Pages: 1 2

 

2009-07-03 20:54:57
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5996|College Park, MD
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090702/ … 9.619.html

Cliff notes: Bush administration set up the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." One of the provisions was to build a large reprocessing facility. These types of facilities are very common in France. They allow spent fuel rods to be reused if I'm not mistaken. The main issue that people (well, if you consider idiots to be people) have is that it can produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct. Now to me that doesn't really matter... gives us more material for building nukes. But people think that terrorists will steal it or something. Nevermind that has never happened in France...

I like how Obama and his administration and his congress pushed this cap-and-trade thing as being a step forward for a greener America or whatever, and at the same time they're trying to kill off one of the cleanest and safest sources of energy that we can use. So much for 'change' and 'progress.'
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-07-03 20:57:21
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6831|Long Island, New York
It's change, just not progress.

Not liking this.
2009-07-03 21:00:55
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5891|Vacationland

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090702/full/news.2009.619.html

Cliff notes: Bush administration set up the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." One of the provisions was to build a large reprocessing facility. These types of facilities are very common in France. They allow spent fuel rods to be reused if I'm not mistaken. The main issue that people (well, if you consider idiots to be people) have is that it can produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct. Now to me that doesn't really matter... gives us more material for building nukes. But people think that terrorists will steal it or something. Nevermind that has never happened in France...

I like how Obama and his administration and his congress pushed this cap-and-trade thing as being a step forward for a greener America or whatever, and at the same time they're trying to kill off one of the cleanest and safest sources of energy that we can use. So much for 'change' and 'progress.'
Safest? really? Are you overlooking the whole chernobyl thing, what could happen I know the technology has advancd.  Plus what do you do with the Weapons Grade Plutonium? Can't dump it. Making more nukes is just asking to revamp the cold war have someone steal it.
2009-07-03 21:05:43
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5996|College Park, MD

Narupug wrote:

Safest? really? Are you overlooking the whole chernobyl thing, what could happen I know the technology has advancd.  Plus what do you do with the Weapons Grade Plutonium? Can't dump it. Making more nukes is just asking to revamp the cold war have someone steal it.
Chernobyl was the result of shitty engineering + shitty management. Not only are nuclear plants better engineered, but the operators are better trained. As for disposing of the plutonium waste, we can just do whatever the French do.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-07-03 21:07:58
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5891|Vacationland

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Safest? really? Are you overlooking the whole chernobyl thing, what could happen I know the technology has advancd.  Plus what do you do with the Weapons Grade Plutonium? Can't dump it. Making more nukes is just asking to revamp the cold war have someone steal it.
Chernobyl was the result of shitty engineering + shitty management. Not only are nuclear plants better engineered, but the operators are better trained. As for disposing of the plutonium waste, we can just do whatever the French do.
Yeah ok whatever and what do we do if a terrorist takes control of a facility?  I'd like to know what the french do before I accept your argument that we do what they do.
2009-07-03 21:09:07
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6842|San Diego, CA, USA
https://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7474/250pxsanonofrenuclearpo.jpg
Besides off the coast of San Onofre Nuclear Plant here in San Diego County all the warm water discharge makes for a great fishing area.
2009-07-03 21:10:22
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6823|Global Command

Harmor wrote:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7474 … learpo.jpg
Besides off the coast of San Onofre Nuclear Plant here in San Diego County all the warm water discharge makes for a great fishing area.
It also looks like a giant set of tits from the freeway.
2009-07-03 21:14:16
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5996|College Park, MD

Narupug wrote:

Yeah ok whatever and what do we do if a terrorist takes control of a facility?
Uhm, just shut it down remotely? It's not like you can cause a nuclear explosion to occur with a nuclear reactor. And again, with the modern engineering put into nuclear reactors, it's damn near impossible to have a meltdown.

And don't even dare think of saying "WHAT IF THEY FLY A PLANE INTO IT?" because the walls that surround nuclear reactors have been tested to survive direct impact from a passenger plane.

Even my Environmental Science teacher who's a major hippie... card-carrying member of the Sierra Club, Chesapeake Bay restoration groups, etc supports the development of nuclear energy in the US.

Read this
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/al … ;langue=an

And here's some food for though: there's been one catastrophic event from nuclear power in all the decades it's been around. Basically, you have a higher chance of dying while driving your car than you do with a nuclear power plant in your area.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-07-03 21:17:08)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-07-03 21:25:07
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6842|San Diego, CA, USA

ATG wrote:

Harmor wrote:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7474 … learpo.jpg
Besides off the coast of San Onofre Nuclear Plant here in San Diego County all the warm water discharge makes for a great fishing area.
It also looks like a giant set of tits from the freeway.
Yep...that's California for ya.
2009-07-03 21:29:41
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6794|so randum

Narupug wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090702/full/news.2009.619.html

Cliff notes: Bush administration set up the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." One of the provisions was to build a large reprocessing facility. These types of facilities are very common in France. They allow spent fuel rods to be reused if I'm not mistaken. The main issue that people (well, if you consider idiots to be people) have is that it can produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct. Now to me that doesn't really matter... gives us more material for building nukes. But people think that terrorists will steal it or something. Nevermind that has never happened in France...

I like how Obama and his administration and his congress pushed this cap-and-trade thing as being a step forward for a greener America or whatever, and at the same time they're trying to kill off one of the cleanest and safest sources of energy that we can use. So much for 'change' and 'progress.'
Safest? really? Are you overlooking the whole chernobyl thing, what could happen I know the technology has advancd.  Plus what do you do with the Weapons Grade Plutonium? Can't dump it. Making more nukes is just asking to revamp the cold war have someone steal it.
Chernobyl was a shitty russian reactor, ran and mainted poorly, and the way the incedent was dealt with the appalling. Modern reactors (French especially) are far far safer than that.

Move in the wrong direction by this administration.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-07-03 21:39:13
imortal
Member
+240|6959|Austin, TX

Narupug wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Safest? really? Are you overlooking the whole chernobyl thing, what could happen I know the technology has advancd.  Plus what do you do with the Weapons Grade Plutonium? Can't dump it. Making more nukes is just asking to revamp the cold war have someone steal it.
Chernobyl was the result of shitty engineering + shitty management. Not only are nuclear plants better engineered, but the operators are better trained. As for disposing of the plutonium waste, we can just do whatever the French do.
Yeah ok whatever and what do we do if a terrorist takes control of a facility?  I'd like to know what the french do before I accept your argument that we do what they do.
Well, nuclear facilities here in the US are some of the best guarded facilities in the country.  Better then most military bases, in fact.
2009-07-03 21:51:17
13rin
Member
+977|6773
I'm really not surprised.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2009-07-03 22:01:20
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6762

ATG wrote:

Harmor wrote:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7474 … learpo.jpg
Besides off the coast of San Onofre Nuclear Plant here in San Diego County all the warm water discharge makes for a great fishing area.
It also looks like a giant set of tits from the freeway.
I live near a nuclear power plant, and it looks like two Death Stars off the freeway.
2009-07-03 23:44:40
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6969|Canberra, AUS
Me is not of the liking of this decision.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-07-04 01:18:50
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7122
Are we really suprised? Didn't think so.
2009-07-04 01:24:52
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6948

[insert facepalm picture here]
2009-07-04 01:29:28
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7060|UK
considering the old nuclear arms agreement with the Russians is nearly up and a new one needs to be agreed, some concessions will need to be made, having a plant that produces weapons grade plutonium isn't going to look good in Russian eyes. Im guessing that might have something to do with this decision.
2009-07-04 01:34:25
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6400|eXtreme to the maX
Seems like a strange decision.
Fuck Israel
2009-07-04 10:15:49
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6517|Escea

imortal wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:


Chernobyl was the result of shitty engineering + shitty management. Not only are nuclear plants better engineered, but the operators are better trained. As for disposing of the plutonium waste, we can just do whatever the French do.
Yeah ok whatever and what do we do if a terrorist takes control of a facility?  I'd like to know what the french do before I accept your argument that we do what they do.
Well, nuclear facilities here in the US are some of the best guarded facilities in the country.  Better then most military bases, in fact.
I'm not sure if it happens in the U.S or the UK. But in Russia I've heard they use special forces units to guard their nuclear plants.

