• 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?

Belz... said:
WTC1 and 2 had steel structures, not concrete.
Click to expand...

I was talking about WTC7, nothing hit that one (it's in my post).


You mean you're participating in this thread and expecting NOT to be challenged on the falsehoods you type ?
Click to expand...

No! I just have nothing to back them up with. Which is why I confessed above that all I brought nothing to the table.

I really wish people would take me at my word when I openly confess that [1] I was wrong (or) [2] I can't provide evidence to back up my opinions. I'm a Big Boy, I don't have trouble admitting when I can't back up my assertions.


This is not my area of expertise, which I think is glaringly obvious by now. I still don't think Nuclear Power Plants are safe when they are built in seismically active areas. But that's just an opinion, opinions are not evidence.

I still don't believe everything Energy Companies tell me, and I think after the BP / Halliburton disaster that I am right to at least question the veracity of their claims.

That's it, I got nuthin.' :)

I bet you wish everyone on this forum would cop to it when that they have no evidence to bring to the table (I know I do). It's a rare thing here indeed. I expect to be treated as a Pariah by Ziggy, after I openly confess I got nuthin.'

But I'm a little surprised that you would Belz.


GB
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
I was talking about WTC7, nothing hit that one (it's in my post).
Click to expand...

WTC7 wasn't steel reinforced concrete either. It had a very similar steel tube-in-tube design to the Twin Towers, which was intended to maximise the ratio of rentable office space to structural weight and hence building expense. The NIST report found that the cause of its collapse was differential expansion of different elements of the steel framing, and recommended a reinforced concrete core in any future structures of this type precisely because reinforced concrete isn't subject to this sort of failure mode. As a benchmark for the containment vessel of a nuclear reactor, it's a very, very poor comparison.

Dave
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
No! I just have nothing to back them up with. Which is why I confessed above that all I brought nothing to the table.

I really wish people would take me at my word when I openly confess that [1] I was wrong (or) [2] I can't provide evidence to back up my opinions. I'm a Big Boy, I don't have trouble admitting when I can't back up my assertions.
Click to expand...

If you have no evidence for your opinions, why don't you change them to opinions for which you do have evidence?
 
Ziggurat said:
Apparently I've been fooled into ignoring the thousand killed by nuclear energy in 19th century Germany.
Click to expand...

Apparently I was fooled when I expected people at JREF to actually say "fair enough" when I openly admit in a post 2 and a half hours that I have nuthin.'


GB
 
Cleon said:
If you have no evidence for your opinions, why don't you change them to opinions for which you do have evidence?
Click to expand...

I will when I have actually looked at your evidence, and I feel qualified enough to actually be convinced by it. This is not my area of expertise.

But it won't change my feeling unsafe sitting in the path of a Reactor sitting on top of a fault line in a seismically active area. And frankly, I don't think anyone can fault me for that.

GB
 
Skwinty said:
Are you referring to this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCoFLby5x8Y

If not, link please:)
Click to expand...

No, they don't usually store fuel rods in F4 Phantoms. :rolleyes:

This one:

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Modern cars and trucks are designed with "crumple zones". They are designed to sacrifice their own structure in order to protect the passengers inside. Nuclear transport casks are designed the opposite way, they are built to kill and destroy everyone and everything around them before the transport cask itself suffers so much as a scratch.



If you still feel that transporting nuclear fuel is dangerous, then we can easily deal with that by planning trucking routes away from rocket powered train crossings.
Click to expand...
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
No! I just have nothing to back them up with. Which is why I confessed above that all I brought nothing to the table.

I really wish people would take me at my word when I openly confess that [1] I was wrong (or) [2] I can't provide evidence to back up my opinions. I'm a Big Boy, I don't have trouble admitting when I can't back up my assertions.
Click to expand...

Your heavy use of sarcasm makes it difficult to tell when your are honestly admitting error or lack of knowledge.

I respect that you have admitted this, however.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Your heavy use of sarcasm makes it difficult to tell when your are honestly admitting error or lack of knowledge.

I respect that you have admitted this, however.
Click to expand...

Thank You :)


ETA: RE: Sarcasm: Force of habit. It's a great habit to have when one has evidence to back up one's views; not so much when one Doesn't.




GB
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but the comparison to WTC7 is laughable. You might as well say that the very existence of such a skyscraper is doubtful because your wood constructed house could never go up fifty floors. It's not like different design specifications with different materials makes a difference.
 
Gandalfs Beard said:
I still don't believe everything Energy Companies tell me, and I think after the BP / Halliburton disaster that I am right to at least question the veracity of their claims.

GB
Click to expand...

It's okay to question claims but only if there is actually evidence to the contrary. Anything else is just blindly disbelieving and that is no better than blindly believing.
 
Travis said:
I'm sorry but the comparison to WTC7 is laughable. You might as well say that the very existence of such a skyscraper is doubtful because your wood constructed house could never go up fifty floors. It's not like different design specifications with different materials makes a difference.
Click to expand...

It's probably not the best comparison but does exemplify the "It can't possibly happen" scenario. The fact that it was also part of a terrorist attack makes it that much more poignant.
The benefits of nuclear still outweigh the risks IMO.
 
3bodyproblem said:
It's probably not the best comparison but does exemplify the "It can't possibly happen" scenario.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, did anyone ever actually claim that the WTC buildings couldn't possibly fall down as the result of someone crashing a plane into them? They weren't designed to withstand that and I doubt that anyone who actually knew much about them would ever have made such a claim.

On the other hand, modern nuclear reactors are built specifically to be able to withstand things like plane crashes. They are tested by actually flying jets into them at high speed, hitting them with rocket powered trains, and various other similarly extreme tests. They're certainly not invulnerable, but we can be pretty confident that things that might destroy an office building are mostly not a big risk to nuclear reactors. Just because WTC7 contained concrete and collapsed does not in any way imply that all nuclear reactors are unsafe just because they also contain concrete, which is what the original assertion seemed to be implying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom