nuclear energy which can't be disrupted or stopped at any cost. All of which having been combined and served to us as findings on the matter...we need it for our economies, and it's apparently not as bad as some may believe. Fukushima is now largely vanished within the collage of more important images and other assorted truths they'd like to share with us. Not so oddly enough, Chernobyl from way back when actually seemed to have endured longer in our imaginations and on our television screens. There were two economic and political systems competing against one another in those days after all, and so any news about Soviet failure was destined to have lasting value for its propaganda effect. Nowadays though, with all the genius plans ever devised for permanent storage deep beneath the ground, and with a 60 plus years and counting stockpile of death crowded within the existing above ground facilities the world over, where exactly have they actually begun to safely bury the stuff again? Someone else's problem down the road at someone else's expense no doubt, likely the taxpayer after corporatism as rung every last nickel of profit from it, and when as usual, humanity is left holding the toxic dregs.
Tue, 2012-01-31 12:53
#59
Updated: Emergency Shutdown at Illinois Reactor
http://enenews.com/just-in-emergency-shutdown-at-illinois-reactor-smoke-...
"Emergency shutdown at Illinois Reactor - smoke was actually steam containing radioactive material - workers evacuated..."
Tue, 2012-01-31 14:33
#60
Nowadays though, with all the genius plans ever devised for permanent storage deep beneath the ground, and with a 60 plus years and counting stockpile of death crowded within the existing above ground facilities the world over, where exactly have they actually begun to safely bury the stuff again? Someone else's problem down the road at someone else's expense no doubt, likely the taxpayer after corporatism as rung every last nickel of profit from it, and when as usual, humanity is left holding the toxic dregs.
Finland is under construction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_waste_repository#Onkalo_waste_repository
Canada has had a scientifically sound plan to bury the high level waste since the early 90's. in 1994 AECL released their EIS (environmental Impact Statement) on the concept for disposal of canada's nuclear fule waste. It was reviewed by the Seaborne Panel, and rejected, on the grounds that it was technically sound, but lacked sufficient public support. 20 years later, the plan is still basically the same, only now they've learning how to approach the public properly. There's still a lot of stigma to overcome though.
And of course, as an energy cunsumer, you are part of the equation. Thus your energy rates contribute to the levy paid by all nuclear utilities towards the research, construction and operation of a spent fuel repository.
Tue, 2012-01-31 14:41
#61
Updated: Emergency Shutdown at Illinois Reactor
http://enenews.com/just-in-emergency-shutdown-at-illinois-reactor-smoke-...
"Emergency shutdown at Illinois Reactor - smoke was actually steam containing radioactive material - workers evacuated..."
That article says that all safety systems performed as designed, and that nothing of any consequence, besides not producing power for a little while, happened.
It was caused by a power outage on the grid, not by a prolem with the reactor. The steam venting is from an auxillary building, meaning it is not the water from the reactor. What I can only assume it is (because I can't find a decent report on it at this time) is the secondary water supply. The secondary water is heated by the water pumped through the reactor. THis water turns to steam and powers the turbine/generator. With the grid down, the plant has no load to accept the power output. Spinning a generator with no load leads to damaging of the generator. The steam must be diverted to relief valves to avoid turning the turbine, but still maintaining the heat exchange function. The amounts of tritium in the secondary steam are incredibly low.
Tue, 2012-01-31 15:04
#62
thanks, well that's a load off my mind.
Tue, 2012-01-31 15:47
#63
I'm guessing you could very well be off the mark in assuming that people might rather tune in to your nuclear industry crap as an alternative point of view.
I do pity your inability to be able to see an issue from a different point of view. Must make it very tough on you, constantly defending a stance you can't hope to support because you haven't seen all sides of the issue. My intent has only been to show another side to the nuclear story. To show that propoganda and misinformation run rampant in the green activist, hemp bag of tricks as well. That nuclear isn't the evil force you think it is. But in the end, I can't make you do anything. I can only suggest you take the time to look at both sides of the issue, and to make your own decisions, instead of blindly following the rhetoric of the alarmist media.
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.
Tue, 2012-01-31 16:09
#64
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
Tue, 2012-01-31 17:18
#65
Chernobyl: A Million Casualties (vid)
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe
Tue, 2012-01-31 18:11
#66
M. Spector
Chernobyl: A Million Casualties (vid)
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe
http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf[/quote]
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.
I believe it's just a matter of time before we have another nuclear problem somewhere in the world...
Six days after the interview, Fukushima blew up.
Wed, 2012-02-01 13:04
#67
Chernobyl: A Million Casualties (vid)
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe
One of two published reviews of the book in question: http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bfc-3b35-434f-8a5c-ee5579d11dbb&t=634507382459270000
The Chernobyl accident was indeed the major man-made disaster, which led to numerous harmful effects in the environment, public health, and public life. Professional scientific community patiently and carefully examines these implications and draw lessons from what has happened. There are no reasonable grounds to suspect the modern community of experts in concealing the facts. Conversely, professional epidemiologists are hunters for scientific facts, and a proven radiation-induced effect is the most coveted scientific production. Intervention of incompetent people, although having academic titles, in this delicate process prevents adequate public information and decision making by authorities responsible for protecting the population.
Wed, 2012-02-01 19:25
#68
M. Spector
Intervention of incompetent people, although having academic titles, in this delicate process prevents adequate public information and decision making by authorities responsible for protecting the population.
Right back at you.
Wed, 2012-02-01 20:51
#69
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..."
Thu, 2012-02-02 09:00
#70
Intervention of incompetent people, although having academic titles, in this delicate process prevents adequate public information and decision making by authorities responsible for protecting the population.Right back at you.
...yeah pretty sure me showing the error of everything you seem to post, proves that it is in fact not I who is incompetent.
Thu, 2012-02-02 09:33
#71
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..."
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.
Thu, 2012-02-02 10:54
#72
M. Spector
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!
Thu, 2012-02-02 11:54
#73
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.
Thu, 2012-02-02 13:22
#74
Boom Boom
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. 
Thu, 2012-02-02 14:01
#75
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.
Thu, 2012-02-02 14:03
#76
Boom Boom
How much are you paid for this bullshit, NuclearJeff?
Thu, 2012-02-02 14:18
#77
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.
Thu, 2012-02-02 17:46
#78
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.
Fri, 2012-02-03 10:31
#79
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!
Fri, 2012-02-03 10:46
#80
He's a peach isn't he?
Sat, 2012-02-04 02:21
#81
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..."
Sat, 2012-02-04 07:14
#82
I think the nuclear industry and its supporters prefers to assume that it successfully engages in plausible deniability, where the institutions of the imperial power once operated from, before they stopped bothering with it altogether. Unfortunately in this case the delusion doesn't travel much further beyond their own imaginations.
Sun, 2012-02-05 19:09
#83
Nuclear Power and Water
"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.."
Mon, 2012-02-06 16:18
#84
I think the nuclear industry and its supporters prefers to assume that it successfully engages in plausible deniability, where the institutions of the imperial power once operated from, before they stopped bothering with it altogether. Unfortunately in this case the delusion doesn't travel much further beyond their own imaginations.
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.
Tue, 2012-02-07 02:20
#85
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..."
Tue, 2012-02-07 02:28
#86
I believe there has been more deaths from mining failures, dam failures, aviation failures than nuclear power failures over any time period anyone wishes to choose. So how we measure risk is pretty subjective, rather than objective.
Tue, 2012-02-07 09:42
#87
'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.
Thu, 2012-02-23 02:55
#88
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.."
Sun, 2012-02-26 19:41
#89
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..."
Mon, 2012-02-27 00:35
#90
autoworker
ATOMKRAFT? NEIN DANKE
Mon, 2012-02-27 10:52
#91
M. Spector
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...
Like many liberal Democrats, Freeman voted for Obama, hoping that Obama would lead the way to a renewable future.
Now, Freeman calls Obama "an absolute disappointment."
And he's furious that Obama is using the same language used by the fossil fuels industry - that we need all available energies coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas and renewables.
"That's the big lie," Freeman says. "And unfortunately, the President of the United States has ratified that lie in his State of the Union message by saying - we need it all. We don't need it all."
"You can't take energy that is simple and clean - like solar power - and put it in the same pot with the most poisonous stuff on earth - plutonium - or with fossil fuels that are poisoning the air we breathe and causing epidemics of lung disease and asthma - not to mention the awesome risk of climate change."
"For anyone who can read, write and think, you lay the basic facts on the table and it's a no-brainer."
"You replace them with solar, wind, and storage - one year at a time. It's probably a 25 year transition. But the point I make in my book, it's 25 years from the day we start. I wrote the book five years ago, and we haven't started yet in earnest."