Pages: 1 2

 

2006-03-12 05:00:50
BVC
Member
+325|6915
In New Zealand, both nuclear weapons and power are illegal.  If you try to develop either, or bring either into the country you get locked up for a very long time and have to pay a fine of up to $NZ1 million (about $US/Euro 650,000) I believe.

These laws were passed in 1985, and caused the US to give NZ the middle finger with regards to the ANZUS treaty, a "three-way alliance" between Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

Polls of support for our nuclear laws are taken quite regularly, though theres never any real change; the most recent poll on stuff.co.nz showed around 40% in favour of dumping the laws, 55% opposed to the idea and the rest undecided.

As with a lot of countries these days, theres a bit of anti-american sentiment floating round here.  I feel its stronger here than in a lot of other western countries because of the nuclear falling out (sic) between NZ and the US.  I know that those in favour of a return to "nuclear-friendly" laws generally support the idea of power only (ie. weapons still illegal), and that their support for change isn't as passionate as the opposition to it.  A lot of those in favour of keeping the anti-nuclear laws (myself included) can't understand why the US can't just do as other countries have done, and simply send "non-nuclear" ships to visit, and they (again, myself included) regard the US's stance as arrogant and disrespectful.  And in light of recent events in the middle east, the US's policy on foreign nukes is coming into play; why does the US want us to accept all things nuclear when they don't want Iran having anything nuclear?

And its not like it hasn't had its benefits to us, theres no risk of a NZ Chernobyl, and when we changed the laws the USSR decided we weren't worth targetting with their nukes anymore... (see the Endnote here)

I want your thoughts.  All of you, but particularly American (since all I remember of american opinion is those "you god-damned commie pinko NZers" newspaper articles from the 80s)

Really, whats the damned problem?

edit: By US, I mean successive US governments.  Not the people, they're alright.

Last edited by Pubic (2006-03-12 05:05:13)

2006-03-12 10:06:59
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7057
so how does one country give another the Middle finger exactly ?
2006-03-12 11:42:21
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6914|San Francisco
I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
2006-03-12 15:54:03
imortal
Member
+240|6885|Austin, TX
There is a serious problem in the United States in regards to Nuclear Power.  The problem is the enviromentalists.

These are the people that want you to believe that global warming is directly caused by mankinds pollution of the earth, despite that there is no concrete evidence to prove it, and any evidence showing they were wrong was systematically suppressed for years.

They also hate Nuclear Power, since it causes NUCLEAR WASTE wich will be around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and can CONTAMINATE YOUR BODY! 

Emphasis added for sarcasm purposes.  There is also the problem that they are certain that any power plant that is built will have a meltdown and destroy life as we know it.

These are also the people that managed to get DDT outlawed, because there was a chance it may be responsible for thinning egg shells in a  kind of owl.  DDT had nearly eradicated malaria in Africa, and 6 million people have died of malaria since the US outlawed it.

Well, these people are really good at shouting a LOT, and being heard by the media.  They also have lobbys who give money to politicians.  If any politician starts making noises to try to go against the eviromentalists, he or she doesn't get re-elected.  Period.

The American public is incredibly stupid.  Taken individually, we are ok and decent people.  But you start gathering us into groups, and something seems to happen to turn brains off.  And I say this is true on all sides of an argument.
2006-03-12 16:57:16
anzus
Wheres the trigger?
+34|6864|Wangaratta, Australia
Woot! I got a mention. No seriously the Anzus treaty was a fantastic idea. but as usual those damn sheep farmers in new zealand dont like their wool glowing in the dark. Oh and you better throw out all your smoke detecters as they have radioactive material in them Hahaha
2006-03-12 21:40:01
BVC
Member
+325|6915
Some interesting, and quite...ah...varied replies...

Horseman 77 wrote:

so how does one country give another the Middle finger exactly ?
Its a metaphor.

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.
I'm against the idea of conventional nuclear power, but like the thought of fusion power that is currently being researched; it seems to have less risk associated with it.

imortal wrote:

There is a serious problem in the United States in regards to Nuclear Power.  The problem is the enviromentalists.

These are the people that want you to believe that global warming is directly caused by mankinds pollution of the earth, despite that there is no concrete evidence to prove it, and any evidence showing they were wrong was systematically suppressed for years.

They also hate Nuclear Power, since it causes NUCLEAR WASTE wich will be around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and can CONTAMINATE YOUR BODY! 

Emphasis added for sarcasm purposes.  There is also the problem that they are certain that any power plant that is built will have a meltdown and destroy life as we know it.

These are also the people that managed to get DDT outlawed, because there was a chance it may be responsible for thinning egg shells in a  kind of owl.  DDT had nearly eradicated malaria in Africa, and 6 million people have died of malaria since the US outlawed it.

Well, these people are really good at shouting a LOT, and being heard by the media.  They also have lobbys who give money to politicians.  If any politician starts making noises to try to go against the eviromentalists, he or she doesn't get re-elected.  Period.

The American public is incredibly stupid.  Taken individually, we are ok and decent people.  But you start gathering us into groups, and something seems to happen to turn brains off.  And I say this is true on all sides of an argument.
That may be the case, but I was after opinions on the ANZUS treaty, not DDT.  And there is a point to be made with nuclear waste.  It takes thousands of years to decay properly, it will cause a lot of of long-term damage if stored incorrectly, and in today's climate of terrorism, it presents a security risk; would-be terrorists would LOVE some viable nuclear waste...its good for the ol dirty bombs you know.  But thats beside the point.  What do you think of the ANZUS dispute I've previously talked about?  You know, the inconsistent foreign policy on nuclear matters that I've pointed out.

anzus wrote:

Woot! I got a mention. No seriously the Anzus treaty was a fantastic idea. but as usual those damn sheep farmers in new zealand dont like their wool glowing in the dark. Oh and you better throw out all your smoke detecters as they have radioactive material in them Hahaha
So the only reply I get that directly relates to ANZUS is from an Australian making sheep jokes about NZ?  Typical...If thats the game you want to play you might like to have a look at this and this before going any further.  They're both pictures of sheep statue.  The sheep is on its back, legs spread waiting for some hot sweet loving...and its in CANBERRA And the amount of Americium present in smoke detectors isn't exactly harmful, its the idea of nuclear power and weapons that we're opposed to.
2006-03-12 21:53:32
imortal
Member
+240|6885|Austin, TX

Pubic wrote:

That may be the case, but I was after opinions on the ANZUS treaty, not DDT.  And there is a point to be made with nuclear waste.  It takes thousands of years to decay properly, it will cause a lot of of long-term damage if stored incorrectly, and in today's climate of terrorism, it presents a security risk; would-be terrorists would LOVE some viable nuclear waste...its good for the ol dirty bombs you know.  But thats beside the point.  What do you think of the ANZUS dispute I've previously talked about?  You know, the inconsistent foreign policy on nuclear matters that I've pointed out.
True, but I simply pointed it as an example.  Actually, more radioactive material is released in the burning of coal than is generated in a Nuclear power plant, only it is released a bit at a time, spread over the country and the world.  Also, there were storage and disposal facilities in place until the enviromentalist movement decided the military shouldn't have anything to do with it.  Then, when the military was out of the picture, they claimed the disposal methods were inadaquate.  Of course terrorists want nuclear waste.  That is why I agree that it should be treated with very tight security and guarded by the military in a disposal sight.

I mentioned DDT to give an example of how a narrow idea of a few loud voices can have a major impact across the globe.

As for an inconsistant foreign policy, it is a part of how american politics is conducted.  It must seem to most of the world as if the American goverment is schizophrenic.  Well, it is, in ways.

Oh, a question about disposal:  The stuff was already radioactive when we took it out of the ground.  Well, the main stuff was, anyway.  So radiation will not HURT the ground.  The point should just be to find or dig a hole deep enough that it is beyond the distance we would need to worry about it.
2006-03-12 22:27:05
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6865
U.S. wants to attakc Iran because not because they are threat to the world but they are the threat ot Israel, which is one of the U.S. allies, if Iran did the same thing as Norht Korea declaring, rejecting the U.N inspections and declaring that they have a nuke bomb they would not be wanting to attack that country, since the Iran, gov never made such statements and U.S. spy planes detected nulear reactors in couple diff. places they assumed that Iran has a possibility to make a nuke in future....  If iran declared that they already had a nuke and that they were gonna use if they attack them then they would not think to attakc Iran.
2006-03-12 23:40:54
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6895|Canberra, AUS

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
Russia has a larger arsenal (of 2000). US had about 10 000, Russia had about 20 000.

---

I thought that studies suggested that a 'dirty' bomb did nothing more than a bang. The radioactive material would be diffused so widely into the atmosphere that it would quickly decay into a relatively harmless material.

---

I am for fusion power, as long as its cheap. I don't like nuclear power 'cos it costs a fair bit.

---

I must agree with imortal's depiction of the 'environmentalists'.

Last year in Canberra, a group called 'Save the Ridge' loudly opposed the construction of a road across a nature reserve. The HUGE majority (like (90%+) did not share their views. One letter summed it up nicely:

"If we discover a rare species of Amazonian bird in the freeway's path, then give them room. But if all it means that two birds and a roo will need to move hole, then give me my road!"

However, I could say the same for the:

Energy Industry. They will not risk having a profit loss of a tenth of a tenth of a percent to make sure that we actually have a planet to live on in a century.

Church Lobbyists. I'm sorry, but a few FUTURE babies is not a big sacrifice to save millions from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabeties etc. etc.

---

Iran is no threat to Israel. Its a little known fact that Israel has as many as a hundred nukes, (instead of A NUKE that Iran MIGHT get), and a decently advanced airforce. I would advise Mr. Iranian President of this fact before his country is obliterated to kingdom come.

---

Radiation of ANY type cannot get through three feet of concrete. Problem solved.

---

By the way, coal is far more dangerous to humans than nuclear power. How many people are dying from nuclear power plants?

On the other hand, 5000 people EVERY YEAR (for the past century or so) have died working in coal mines/coal power plants.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-03-13 07:57:42
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6978|MA, USA
The problem between NZ and US is that NZ interprets their law such that US Nuclear vessels, or vessels that MIGHT carry nuclear weapons (because the US will neither confirm or deny it) are denied access to NZ ports.  The US believes that they are not violating NZ law by docking such vessels in NZ, and therefore interpret the denial of access to NZ ports as an unfriendly act.

I tend to think that the US government has a legitimate point.  No nuclear fuel or weapon ever leaves US ships, except in the US.  It's not like the US is forcing NZ to use any sort of Nuclear power or weapon by docking there...this is clearly a public political statement by NZ of disapproval of US policy.  Did NZ honestly beleive this would have been received cheerfully?  It is extremely insulting to piss on someone and tell them it is raining. 

Having said that, I think the US would have been better served by trying to find some middle ground, or trying to negotiate some sort of settlement.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-13 07:58:56)

2006-03-13 08:02:02
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6997

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
When a country's leader publicly states he wants Israel to no longer exist and is striving for nuclear energy it is not a matter of bullying.  It's a matter of common sense.  Do the math.
2006-03-13 08:19:53
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6956|Salt Lake City

Nuclear power is a problem.  The waste is dangerous and can be a problem.  Part of the problem comes on where to store it.  Most nuclear power plants are in the eastern US.  However, they want to store the waste out here in the west (Utah & Nevada).  The problem is, from about Colorado west you have an area that is prone to earthquakes.  3 feet of concrete is shit when compared to what can happen under a good earthquake.
2006-03-13 08:27:02
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6978|MA, USA

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
When a country's leader publicly states he wants Israel to no longer exist and is striving for nuclear energy it is not a matter of bullying.  It's a matter of common sense.  Do the math.
Nobody has said that they don't want Iran to have nuclear power...several countries have said they don't want them to have the ability to enrich fuel, which would allow them to make fuel for a bomb.  Russia has offered to solve the problem by enriching their fuel for them, and they wouldn't even consider it.  Smells pretty fishy to me.  Combine that with what wannabe_tank_whore said, and the idea of them enriching fuel is pretty scary...even to Russia and China.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Nuclear power is a problem.  The waste is dangerous and can be a problem.  Part of the problem comes on where to store it.  Most nuclear power plants are in the eastern US.  However, they want to store the waste out here in the west (Utah & Nevada).  The problem is, from about Colorado west you have an area that is prone to earthquakes.  3 feet of concrete is shit when compared to what can happen under a good earthquake.
Nuclear power isn't really a problem.  Inflamed perception of it is a problem.  The fact is, that the Civilian Nuclear Power industry in this country has a better safety record than the bubble gum industry, and my understanding is that France shows it can be done better still.  Furthermore, the storage of Nuclear Waste only has one problem: Nobody wants it near them.  It's the old NIMBY problem.  Not in my backyard.

Here's some bad news for the anti-nuclear crowd:  With the price of oil through the roof, and nobody wanting to allow LNG terminals...anywhere (NIMBY again), nuclear power is getting set to come back in a big way.  Better get over it.

By the way, do you know where, by law, nuclear waste is stored until a site is approved for disposal?  On site.  At the nuclear plants, above ground, in containers.  That is MUCH better than deep underground at a site that has been geologically stable for millions of years, isn't it?

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-13 08:35:13)

2006-03-13 08:34:34
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6914|San Francisco
There are also increasing practices of nuclear waste recycling, where the rods are sent to another area to cool off but still output energy for use.  Plus, the amount of radiation that you'd be exposed to if you were walking outside a nuclear plant every day is much much less than what you are exposed to by sleeping next to your wife or significant other at night.
2006-03-13 09:05:27
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6956|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
When a country's leader publicly states he wants Israel to no longer exist and is striving for nuclear energy it is not a matter of bullying.  It's a matter of common sense.  Do the math.
Nobody has said that they don't want Iran to have nuclear power...several countries have said they don't want them to have the ability to enrich fuel, which would allow them to make fuel for a bomb.  Russia has offered to solve the problem by enriching their fuel for them, and they wouldn't even consider it.  Smells pretty fishy to me.  Combine that with what wannabe_tank_whore said, and the idea of them enriching fuel is pretty scary...even to Russia and China.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Nuclear power is a problem.  The waste is dangerous and can be a problem.  Part of the problem comes on where to store it.  Most nuclear power plants are in the eastern US.  However, they want to store the waste out here in the west (Utah & Nevada).  The problem is, from about Colorado west you have an area that is prone to earthquakes.  3 feet of concrete is shit when compared to what can happen under a good earthquake.
Nuclear power isn't really a problem.  Inflamed perception of it is a problem.  The fact is, that the Civilian Nuclear Power industry in this country has a better safety record than the bubble gum industry, and my understanding is that France shows it can be done better still.  Furthermore, the storage of Nuclear Waste only has one problem: Nobody wants it near them.  It's the old NIMBY problem.  Not in my backyard.

Here's some bad news for the anti-nuclear crowd:  With the price of oil through the roof, and nobody wanting to allow LNG terminals...anywhere (NIMBY again), nuclear power is getting set to come back in a big way.  Better get over it.

By the way, do you know where, by law, nuclear waste is stored until a site is approved for disposal?  On site.  At the nuclear plants, above ground, in containers.  That is MUCH better than deep underground at a site that has been geologically stable for millions of years, isn't it?
I hate to tell you this, but the area where they want to store it hasn't been stable for millions of years.  In fact, within the last 15-20K years (the last ice age) that area was under water (A.K.A. Lake Bonneville).  There is also substantial geologic evidence that earthquakes have happened, and will happen again.  It's not an if question, but a when question.  The Yucca mountain site also has a very large under ground aquifer that would be contaminated in there were ever a problem.  Because this area was once a lake, other than the few areas of topside granite bedrock, the ground is heavily sediment oriented.  A large earthquake in these mountain ranges would cause the ground to ripple between the ranges, like jello in a bowl.  Also, under extreme vibrations the sediment liquifies, and just like quicksand, shit starts sinking and becoming unstable.

Because Utah and Nevada are the two dryest states in the US, and the wind blows more than not, and we have weeks at a time without so much as a drop of rain (lots o' sun) across much of these desert areas, why not create windmill and solor panel farms?
2006-03-13 09:47:43
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6978|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I hate to tell you this, but the area where they want to store it hasn't been stable for millions of years.  In fact, within the last 15-20K years (the last ice age) that area was under water (A.K.A. Lake Bonneville).  There is also substantial geologic evidence that earthquakes have happened, and will happen again.  It's not an if question, but a when question.  The Yucca mountain site also has a very large under ground aquifer that would be contaminated in there were ever a problem.  Because this area was once a lake, other than the few areas of topside granite bedrock, the ground is heavily sediment oriented.  A large earthquake in these mountain ranges would cause the ground to ripple between the ranges, like jello in a bowl.  Also, under extreme vibrations the sediment liquifies, and just like quicksand, shit starts sinking and becoming unstable.

Because Utah and Nevada are the two dryest states in the US, and the wind blows more than not, and we have weeks at a time without so much as a drop of rain (lots o' sun) across much of these desert areas, why not create windmill and solor panel farms?
That isn't what my reading has led me to believe. Nevertheless, I know the anti-nuclear crowd has done everything they can to ensure that there will never be a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste.  Regardless, for every study or bit of evidence you can supply saying that something is wrong with the site, one can be found that says the opposite.  The bulk of the evidence points to the conclusion that it isn't a bad site.  It's not perfect, but it's not bad.  The simple fact is that for there to be a problem with Yucca Mtn, there would have to be catestrophic failures of containment AND catesrophic geological events at the site within the decay period.  This is EXTREMELY unlikely.  We aren't talking about eggs here, we are talking about a containment system designed to withstand dramatic extremes of environment, impact and time.

The standard anti-nuclear reply is that: the risk isn't worth it.  But if you really believed that you would never drive because the risk of being killed behind the wheel is greater by orders of magnitude than a catestrophic failure of containment at Yucca mountain.

The problem with solar and wind power is simple:  It costs too much and isn't reliable enough.  I have no problem supplementing peak power generation with solar or wind, but you simply can't generate enough power with them to base the US energy infrastructure on them.
2006-03-13 10:08:12
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6956|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I hate to tell you this, but the area where they want to store it hasn't been stable for millions of years.  In fact, within the last 15-20K years (the last ice age) that area was under water (A.K.A. Lake Bonneville).  There is also substantial geologic evidence that earthquakes have happened, and will happen again.  It's not an if question, but a when question.  The Yucca mountain site also has a very large under ground aquifer that would be contaminated in there were ever a problem.  Because this area was once a lake, other than the few areas of topside granite bedrock, the ground is heavily sediment oriented.  A large earthquake in these mountain ranges would cause the ground to ripple between the ranges, like jello in a bowl.  Also, under extreme vibrations the sediment liquifies, and just like quicksand, shit starts sinking and becoming unstable.

Because Utah and Nevada are the two dryest states in the US, and the wind blows more than not, and we have weeks at a time without so much as a drop of rain (lots o' sun) across much of these desert areas, why not create windmill and solor panel farms?
That isn't what my reading has led me to believe. Nevertheless, I know the anti-nuclear crowd has done everything they can to ensure that there will never be a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste.  Regardless, for every study or bit of evidence you can supply saying that something is wrong with the site, one can be found that says the opposite.  The bulk of the evidence points to the conclusion that it isn't a bad site.  It's not perfect, but it's not bad.  The simple fact is that for there to be a problem with Yucca Mtn, there would have to be catestrophic failures of containment AND catesrophic geological events at the site within the decay period.  This is EXTREMELY unlikely.  We aren't talking about eggs here, we are talking about a containment system designed to withstand dramatic extremes of environment, impact and time.

The standard anti-nuclear reply is that: the risk isn't worth it.  But if you really believed that you would never drive because the risk of being killed behind the wheel is greater by orders of magnitude than a catestrophic failure of containment at Yucca mountain.

The problem with solar and wind power is simple:  It costs too much and isn't reliable enough.  I have no problem supplementing peak power generation with solar or wind, but you simply can't generate enough power with them to base the US energy infrastructure on them.
The Yucca repository is not large enough.  The site was determined to be able to hold the waste based on the fact that no nuclear plants would have their operation extended beyond the originating life, and that no new plants would be built.  At this time several plants have already had their operation extended, and several new plants are in the works.  Yucca Mtn. will not be able to cover the storage needs for very long.

Geologically stable, I don't think so.

Where is Yucca Mtn.?

http://www.landercountynwop.com/Maps/map_site.gif

Recent earthquake activity.

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

The areas near these plants is far more geologically stable than out here in the west.  Why don't they find storage nearer to these plants, and avoid shipping these containers all the way across the country on rail cars and semi trucks, and burry them near the site where the waste is created?
2006-03-13 11:47:36
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6978|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

The Yucca repository is not large enough.  The site was determined to be able to hold the waste based on the fact that no nuclear plants would have their operation extended beyond the originating life, and that no new plants would be built.  At this time several plants have already had their operation extended, and several new plants are in the works.  Yucca Mtn. will not be able to cover the storage needs for very long.

Geologically stable, I don't think so.

Where is Yucca Mtn.?

http://www.landercountynwop.com/Maps/map_site.gif

Recent earthquake activity.

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

The areas near these plants is far more geologically stable than out here in the west.  Why don't they find storage nearer to these plants, and avoid shipping these containers all the way across the country on rail cars and semi trucks, and burry them near the site where the waste is created?
Where did you read that it isn't large enough?

It's Geologically stable enough.  That area rarely has anything larger than a 5, and that isn't anywhere near enough to be a concern.  Nope, Yucca Mtn. will do nicely.

The waste simply isn't going to be buried in the east...that's a political fact due to population density. You might as well get used to it.
2006-03-13 11:55:59
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6956|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

The Yucca repository is not large enough.  The site was determined to be able to hold the waste based on the fact that no nuclear plants would have their operation extended beyond the originating life, and that no new plants would be built.  At this time several plants have already had their operation extended, and several new plants are in the works.  Yucca Mtn. will not be able to cover the storage needs for very long.

Geologically stable, I don't think so.

Where is Yucca Mtn.?

http://www.landercountynwop.com/Maps/map_site.gif

Recent earthquake activity.

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

The areas near these plants is far more geologically stable than out here in the west.  Why don't they find storage nearer to these plants, and avoid shipping these containers all the way across the country on rail cars and semi trucks, and burry them near the site where the waste is created?
Where did you read that it isn't large enough?

It's Geologically stable enough.  That area rarely has anything larger than a 5, and that isn't anywhere near enough to be a concern.  Nope, Yucca Mtn. will do nicely.

The waste simply isn't going to be buried in the east...that's a political fact due to population density. You might as well get used to it.
Oh I see.  Well lets break this down.  You live on the east coast and get the benefit of the power generated by these plants, but have to withstand none of the issues of storing the waste you generate.  The excuse for not storing the waste in the east is population density, but if the storage of this waste is so safe, I know for a fact there are more than sufficient places with enough space to store the waste.  This is completely hypocritical.

You obviously have never lived out here in the west where earthquakes happen regularly.  Geologists have already said that we are due for a large earthquake.  No, they can't predict exactly when, but based on historical data and geological records, they can make some educated estimates.

So the bottom line here is that you are a proponent of nuclear power, so long as the waste doesn't have to be stored in your back yard.

So Yucca is stable?  We'll see.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2003/06_2 … story.html

Note, Yucca Mtn. is only about 150 miles north west of Las Vegas.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-03-13 12:40:25)

2006-03-13 12:11:28
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7057

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
When a country's leader publicly states he wants Israel to no longer exist and is striving for nuclear energy it is not a matter of bullying.  It's a matter of common sense.  Do the math.
Jesus,  Here we go with israel again wtf enuf already
2006-03-13 12:18:35
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|6985|Dallas

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
You should really move to France or Italy or something, I think you would be happier there.  Besides, aren't you like from Italian decent or something.
2006-03-13 12:56:02
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7057

Cougar wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
You should really move to France or Italy or something, I think you would be happier there.  Besides, aren't you like from Italian decent or something.
Why should he ? Its his country Too. He should stay here and try and change the government and leadership to something he feels he can trust. That's the way it was set up to run. It can be done. No one said it would be easy. But it will be an easier task then the ones Washington, Jefferson or even Rosa Parks faced.

It can be done.
2006-03-13 13:21:31
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|6997

Horseman 77 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Marconius wrote:

I am completely for Nuclear Power, and I am against a country blocking another country's drive towards nuclear energy based on distrust.  The US is the only country in history to have actually used nuclear bombs on the offensive, plus we have the largest warhead arsenal in the world.  The distrust of other countries comes from the Cold War era, plus currently in light of events in the Middle East and the growing worldwide anti-American sentiment.

It's bullying.  America is attempting to dictate who gets Nuclear power and who doesn't, as we feel that we are the great mediators of Nuclear energy since we bombed Japan. 

I strongly feel that all countries should at least have a positive drive towards Nuclear energy, as it is clean and ultimately more reliable than modern energy practices (apart from Dams, Solar, and Wind power).
When a country's leader publicly states he wants Israel to no longer exist and is striving for nuclear energy it is not a matter of bullying.  It's a matter of common sense.  Do the math.
Jesus,  Here we go with israel again wtf enuf already
Your announced hatred of Israel was made clear in your other posts.  Do not bring it in here.  k thanks.
2006-03-13 13:36:52
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6978|MA, USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Oh I see.  Well lets break this down.  You live on the east coast and get the benefit of the power generated by these plants, but have to withstand none of the issues of storing the waste you generate.  The excuse for not storing the waste in the east is population density, but if the storage of this waste is so safe, I know for a fact there are more than sufficient places with enough space to store the waste.  This is completely hypocritical.

You obviously have never lived out here in the west where earthquakes happen regularly.  Geologists have already said that we are due for a large earthquake.  No, they can't predict exactly when, but based on historical data and geological records, they can make some educated estimates.

So the bottom line here is that you are a proponent of nuclear power, so long as the waste doesn't have to be stored in your back yard.

So Yucca is stable?  We'll see.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2003/06_2 … story.html

Note, Yucca Mtn. is only about 150 miles north west of Las Vegas.
I support with Nuclear power, and have lived for a time in the Shadow of Seabrook nuclear power plant (though now I live about 30 miles away).  Not a problem.  I'd happily live near a designated storage facility like Yucca Mountain without worrying...in fact I lived near a much more dangerous storage facility, because currently the waste is stored on site in temporary conditions.  I'd say if anyone had cause for worry, I've had much more than you for decades.  I

Actually, I'd be more than happy to have the stuff locally on a permanent basis to shut people like you up, but the fact is, it isn't going to happen.  Why?  Because the people here are as dedicated to NIMBY as you are, and there are a lot more of them here.  So, guess what?  You lose.  Don't blame me, blame politics.

In any case, nobody seriously beleives that an earthquake of magnitude great enough to endanger containment is a remote possibility at Yucca mountain.  Given the evidence I have read, I agree.  You can post all the rantings of NIMBY locals you want, but I haven't seen anything to change my mind on the subject.  The anti-nuclear lobby has removed themselves from the debate by vociferously opposing ANYTHING having to do with nuclear power for decades.  Eventually it gets to be like the boy you cries wolf...people just stop listening.  I don't think they are going to prick their ears for this non-existent problem the locals are trying to whip up.
2006-03-13 14:05:56
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6956|Salt Lake City

whittsend wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Oh I see.  Well lets break this down.  You live on the east coast and get the benefit of the power generated by these plants, but have to withstand none of the issues of storing the waste you generate.  The excuse for not storing the waste in the east is population density, but if the storage of this waste is so safe, I know for a fact there are more than sufficient places with enough space to store the waste.  This is completely hypocritical.

You obviously have never lived out here in the west where earthquakes happen regularly.  Geologists have already said that we are due for a large earthquake.  No, they can't predict exactly when, but based on historical data and geological records, they can make some educated estimates.

So the bottom line here is that you are a proponent of nuclear power, so long as the waste doesn't have to be stored in your back yard.

So Yucca is stable?  We'll see.

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2003/06_2 … story.html

Note, Yucca Mtn. is only about 150 miles north west of Las Vegas.
I support with Nuclear power, and have lived for a time in the Shadow of Seabrook nuclear power plant (though now I live about 30 miles away).  Not a problem.  I'd happily live near a designated storage facility like Yucca Mountain without worrying...in fact I lived near a much more dangerous storage facility, because currently the waste is stored on site in temporary conditions.  I'd say if anyone had cause for worry, I've had much more than you for decades.  I

Actually, I'd be more than happy to have the stuff locally on a permanent basis to shut people like you up, but the fact is, it isn't going to happen.  Why?  Because the people here are as dedicated to NIMBY as you are, and there are a lot more of them here.  So, guess what?  You lose.  Don't blame me, blame politics.

In any case, nobody seriously beleives that an earthquake of magnitude great enough to endanger containment is a remote possibility at Yucca mountain.  Given the evidence I have read, I agree.  You can post all the rantings of NIMBY locals you want, but I haven't seen anything to change my mind on the subject.  The anti-nuclear lobby has removed themselves from the debate by vociferously opposing ANYTHING having to do with nuclear power for decades.  Eventually it gets to be like the boy you cries wolf...people just stop listening.  I don't think they are going to prick their ears for this non-existent problem the locals are trying to whip up.
You know, it's really fucking easy for people like you to say that you would gladly continue to support the storage of the waste because you know that ultimately you won't be the one that has to keep it, and if there is a problem down the road with containment, you're 2000 miles away.

So what that it's been stored onsite for a couple of decades.  These spent fuel rods will be lethal for 25,000 years, and will take 250,000 years to become inert.  Gambling on the fact that Yucca, or anywhere else for that matter, will remain completely stable for that period of time is one big gamble.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-03-13 14:17:38)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard