If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(pbs.org)   Why do Americans fear nuclear power?   (pbs.org) divider line 591
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

26547 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2004 at 3:56 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



591 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-13 01:17:27 PM
Bootysama: "Who the fark says intermountain west? seriously?"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=intermountain+west

Um, how about every university and scientist and trade association and federal agency and everyone else who works in the region or on the region's issues? Seriously?
 
2004-12-13 01:18:42 PM
The_Original_Roxtar

amazing how much flack i'm taking for stating that nevada is a state that is in the MIDdle of our country latitude wise and also located in the WESTern half. Kind of like how Virginia is included by everyone on fark as being "Southern" instead of "Mid-Atlantic"

If you had said something closer, I think people would have looked the other way -- I wouldn't have said anything if you'd identified even a state like Colorado as Midwest (even though it's not), because a case can be made; at least it borders the region. No such case can be made for Nevada being in the Midwest. It's like saying Virginia is part of New England because it's one of the original 13 colonies. Does not compute, and people are going to be justified on calling you on it. :-)

And the "mid" in "Midwest" pertains to longitude, anyway.

//couldn't remember that boise was the capital of idaho a few days ago and it drove me nuts

I'm spoiled -- I've lived much of my life in states where the state capital was the biggest city (Georgia and Colorado).
 
2004-12-13 01:19:16 PM
Why fear nuclear power and/or nuclear waste?

Ever lived down-wind of the worlds largest nuclear waste site - Savannah River Site?

/Sincerely, All of South Carolina.

//don't really fear nuclear waste if safely stored, but think it oughta be stored in salt mines or deserts to avoid contaiminating the water supply aquifers from Augusta to Savannah/Hilton Head.
 
2004-12-13 01:20:35 PM
The European Union uses approximately 60% as much energy per unit of GDP produced compared to the USA. Similar numbers can be found around the industrial world. Americans are addicted to big, stinking automobiles, and that addiction alone will kill us economically in the next twenty years.

The future belongs to the efficient, and that ain't us.
 
2004-12-13 01:22:07 PM
Nuclear power is a good concept, if only they developed a more efficient way to harness the power of the reaction.

All nuclear power is right now is an oversized water heater. I would love to see research into how to harness the actual power released from the reaction. THEN we would see some major support for atomic energy.
 
2004-12-13 01:22:14 PM
I love nuclear power...I can't wait to have a car that runs on it.
 
2004-12-13 01:22:26 PM
Canyoneer: but no regular people do right? so why should he have known that? From what you said, I gather the only people who say that are scientists and government officials basically.
 
2004-12-13 01:22:34 PM
ChildMolestingPriest:

Does anyone know why we don't just mix the waste with dirt until it is same radioactivity as uranium ore and then stick it back in the mines where we got the uranium in the first place?



I guessing you slept thru Physics 101.
 
2004-12-13 01:24:09 PM
camelclub = Jerk who knows nothing about deserts.
 
2004-12-13 01:25:21 PM
Mrs Ho
haha. and light about 4 lightbulbs

And a lightbulb operates at what efficiency?
 
2004-12-13 01:27:05 PM
I'm sure this has been covered, but

:

1. The waste. What do we do with it? How do we dispose of it without poisoning the environment?

2. The possibility of a chain reaction or release of deadly radiation

Until the problems of these two items are solved with 100% certainty, forget it. You're not going to have any overwhelming public confidence in the concept.
 
2004-12-13 01:27:32 PM
NORamsey: If you had said something closer, I think people would have looked the other way

yeah, but now people are just using it in a childish attempt to discredit my argument. The fact remains that mid-western, intermountain, semi-non-eastward, rocky McSparselypopulated areas in states like Nevada, new mexico, arizona, texas, wyoming, and others (see earlier big empty spots on map) make more sense for hazardous waste storage / weapon testing than highly populated areas do
 
2004-12-13 01:28:26 PM
Bootysama: Yes, regular people, although they usually shorten it to "the West," meaning the West minus the West Coast. Um, newspaper and other media?

Sorry fella: "Intermountain West" is the definition of a physiographic and economic region that has been used for many years now. Just because someone is ignorant doesn't mean they're right.
 
2004-12-13 01:30:31 PM
canyoneer
Just because someone is ignorant doesn't mean they're right.

I'd say welcome to Fark, but I know you've been around a while...
 
2004-12-13 01:34:07 PM
I love nuclear power. I light my farts all the time!
 
2004-12-13 01:34:39 PM
Statistically speaking, nuclear power is safer than sex.
 
2004-12-13 01:35:40 PM
 
2004-12-13 01:37:03 PM
canyoneer
The future belongs to the efficient, and that ain't us.

May I be the first to welcome our new Scandinavian overlords.
 
2004-12-13 01:39:23 PM
 

Actually, fear of nuclear waste has actually been encouraged by Congressional appropriations...

Expert Judgement on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (pops)

"Sandia National Laboratories charged a panel of outside experts with the task to design a 10,000-year marking system for the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) site, and estimate the efficacy of the system against various types of intrusion."

Yep. Warning folks off our waste dumps for a period into the future longer than human history.

 

So that fear thing will be around for a long, long while. This PBS spin control is but for the fluffy moment.

 



 

 

 

PS /what if they nuke the oil?
 
2004-12-13 01:39:57 PM
CerealCode
Statistically speaking, nuclear power is safer than sex.
Statistically speaking, there's no readily definable comparison.
Living in the fallout zone is a permanent unavoidable state of risk, having unprotected sex is a temporary avoidable one.
 
2004-12-13 01:40:34 PM
FarkinNortherner: If things don't improve soon, just about anyone and everyone will be our new overlords:

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/Roubini-Setser-US-External-Imbalances.pdf

"The U.S. debt to export ratio is nearing that of troubled Latin economies like Brazil and Argentina."

Soon, Americans won't even be able to pay their power bills, much less argue about nuclear power.
 
2004-12-13 01:42:27 PM
FarkinNortherner:

Statistically speaking, there's no readily definable comparison.
Living in the fallout zone is a permanent unavoidable state of risk, having unprotected sex is a temporary avoidable one.


what he's saying is that more people have died as a direct result of having sex (HIV/AIDS) than have died as a direct result of the existance of nuclear power
 
2004-12-13 01:42:28 PM
I'm a Yurpean. We'll be just fine if the only remaining superpower crumbles into economic disaster.
/ostrich
 
2004-12-13 01:43:23 PM
Ya know, byte me Canyoneer.

You're a nimby. We folks in SC and the rest of the east coast live under the ooze of rusted storage tanks from SRS and open containment basins of atomic sludge.

We just sit around and wait for the huge above ground storage tanks to burst and flood the Savannah River and permanantly damage our fresh water aquifers which are just a few hundred feet below sea level.

Savannah River Site . What a lovely place.

Here's my proposal - every state that uses nuclear materal oughta keep their own waste and quit sending it for us to sit on for eternity. Share the burden.

My comment was not intented to be an insult to you, but took upon yourself to insult me. That kind of nimby attitude really makes me want to send all the sludge to your back yard.

I'll say it again - bite me.

/I'm going back to work before I glow in the dark.
 
2004-12-13 01:47:44 PM
OMG - Americans fear Nuclear WEAKNESS!
 
2004-12-13 01:47:57 PM
Yamara

Are you claiming 10,000 years is longer than human history?
 
2004-12-13 01:48:46 PM
camelclub: You are a very curious fella.

First, you said: "...don't really fear nuclear waste if safely stored, but think it oughta be stored in salt mines or deserts to avoid contaiminating the water supply aquifers from Augusta to Savannah/Hilton Head."

Then you said: "...every state that uses nuclear materal oughta keep their own waste and quit sending it for us to sit on for eternity."

Which is it?

BTW, it would cause less damage in South Carolina than in any desert.
 
2004-12-13 01:57:13 PM
You would think the need for aggressive conservation measures and lifestyle modifications would be obvious to everyone.

One would think that conservation would be more popular with conservatives, at very least. Go figure.
 
2004-12-13 01:57:16 PM
re: And a lightbulb operates at what efficiency?

irrelevant.
 
2004-12-13 01:58:32 PM
2004-12-13 12:50:28 PM canyoneer

Nevadans have overwhelmingly and consistently opposed the Yucca Mountain project for years. So who exactly is the NRC protecting in Nevada?

This is silly argumentation here. No matter where the waste is stored, youll run into problems with the people who live nearby (what are you calling nearby anyway?). The best solution from a national perspective is to put it where the least amount of people are. The NRC is protecting the whole of the USA by proposing storage sites in the least populous areas of the nation.
 
2004-12-13 01:58:50 PM
Mr_Fabulous: What conservatives? You mean the guys calling themselves conservatives who are presiding over this shiat?

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/Roubini-Setser-US-External-Imbalances.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59924-2004Dec12?language=printer
 
2004-12-13 01:59:54 PM
Are you claiming 10,000 years is longer than human history?

Are you claiming it's not? Or are you misunderstanding the definition of the word "history"?
 
2004-12-13 02:01:15 PM
HighGeere
Are you claiming 10,000 years is longer than human history?

It is a well documented fact that human history is 6,000 years old. Give or take.

/because energy flame wars aren't as fun as religious flame wars...
 
2004-12-13 02:02:08 PM
2004-12-13 12:45:53 PM Randki

I would have no problem with nuclear energy, if it didnt produce so much waste, and have so much danger if anyone made mistakes.

As shown in the past, some of the corporations who have owned these plants have crimminally gone out of there way to avoid issues. Things like hiding waste when the inspectors were there, dumping waste into the local streams, and then cleaning up the dead fish to hide it, washing contaminated vehicles in the local car wash, etc.

The Government isnt much better, in that they believe/believed (depends on whom you talk to), that short term problems are the real problem for people, but it is ok for these plants to cause cancer over a 20 year period.


You got any recent sources (post 1980) for any of these gross (and in your assertion, intentional) accusations?
 
2004-12-13 02:05:09 PM
PicoDelSol: You advocate mob rule, which is not how this country was set up. The USA is a representative republic, not a straight democracy. Strictly speaking, the federal government doesn't have the authority to overrule the state of Nevada on this. Find me a state where the majority approves, and move it there.

You also say "The best solution from a national perspective is to put it where the least amount of people are."

Why? I thought the best solution would be the best technical solution. What good is moving the crap to a remote area if the containment won't work? That is just stupid. It makes more sense to put in the best location no matter how many people live there.

Admit it: You are just addicted to the notion of sending shiat out West, aren't you? No matter what, that would be your solution, wouldn't it? Why don't you advocate dropping it in the ocean? NOBODY lives there.
 
2004-12-13 02:07:38 PM
Let's send all the nuclear waste to Washington D.C.!

/kill two birds with one stone
 
2004-12-13 02:08:25 PM
Fool_Marquis This Guy went on a tour on his motorcycle...

Uh, Elena (kidofspeed) is a chick and she is pretty hot as well.
 
2004-12-13 02:09:18 PM
Wasserspier

Let's send all the nuclear waste to Washington D.C.!

/kill two birds with one stone


Put it all in Israel instead. Then there'll be peace in the Middle East 'cos nobody will want to fight over the land.
 
2004-12-13 02:12:24 PM
Man, These forums are sounding more and more like 17 year old highschool banter...
 
2004-12-13 02:13:39 PM


Ummmm yeah.
 
2004-12-13 02:15:53 PM
Attention all those who think depleted Uranium has anything but a negligible and temporary effect on a persons health:

The World Health Organization thinks you're wrong.


Depleted Uranium Fact Sheet:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

WHO guidance on exposure to depleted Uranium (PDF):
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_SDE_OEH_01.12.pdf
 
2004-12-13 02:17:28 PM
2004-12-13 02:05:09 PM canyoneer

PicoDelSol: You advocate mob rule, which is not how this country was set up. The USA is a representative republic, not a straight democracy. Strictly speaking, the federal government doesn't have the authority to overrule the state of Nevada on this. Find me a state where the majority approves, and move it there.
I advocate the best possible risk analysis from every available angle. That is to say, if every safety layer fails, where would be the location best suited for the least impact on the population? The most I could be accused of is of being a dispassionate scientist type who doesn't care about 'the little people'.

You also say "The best solution from a national perspective is to put it where the least amount of people are."
Why? I thought the best solution would be the best technical solution. What good is moving the crap to a remote area if the containment won't work? That is just stupid. It makes more sense to put in the best location no matter how many people live there.

Who says the best technical solution has not also been evaluated (and/or is STILL being evaluated)? First you accuse me of faith in engineering expertise and then you accuse me of not appealing to the best technical solution? Which is it? I say build the most overall effective containment site from a technical aspect (to prevent accidents) and from a risk analysis aspect (in case the technical aspect fails). Both are necessary to ensure the best possible site for the storage of nuclear waste.

Admit it: You are just addicted to the notion of sending shiat out West, aren't you? No matter what, that would be your solution, wouldn't it? Why don't you advocate dropping it in the ocean? NOBODY lives there.
Now youre just being paranoid. Ive pretty much accepted the fact that Yucca wont be open until I retire, at the least. This will mean that Ive spent 30 years working right next to stored nuclear waste. This not in my backyard approach that youre branding us easterners with wont fly, because it is in my backyard at the moment, and for a temporary (temporary meaning past my lifetime) storage solution, I have no problem with it. Why dont you just admit that youve bought into the anti-nuke hype that pervades our society?
 
2004-12-13 02:17:41 PM
How about we just don't use a technology that will cause us a 10,000 year headache, no matter how much energy is produces?

Does that make any sense?
 
2004-12-13 02:18:28 PM
i think the real question here is: Why do neocons fear solar energy?
 
2004-12-13 02:21:50 PM
Doctor: Mayor West, you have Lymphoma.
Mayor: Oh My.
Doctor: Probably from rolling around in that Toxic waste. What in God's name were you trying to prove?
Mayor: I was trying to gain super powers.
Doctor: Well that's just silly.
Mayor: Silly yes ... Idiotic ... yes.!

 
2004-12-13 02:23:52 PM
Mrs Ho
re: And a lightbulb operates at what efficiency?

irrelevant.



I ask everyone(else), doesn't a single word just speak volumes?
 
2004-12-13 02:27:41 PM
Another shot of KiddofSpeed



She doesn't look too bad for someone who tooled around Chernobyl on a motorcycle.
 
2004-12-13 02:33:35 PM
Just do a google search, and look up Kerr-McGee, or Karensilkwood. It was the Kerr McGree plant that continually violated common sense, and when the goverment was asked about it they basically said that it was up to the Companies to regulate themselves.

However, there were QUITE a lot of reforms since then, but my point is that when a corporations main goal is to make profit, to what end will they go to, to make a profit. Sure, there are plenty of good corporations, but there are also Enrons, who arent so good.
 
2004-12-13 02:35:51 PM
Nuclear Power is cleaner and safer *if* you trust that the plants are properly regulated.

The truth is, there's such a strong anti-regulation streak among conservatives in this country that I would not stake my own life on it. If we lack a strong federal government to enforce the safety of the small towns these facilities are always next to, it just shouldn't happen.
 
2004-12-13 02:37:20 PM
Watch this show, or any pbs frontline show here on their website

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
 
Displayed 50 of 591 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report