Article

2006-06-15 Down Under

Reactor accident 'handled properly'. Really.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anon1 2006-06-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Same debate in Ontario, Canada:
Ontario will build new, refurbish old, nuclear plants

And no, the Pickering plant next to Toronto isn't immune to incidents either. I recall something being released into Lake Ontario not too long ago. It was harmless, they claim.

Truth be told, Ontario needs power (we were importing for a day, two weeks ago), and nuke is probably the most rational way to go.

Posted by Rafael 2006-06-15 00:17|| 2006-06-15 00:17|| Front Page Top

#2 The real problem isn't the reactor plants or the reactor waste. The real problem is the uranium mine waste. The only real energy solutions are (1) use less through increased efficiency and (2) invent new technologies.

Posted by Unavitch Unaviper3310 2006-06-15 00:25|| 2006-06-15 00:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Radiation causes cancer - even that from the sun - and the effects are cumulative.

You are quite right. In addition, pretty much everything in the entire world is radioactive to some degree. Even people are radioactive from the Pottasium40 in their body.

The reality is releases like this increase radioactivity for the general population by an infintessimally small amount. Statistically the odds it will result in the death of an average Australian like me are on a par with getting hit by a meteor twice in the same day.

The reality is that nuclear power is thousands of times safer than any other conventional energy source.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-15 01:46|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-15 01:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Two words - pebbel beds

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-06-15 03:30|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2006-06-15 03:30|| Front Page Top

#5 And how many people in the nuclear industry have died in the last year from accidents? How many in the coal industry?

There is no perfect. There are reasonable trade offs which are unfortunately undermined by infantile hysteria.

Posted by Flons Croque2804 2006-06-15 07:57|| 2006-06-15 07:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Hey, the pic is blinky, the 3-eyes fish mutated by radiations from the Simpsons... only it has evolved into an human female! That's even weirder! How did it/she do that?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-06-15 08:33|| 2006-06-15 08:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Just a little info for the anti-nuclear power activists: population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year
IIRC, most of the nuclear fuel cycle radiation release is from open air mine tailings, which can be buried.

Posted by ed 2006-06-15 08:38|| 2006-06-15 08:38|| Front Page Top

#8 Is Fred illustrating the reverse transvestite tuck?

Posted by ed 2006-06-15 08:41|| 2006-06-15 08:41|| Front Page Top

Posted by DMFD 2006-06-15 21:50|| 2006-06-15 21:50|| Front Page Top

23:37 grb
23:37 2b
23:35 2b
23:29 2b
23:27 trailing wife
22:58 Angolung Thoter3849
22:46 Alaska Paul
22:31 mhw
22:11 crosspatch
22:09 Captain America
22:05 DarthVader
22:02 trailing wife
21:58 Zenster
21:57 Frank G
21:54 Frank G
21:51 Frank G
21:50 DMFD
21:49 AzCat
21:47 DMFD
21:46 Zenster
21:44 Frank G
21:40 Frank G
21:40 DMFD
21:39 Rob Reiner