• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Did you read my post?

Edit to address your post:
According to all the official reports, fire brought down WTC7. Everyone except 9/11 loonies know that. If a simple carbon fire can take out a steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, how safe would you really feel next to a Nuclear Reactor when it pops?
Click to expand...
About as unsafe as I would next to anything else that "popped", be it a gas station, dam, wind turbine or oven. Why?

I guess I have to believe your figures, because the Nuclear Power Industry wouldn't possibly put out bogus figures. I mean, they're just a bunch of nice guys with our interests at heart. Why would they lie?
Click to expand...
What does the "Nuclear Power Industry" have to do with those figures? Do you think the nuclear power plant industry is the only agency recording deaths around the world? Have you heard of news channels? Historians?

And even if they're true, they don't mean squat when another plant melts down.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, the safety record of reactor meltdowns, most famously Three Mile Island, is very reassuring.

And I'll be sure to remember that some random dude on JREF told me Nuclear Power is perfectly safe
Click to expand...
Who was this random dude? Can I have a link to his post? Why does his opinion weigh more for you than what the rest of us are saying?

when an Earthquake takes out the aptly named Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and spewing radiation heads my way.
Click to expand...
Hey, I tell you what, why don't you take a trip to Japan for the summer and let me know how the ongoing nuclear meltdown is going, up close and personal.
Click to expand...
From everything I have heard from credible, non-hysterical sources, it's going really well.

I'm sure you'll be perfectly safe even if Tokyo's water is radioactive.
Click to expand...
So is your body. Edit to add: Your link says:
traces of radiation were found in Tokyo's water and in water pouring from the reactors into the ocean.
Click to expand...
"Traces of radiation". Sounds lethal. Now I'm scared indeed.
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
Did you read my post?

Edit to address your post:
About as unsafe as I would next to anything else that "popped", be it a gas station, dam, wind turbine or oven. Why?

What does the "Nuclear Power Industry" have to do with those figures? Do you think the nuclear power plant industry is the only agency recording deaths around the world? Have you heard of news channels? Historians?

On the contrary, the safety record of reactor meltdowns, most famously Three Mile Island, is very reassuring.

Who was this random dude? Can I have a link to his post? Why does his opinion weigh more for you than what the rest of us are saying?

From everything I have heard from credible, non-hysterical sources, it's going really well.

So is your body. Edit to add: Your link says:
"Traces of radiation". Sounds lethal. Now I'm scared indeed.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you wasted your time dissecting my rant. :eye-poppi

If you feel cozy and secure, that's fine with me. :)


GB
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
According to all the official reports, fire brought down WTC7. Everyone except 9/11 loonies know that. If a simple carbon fire can take out a steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, how safe would you really feel next to a Nuclear Reactor when it pops?
Click to expand...

According to a member of the CANDU-6 design team that I spoke to, the models used in designing AECLs containment vessels are based on performance studies of German coastal at bunkers Normandy vs. 15 inch battleship shells.

Was WTC7 designed to withstand a battleship bombardment?



I guess I have to believe your figures, because the Nuclear Power Industry wouldn't possibly put out bogus figures.
Click to expand...

Argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

I mean, they're just a bunch of nice guys with our interests at heart. Why would they lie?
Click to expand...

Poisoning the well fallacy.

And even if they're true, they don't mean squat when another plant melts down.
Click to expand...

And just what caused the last plant to meltdown?

Oh... that`s right, it was a once -in-a-thousand-years earthquake that knocked the entire island of Japan four feet to the east.


And I'll be sure to remember that some random dude on JREF told me Nuclear Power is perfectly safe when an Earthquake takes out the aptly named Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and spewing radiation heads my way.
Click to expand...

What type of reactor is Diablo Canyon? Is it like the ones at Fukushima I that had all the difficulties or is it like the 52 other reactors in Japan that have not had problems? Does it have hydrogen recombiners like CANDUs have?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
According to a member of the CANDU-6 design team that I spoke to, the models used in designing AECLs containment vessels are based on performance studies of German coastal at bunkers Normandy vs. 15 inch battleship shells.

Was WTC7 designed to withstand a battleship bombardment?





Argument from personal incredulity fallacy.



Poisoning the well fallacy.



And just what caused the last plant to meltdown?

Oh... that`s right, it was a once -in-a-thousand-years earthquake that knocked the entire island of Japan four feet to the east.