In the grand scheme of things, the number of severe accidents that have occured at nuclear facilities against the number in the world is tiny. Like people already said, the Chernobyl accident was poor, rushed construction typical of Soviet engineering at the time, worsened by poorly trained men and safety systems.
2009-07-04 11:43:48
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6401|Birmingham, UK

Narupug wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090702/full/news.2009.619.html

Cliff notes: Bush administration set up the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." One of the provisions was to build a large reprocessing facility. These types of facilities are very common in France. They allow spent fuel rods to be reused if I'm not mistaken. The main issue that people (well, if you consider idiots to be people) have is that it can produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct. Now to me that doesn't really matter... gives us more material for building nukes. But people think that terrorists will steal it or something. Nevermind that has never happened in France...

I like how Obama and his administration and his congress pushed this cap-and-trade thing as being a step forward for a greener America or whatever, and at the same time they're trying to kill off one of the cleanest and safest sources of energy that we can use. So much for 'change' and 'progress.'
Safest? really? Are you overlooking the whole chernobyl thing, what could happen I know the technology has advancd.  Plus what do you do with the Weapons Grade Plutonium? Can't dump it. Making more nukes is just asking to revamp the cold war have someone steal it.
I doubt you even know how Chernobyl happened...
2009-07-04 11:47:17
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5891|Vacationland

M.O.A.B wrote:

imortal wrote:

Narupug wrote:


Yeah ok whatever and what do we do if a terrorist takes control of a facility?  I'd like to know what the french do before I accept your argument that we do what they do.
Well, nuclear facilities here in the US are some of the best guarded facilities in the country.  Better then most military bases, in fact.
I'm not sure if it happens in the U.S or the UK. But in Russia I've heard they use special forces units to guard their nuclear plants.

In the grand scheme of things, the number of severe accidents that have occured at nuclear facilities against the number in the world is tiny. Like people already said, the Chernobyl accident was poor, rushed construction typical of Soviet engineering at the time, worsened by poorly trained men and safety systems.
This might sound crazy but have you guys thought of the fact that maybe this was a foriegn affairs move, like if Iran isn't allowed to have a nuclear program then why should we be advancing ours?  Sounds hipocritical to me. 

Also what if someone working at the facility was able to place explosives in all the right places?
2009-07-04 11:47:20
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6842|San Diego, CA, USA
Chernobyl Disaster...we do now:

https://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8791/300pxchernobyldisaster.jpg

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
2009-07-04 12:15:45
Zukabazuka
Member
+23|6979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM

What happen if a jet fly in to a nuclear building.
2009-07-04 12:22:08
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6517|Escea

Narupug wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

imortal wrote:


Well, nuclear facilities here in the US are some of the best guarded facilities in the country.  Better then most military bases, in fact.
I'm not sure if it happens in the U.S or the UK. But in Russia I've heard they use special forces units to guard their nuclear plants.

In the grand scheme of things, the number of severe accidents that have occured at nuclear facilities against the number in the world is tiny. Like people already said, the Chernobyl accident was poor, rushed construction typical of Soviet engineering at the time, worsened by poorly trained men and safety systems.
This might sound crazy but have you guys thought of the fact that maybe this was a foriegn affairs move, like if Iran isn't allowed to have a nuclear program then why should we be advancing ours?  Sounds hipocritical to me. 

Also what if someone working at the facility was able to place explosives in all the right places?
The chances of someone managing to smuggle explosives into a nuclear facility are very slim and let's not forget how massive these plants are. They're designed to contain hazards as well as protect from the outside.
2009-07-04 12:36:13
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6842|San Diego, CA, USA
I'm more worried about computer hackers having access to our energy system.  A nuclear reactor now-a-days will melt into the ground before exploding like 3-mile Island or Chernobyl did...so I'm not worried about fallout.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard