When the truth is inconvenient . . .

[NukeChik 1]

luluc,

I think its awesome that you use a windmill/solar for your farm usage, that rocks!! It just doesn't work when we promote it for national usage. I actually try to live as "green" as possible, I recycle, limit Water usage, wash most clothes in cold Water, etc.... But I do love my gas-guzzler of an SUV:tt2: (I know, I know).

Anyways, there are actually 2 nuclear plant sites in Texas, each is a 2 unit plant (meaning there are 2 reactors).

Comanche Peak- Glen Rose, TX

South Texas Project- Bay City, TX

As for the breast cancer issues you spoke of, I can't say. My best guess, if there was a problem because of it would be nucleotide releases in water. Nuclear plants are limited to the amount of liquid and gaseous material that they release to the atomosphere. I don't know what the regs were then, but now they are very conservative. A lot of plants (I don't have numbers) are zero emissions plants, they don't release any radioactive waste. Basically you're more likely to get sick from eating non-organic foods filled with pesticides and getting xrays at the doctor. Hope that wasn't too awful technical.

[snuffy65 1]

The original topic was centered around environmental issues, one of which was the hypocrisy of Gore (not translations of the Bible or abortion, which we have digressed into).

Um, how is story about Al Gore not being green, even remotely an issue with global warming? Looks like your trying to prove global warming is a sham by pointing out how un-green Al Gores house is. Just doesn't make sense.

Is he a hypocrite? Some people think so. I don't. But whether or not that is true has no bearing on the science behind the global warming debate.

We digressed to Bible or Abortion because that is about as off topic is this one. You pointed out hypocrisy of Al Gore so they pointed out the hypocrisy with the religious right on abortions, environment, death penalty, and wars.

All because of the abortion issue, the conservatives sucked all the religious people into their party. Now the poor right has to defend every aspect of conservatism even if it goes against their religion.

[snuffy65 1]

As for Nuclear plant ins US. I use to be for them. And I still am kinda. At least for the short term. However considering the cost to get one operated the lasting effects a nuclear plant may not be a good "short term" solution.

People against nuclear plants have a legitimate gripe. Nuclear power plants in the distant future will either have to evolve. Although nuclear plants are cleaner the fossil fuel plants the effects on the planet and the waste it creates have far longer effect. So again, down the road Nuclear power plant will become just as much of a problem, if not worse then what environmental problems we have today.

The only reason I would support nuclear power plants is IF they would replace our dependents on foreign oil.

[gadgetlady 4]

Um, how is story about Al Gore not being green, even remotely an issue with global warming? Looks like your trying to prove global warming is a sham by pointing out how un-green Al Gores house is.

They're two separate issues. Discussing Al Gore led to the discussion of global warming. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand and I don't really know why you're so hostile about it, but so be it.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, I do believe there should be more nuclear plants in the US. No, I cannot fathom that with the rules, specifications and regulations that are followed by US nuclear plants that Chernobyl could EVER be a reality (I can only give my opinion of US plants, for I do not know how foreign plants are regulated).

I think the sheer fact that you're working there would attest to your claim that they're safe.

[luluc 6]

luluc,

I think its awesome that you use a windmill/solar for your farm usage, that rocks!! It just doesn't work when we promote it for national usage. I actually try to live as "green" as possible, I recycle, limit Water usage, wash most clothes in cold water, etc.... But I do love my gas-guzzler of an SUV:tt2: (I know, I know).

Anyways, there are actually 2 nuclear plant sites in Texas, each is a 2 unit plant (meaning there are 2 reactors).

Comanche Peak- Glen Rose, TX

South Texas Project- Bay City, TX

As for the breast cancer issues you spoke of, I can't say. My best guess, if there was a problem because of it would be nucleotide releases in water. Nuclear plants are limited to the amount of liquid and gaseous material that they release to the atomosphere. I don't know what the regs were then, but now they are very conservative. A lot of plants (I don't have numbers) are zero emissions plants, they don't release any radioactive waste. Basically you're more likely to get sick from eating non-organic foods filled with pesticides and getting xrays at the doctor. Hope that wasn't too awful technical.

NukeChick - thanks for your response!

I was sure things did improve ... But also glad I don't live near the 2 above cities...:tongue: lol

I certainly don't pretend to know all the science behind things. I read Jack's comments about the PNW, with sadness. Again, I find it frustrating the dual tongued politicians on this issue of "going green".

I also understand your love of the SUV :redface:. On the afternoon I was arguing w/the local propane company about the tanks I wanted; the owner pointed out my Hummer and told me to get a grip on trying to be environmentally friendly. He was right, but I'm on an all terrain ranch, and well - all other trucks didn't cut it ... Oh well, he was right to a degree.

[snuffy65 1]

They're two separate issues.

So we can only change topics when it suits you or helps your case?

Discussing Al Gore led to the discussion of global warming. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand and I don't really know why you're so hostile about it, but so be it.

Because that Al Gore discussion was misleading and has nothing to do with anything.

You posting that proves that your no better then the talking heads on tv and radio that don't want to talk about issues but rather spew slanted garbage.

[luluc 6]

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the original topic! We also do our best with a solar pool heater and now solar heat for our house (our goal wasn't to "save the planet" but rather to "save our pocketbooks" from rising energy costs :redface:). I would love to have fresh veggies but our yard isn't big enough. We do have some fruit trees, but they don't accomplish much.

I will send you a care pckg from TX - baby cucumbers/jalapenos/straberries:::tongue:))...Don't have olive branches:)LOL

[gadgetlady 4]

Because that Al Gore discussion was misleading and has nothing to do with anything.

I disagree. I think how he behaves personally has a lot to do with his public positions. Look, if I go around the world proclaiming one thing publicly, but do another thing privately, that has a bearing on how much I truly believe what I am proclaiming publicly. You can say it doesn't matter, but I believe it does.

[NukeChik 1]

As for Nuclear plant ins US. I use to be for them. And I still am kinda. At least for the short term. However considering the cost to get one operated the lasting effects a nuclear plant may not be a good "short term" solution.

People against nuclear plants have a legitimate gripe. Nuclear power plants in the distant future will either have to evolve. Although nuclear plants are cleaner the fossil fuel plants the effects on the planet and the waste it creates have far longer effect. So again, down the road Nuclear power plant will become just as much of a problem, if not worse then what environmental problems we have today.

The only reason I would support nuclear power plants is IF they would replace our dependents on foreign oil.

Nuclear plants are a "short term" solution, they are actually THE solution.

What is boils down to with a fossil plant is power output and capacity. 1 nuclear reactor puts out the equivalent of 4 fossil plants in terms of megawatts produced. Every year power demand goes up and the supply has remained basically the same. Somethings gotta give, unless of course you want to have scheduled blocks of time a day when you get to have power. I guess we could ration it so we don't pollute anymore, I'm sure we could get the american people to buy into that (I type that in a joking, yet thought provoking tone, not a combative smart a@@ one, BTW).

What do you think nuclear plants need to do to evolve? We've done about all that we can do in that area. When nuclear plants were originally constructed the DOE (Dept of Energy) had the promises of a place for nuclear plants to store their fuel, you've possibly heard of it Yucca Mountain. Well that has gone to He^^ in a handbasket so to speak and nuclear plants have evolved to containing their surplus spent fuel onsite. Its quite a feat actually. Nuclear plants continually strive to be safer and to instill public's confidence.

[snuffy65 1]

What do you think nuclear plants need to do to evolve? We've done about all that we can do in that area. When nuclear plants were originally constructed the DOE (Dept of Energy) had the promises of a place for nuclear plants to store their fuel, you've possibly heard of it Yucca Mountain. Well that has gone to He^^ in a handbasket so to speak and nuclear plants have evolved to containing their surplus spent fuel onsite. Its quite a feat actually. Nuclear plants continually strive to be safer and to instill public's confidence.

Waste! There is waste from nulcear plants. Here's some fact about nuclear waste:

Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.

A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.

The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.

The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.

Sorry I don't have my computer with me so I had to quote these from a greeny site, but they are legit numbers. The problem is getting rid of the waste that lasts 100,000 to 500,000 years. The more plants we put in the more we will have to think of places to put it. Which will eventually lead us to dump the waste outside our borders, which would in turn making us dependent on other countries for our energy needs.

Thats the reason I said short term. If we can knock the waste down, we will again have to find another alternative.

I also understand this information is a bit dated and if you couldenlighten me as to how much the plants now account for in waste. I do know there is still some.

Edited April 11, 2008 by snuffy65

[NukeChik 1]

re: "Nuclear Plants"....

I have close relative who is a Hanford Downwinder.....for those who haven't heard the term, the FOI Act uncovered an astonishing number of Thyroid Cancers in the those who grew up literally 'downwind' from the Hanford Nuclear Plant in central Washington.

Her whole generation was subjected to "supposedly safe" levels of radioactive gases in the late 1940's over the next 15 years. It was in the milk and the air and other places, depending on how demanding your credibility level is.

Like a large group from this region (google the term if you wish) she recently had a tumor surgical removed.

As long as we leave the lights on all the car lots all night and insist on watering all the golf courses in the desert all summer and try to air condition a large part of the continental US, we will have serious energy problems.

Jack,

I truly am sorry that your family was exposed to Hanford, let me say that first. Hanford was basically a dept of defense site. DOD sites do not follow the same rules or any rules for that manner that a power producing nuclear site does. Basically they can do what they want because they say that it is for the greater good, its actually a totally separate operating space. Unfortunately the operating nuclear power plants of today are plagued by DOD sites and the Chernobyl's and TMI's.

[NukeChik 1]

Waste! There is waste from nulcear plants. Here's some fact about nuclear waste:

Sorry I don't have my computer with me so I had to quote these from a greeny site, but they are legit numbers. The problem is getting rid of the waste that lasts 100,000 to 500,000 years. The more plants we put in the more we will have to think of places to put it. Which will eventually lead us to dump the waste outside our borders, which would in turn making us dependent on other countries for our energy needs.

Thats the reason I said short term. If we can knock the waste down, we will again have to find another alternative.

I also understand this information is a bit dated and if you couldenlighten me as to how much the plants now account for in waste. I do know there is still some.

Yes, Nuclear plants cause waste I guess I would see the difference as we responsibly handle our OWN waste. We store our spent fuel rods in a safe manner.

Everything we do as humans produces waste, this is a fact of life. Take with the give. I personally worry more about hormones in my Water, but I'm a freak :sad_smile:.

I truly, truly wish that everyone could be more responsible with energy usage, recycling, etc... I wish we didn't need any more nuclear plants, but I see it as the only solution to the looming energy crisis. Its economical, the waste that is produced is safely contained.

I live 4 miles from the plant that I work at. I can actually see the cooling towers from my driveway in the winter (when the leaves are down). I know everyone that operates the reactor. I especially know the level of knowledge and mental acuity that is required to operate a plant. The training is extensive both initially and continuing. I have no problems sleeping at night, or drinking my tap water, or breathing the fresh air!

[BJean 16]

Fossil fuels produce waste. Nuclear plants produce waste. What's the answer? Build power plants on the moon and import it. Then when that proves to not take care of business, mine the moon for stuff we can burn to produce energy. Or, let's all move to Al Gore's place. He has room and burns enough energy to warm all of us and incubate our eggs.

I must say that this has been a great discussion. I don't mean to make light - oh yes, I guess I do.

P.S. DH and I both drive whopping SUVs. We'll trade them in on tiny little fuel efficient autos when you take all the semi-tractor trailer rigs off the road. Until then, we need some manner of protection when they try to run us over.

[snuffy65 1]

Yes, Nuclear plants cause waste I guess I would see the difference as we responsibly handle our OWN waste. We store our spent fuel rods in a safe manner.

Everything we do as humans produces waste, this is a fact of life. Take with the give. I personally worry more about hormones in my Water, but I'm a freak .

I truly, truly wish that everyone could be more responsible with energy usage, recycling, etc... I wish we didn't need any more nuclear plants, but I see it as the only solution to the looming energy crisis. Its economical, the waste that is produced is safely contained.

I live 4 miles from the plant that I work at. I can actually see the cooling towers from my driveway in the winter (when the leaves are down). I know everyone that operates the reactor. I especially know the level of knowledge and mental acuity that is required to operate a plant. The training is extensive both initially and continuing. I have no problems sleeping at night, or drinking my tap water, or breathing the fresh air!

Glad to hear they are better with waste now but I have another problem with them if you don't mind me asking.

The stuff that is produced and "recycled" to help curb waste does in fact make radioactive material that could be put in weapons correct?

Now, this is fine if WE have regualtions here. But contrary to what alot of americans believe their are other people in the world and could we trust them to be just as sincere with their waste.

Doesn't matter how green america is if the rest of the world is still polluting.

Edited April 11, 2008 by snuffy65