What type of reactor is Diablo Canyon? Is it like the ones at Fukushima I that had all the difficulties or is it like the 52 other reactors in Japan that have not had problems? Does it have hydrogen recombiners like CANDUs have?
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel smarter to waste your time dissecting my anti-nuke rant, by all means go ahead. Lord knows I do it all the time to Christians on other threads. :)


GB
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
What type of reactor is Diablo Canyon? Is it like the ones at Fukushima I that had all the difficulties or is it like the 52 other reactors in Japan that have not had problems? Does it have hydrogen recombiners like CANDUs have?
Click to expand...

Something tells me the wizard will not be giving a relevant answer to these questions
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Given your poor performance here, I doubt that.
Click to expand...

My feelings are hurt now! :(

I didn't come here to give a good performance, or argue about details and statistics. I just came to heckle Nuclear Industry Apologists.

My Bad! :D

I'm sure you're right and all that; after all, you guys have all your evidence lined up like ducks in a row. I can't compete with that. I only brought my anti-nuke sentiments to the table. :cool:

I'll sleep much better tonight now that I don't have to worry about the fault line sitting directly below Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Thanks for that. :)


GB

PS: I was just wondering Swordy, is your username based on Goodkind's Sword of Truth series? I love that series (despite the poor writing and the overwrought Objectivism). Some great sex and violence though (made it all worthwhile).
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
My predetermined conclusions are based on a long looooong history of Energy Industry Lies. I really don't need to hear them again.

If you want to believe in those fairy tales, it's fine with me! :)
Click to expand...

Apparently I've been fooled into ignoring the thousand killed by nuclear energy in 19th century Germany.
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
Sorry Belz. :) We can't always agree on everything.
Click to expand...

Nonsense !

I just don't feel the need to read a bunch of Apologists for the Nuclear Power Industry.
Click to expand...

If you hand-wave other posters this way, you can rest assured you'll never have to agree with anyone on anything. But wouldn't you rather check out their arguments ?

Anything that has the potential to cause the kind of Radioactive Disasters that we have seen in Japan, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island should be abandoned.
Click to expand...

Anything that carries a risk, you mean ?

Fukushima is an excellent example of how well these reactors handle extreme scenarios. That power plant was built 10 years before stupid Chernobyl, suffered the worst disaster in the last millenium in Japan, and didn't kill a single person. How is that a disaster ?
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
If you say so! Just based on mainstream media reports, your arguments are full of crap! But I don't expect anything else from Nuclear Industry Apologists.
Click to expand...

If you're so worried about this side's arguments, you should be even more wary of the mainstream media. They are decidedly anti-nuclear.

But, please, feel free to tell me which technology is better.
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
Except for when they don't.

According to all the official reports, fire brought down WTC7. Everyone except 9/11 loonies know that. If a simple carbon fire can take out a steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, how safe would you really feel next to a Nuclear Reactor when it pops?
Click to expand...

Apparently we can add architecture to the list of subjects of which you are ignorant.

The WTC towers were NOT steel-reinforced concrete. They were steel with a thin coating of concrete. The concrete did not provide structural support, but only light fire protection, and it was blown off the steel when the planes hit.

And the WTC fell not simply because there was a fire. It fell because it experienced a disaster significantly larger than it was designed to withstand. That hardly argues against the ability of nuclear containment structures to withstand disasters that they are designed to withstand.
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
Except for when they don't.

According to all the official reports, fire brought down WTC7. Everyone except 9/11 loonies know that. If a simple carbon fire can take out a steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, how safe would you really feel next to a Nuclear Reactor when it pops?
Click to expand...

WTC1 and 2 had steel structures, not concrete.

If it makes you feel smarter to waste your time dissecting my anti-nuke rant, by all means go ahead.
Click to expand...

You mean you're participating in this thread and expecting NOT to be challenged on the falsehoods you type ?
 
Ziggurat said:
Apparently we can add architecture to the list of subjects of which you are ignorant.

The WTC towers were NOT steel-reinforced concrete. They were steel with a thin coating of concrete. The concrete did not provide structural support, but only light fire protection, and it was blown off the steel when the planes hit.

And the WTC fell not simply because there was a fire. It fell because it experienced a disaster significantly larger than it was designed to withstand. That hardly argues against the ability of nuclear containment structures to withstand disasters that they are designed to withstand.
Click to expand...

I was talking about WTC7, nothing hit that one.

GB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom