Originally posted by no1marauderWhy you'd compare Chernobyl to a modern nuke station is unfathomable.
Ask the people around Chernobyl how "completely clean" nuclear power is. Plus the little detail about the massive amounts of nuclear waste.
The chances of getting the folks in Colorado to OK a bunch of nuclear power plants so Shell can drill shale oil is zero.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaChernobyl, with its four reactors put on line between 1977-83, is more modern than virtually all the nuclear plants in the US (the NRC hasn't issued a construction permit for a nuclear plant in 30 years).
Why you'd compare Chernobyl to a modern nuke station is unfathomable.
At any rate, the claim was that nuclear power is "completely clean". That assertion is ludicrous given that radiation from nuclear power plants can, and has, killed.
Originally posted by no1marauderLooks like we can kiss France's ass good bye.
Chernobyl, with its four reactors put on line between 1977-83, is more modern than virtually all the nuclear plants in the US (the NRC hasn't issued a construction permit for a nuclear plant in 30 years).
At any rate, the claim was that nuclear power is "completely clean". That assertion is ludicrous given that radiation from nuclear power plants can, and has, killed.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869The French nuclear giant Areva yesterday confirmed there was a radioactive leak from a broken pipe at a nuclear fuel plant in south-eastern France, a week after a uranium spill at another of its plants polluted the local water supply.
Looks like we can kiss France's ass good bye.
GRANNY.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france
Sound "completely clean" to you?
Originally posted by no1marauderLike i said, looks like we can kiss France's ass good bye.
The French nuclear giant Areva yesterday confirmed there was a radioactive leak from a broken pipe at a nuclear fuel plant in south-eastern France, [b]a week after a uranium spill at another of its plants polluted the local water supply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france
Sound "completely clean" to you?[/b]
GRANNY.
Originally posted by no1marauderCan you name any form of power generation that is "completely clean"?
Chernobyl, with its four reactors put on line between 1977-83, is more modern than virtually all the nuclear plants in the US (the NRC hasn't issued a construction permit for a nuclear plant in 30 years).
At any rate, the claim was that nuclear power is "completely clean". That assertion is ludicrous given that radiation from nuclear power plants can, and has, killed.
Are you now comparing Chernobyl to only nuke stations built between 77 and 83 in the US? You'd still lose.
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain, name any power generation that is "completely green", even if it's the engineer using a piece of toilet paper, you'd lose.
The French nuclear giant Areva yesterday confirmed there was a radioactive leak from a broken pipe at a nuclear fuel plant in south-eastern France, [b]a week after a uranium spill at another of its plants polluted the local water supply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/19/pollution.france
Sound "completely clean" to you?[/b]
As for the leak. How much? Your blood is radioactive, fer cries sake, just because you arrange the letters e r v a i d t i c o a in a particular order - does not equal hand wringing, nail chewing, eye rolling probs.
Originally posted by CliffLandinCliff
Can you give us an example of a modern nuclear power plant?
Nuke power stations cannot explode. What happened at Chernobyl was a melt down. So apart from a untold safetys to prevent that happening in the first place the modern reactor is also inside a containment building, thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete designed to contain a meltdown.
I hope No1 can explain the similarities between a modern nuke station and Chernobyl, besides they make the water hot, which turns the water to steam, which turns the turbines, which drives the generators. Surely he wouldn't be so shallow.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaGet yer facts straight. From wiki:
Cliff
Nuke power stations cannot explode. What happened at Chernobyl was a melt down. So apart from a untold safetys to prevent that happening in the first place the modern reactor is also inside a containment building, thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete designed to contain a meltdown.
I hope No1 can explain the similarities between a modern nu ...[text shortened]... team, which turns the turbines, which drives the generators. Surely he wouldn't be so shallow.
On 26 April 1986 at 1:23:45 a.m., reactor 4 suffered a massive, catastrophic power excursion, resulting in a steam explosion, which tore the top from the reactor, exposed the core and dispersed large amounts of radioactive particulate and gaseous debris, allowing air (oxygen) to contact the super-hot core containing 1,700 tonnes[7] of combustible graphite moderator. The burning graphite moderator increased the emission of radioactive particles. The radioactivity was not contained by any kind of containment vessel (unlike in Western plants, Soviet reactors often did not have them[8]) and radioactive particles were carried by wind across international borders. Although much of the nuclear fuel in the reactor core did ultimately melt, it should be noted that the disaster was not a "nuclear meltdown" in the usual sense; the fuel melting was not a significant contribution to the radiological consequences of the accident, and the accident was not caused by a loss of coolant.
Granted that Chernobyl's design wasn't has good as most Western plants, but there have been significant radiation leaks from more than a few Western plants including at least one near disaster (Three Mile Island). The risk from nuclear power isn't worth it when other technologies are available.
Another poster claimed nuclear power was "completely clean"; I was refuting that point of view. No power source is "completely clean" of course, but there's no chance of dying from radiation sickness or cancer caused by radiation leaks when you use solar, wind, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by no1marauderI stand corrected, although I will stand by my assertion that another 'Chernobyl' is not possible with a modern design.
Get yer facts straight. From wiki:
On 26 April 1986 at 1:23:45 a.m., reactor 4 suffered a massive, catastrophic power excursion, resulting in a steam [b]explosion, which tore the top from the reactor, exposed the core and dispersed large amounts of radioactive particulate and gaseous debris, allowing air (oxygen) to contact the super ...[text shortened]... sickness or cancer caused by radiation leaks when you use solar, wind, etc. etc. etc.[/b]
"Granted that Chernobyl's design wasn't as good as most Western plants,"
Is about as close as we're going to get as a retraction from No1, my work here is done.
Originally posted by no1marauder"...disaster was not a "nuclear meltdown" in the usual sense "
Get yer facts straight. From wiki:
On 26 April 1986 at 1:23:45 a.m., reactor 4 suffered a massive, catastrophic power excursion, resulting in a steam [b]explosion, which tore the top from the reactor, exposed the core and dispersed large amounts of radioactive particulate and gaseous debris, allowing air (oxygen) to contact the super ...[text shortened]... sickness or cancer caused by radiation leaks when you use solar, wind, etc. etc. etc.[/b]
interesting what some bolding can do.