Endorsement of US Nuke Plants = equal opportunity spirit killer: Duck&Cover Kids and Youth of Today

[omega minimo]

who already feel (generally, generationally) ripped off, betrayed, sold out, as expressed on DU. Duck&Cover Kids have been through it before and as expressed on DU, many didn't believe they survive to old age.

With things about as bad as they could get for American citizens, now, who thought it would be a good idea to reintroduce the depressing and frightening prospect of national Nuclear Power?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. memories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

[Donnachaidh]

2. what is stunning is the virulence of the nuke cheerleaders on this board.

:wow:

[Occulus]

3. No, what's stunning is the fact that those opposed seem to know jack about it n/t

[Donnachaidh]

5. shrill much?

My family worked in the nuclear field.

:eyes:

[wtmusic]

6. What did they do? nt

[Donnachaidh]

8. worked in radiation control.

Saw first hand the fuckups and near fuckups happening daily in the power plants. Many times had to supervise the clean up and repairs.

[Tikki]

9. So did ours....

and we know the sad realities of nuke in your backyard.



The Tikkis

[farmout rightarm]

14. Even though it was frying their bones?

uh huh

[farmout rightarm]

13. Here's a useful article in mostly layman's terms

It seems very fair and reasonable to me but of course some people will call anything remotely favorable of nuclear power as propaganda...anyway...


http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/wast.htm

[omega minimo]

21. That's true. We still need to know what you're going to do with your legacy of toxic waste

:popcorn:

[Moochy]

103. Pro Nuke Cheerleaders tend to have other suprising views

[wtmusic]

4. Reintroduce?

There's a very good chance your computer is right now powered by a nuclear reactor.

I'm a "duck&cover" kid and I refuse to accept the notion that more nuclear power = more nuclear weapons.

[Donnachaidh]

7. it certainly means more nuclear waste.

And how is the US batting record on dealing with THAT little problem?

[wtmusic]

10. Pretty dismal.

Although Yucca Mountain would have been a near-ideal site for a temporary repository, it was killed by politics. Obama needed Harry Reid.

As it stands now, waste is stored in 120+ separate locations around the country, none of them as safe as Yucca.

[retread]

15. For that matter, the French record?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html

[omega minimo]

56. + 1.000.000 half lives

[omega minimo]

20. No chance at all. We The People closed the one in our region. We have solar, wind, water...

[wtmusic]

26. What region is that?

If you're connected to the grid (and you are, if you get your power from a utility) there is nuclear in the mix. It may be coming from another state.

[omega minimo]

51. Of course there's nuclear in the NATIONAL mix. Let's not split hairs.

[cali]

30. bulllshit. the way you just make shit up is pathological.

[Statistical]

32. Delete. Wrong spot.

[inna]

34. what's pathological is the way you jump at people's throats.

:thumbsdown:

[cali]

36. I think your obsession with me is just darling.

[inna]

37. oh, jeez. delusional, too?

:puke:

[omega minimo]

53. no doubt

[omega minimo]

52. Ignore is your friend.

Detractors who persist in their impotence are pathetic.

[Statistical]

35. What region I am curious?

Very few regions of the United States get 0.00% of electrical power from nuclear.

[omega minimo]

54. That rather large area on the left side

[Statistical]

89. Most states in the "left" area buy wholesale power from AZ . . .

which produces it by nuclear energy.

AZ is a massive net exporter of energy.

See lots of people like cheap nuclear power they just want to get it from another state.

That also applies to countries. Germany is very anti-nuclear and is considering shutting down its reactors (and hasn't built one for 40 years). However Germany is an importer of electricity from France who generates it by nuclear power.

[omega minimo]

108. Well good luck trying to find someone to walk into your generic argument.

[tabasco]

113. Hahahahahahaha!

As opposed to your totally bald unsupported assertions.

[Jamastiene]

88. Hydroelectric - Richmond County, NC

According to this map:
http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutenergy/coverage/map.asp

http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutenergy/coverage/index.asp

More info about where I get my power:
http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutenergy/powerplants/2008generatingplants.pdf

Page 26 Blewett Falls

[Quantess]

64. You mean Hanford?

[theoldman]

11. I believe that France has a lot of nuclear plants.

If they can be operated safely in France they can be operated safely in the US. Perhaps the French know how and where to build them. Just food for thought.

[farmout rightarm]

12. That the French use them is plenty reason for some people to hate 'em.

shrug

[court jester]

17. In 2000, the German government...officially announced its intention to phase out nuclear power

Maybe because they are a world leader in Solar Energy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy#Germany

In 2000, the German government, consisting of a coalition including the Green party officially announced its intention to phase out nuclear power in Germany. Jürgen Trittin, the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country's nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of civil usage of nuclear power by 2020. Legislation was enacted in the Nuclear Exit Law. The power plants in Stade and Obrigheim were turned off on 14 November 2003, and 11 May 2005, respectively. Dismantling of the plants is scheduled to begin in 2007.<82> But the Nuclear Exit Law did not ban enrichment stations - one in Gronau has received permission to extend operations. There have been concerns over the safety of the phase-out, particularly in terms of the transport of nuclear waste.<83> In 2005 Angela Merkel won the German federal election with the CDU party. She has subsequently announced to re-negotiate with energy companies the time limit for a shut down of nuclear power stations. But as part of her pact with the SPD, with whom the CDU form a coalition, the phase-out policy has for now been retained.<84>
*********************************
I think I get it. If France does something, we should do it.

If Germany does something, we shouldn't.


France=Good
Germany=Bad

[farmout rightarm]

18. No, it's just that nobody is either totally right or totally wrong 100% of the time.

Anyway as of last year the "phase-out" has been put on indefinite hold...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html

[wtmusic]

27. Old news

"In 2008, Merkel and the CDU shifted to open opposition to the phase-out,<11> rejecting a compromise proposed by the SPD to postpone the shutdown while enacting a constitutional ban on new plants.<12> For the duration of the grand coalition between the CDU and the SPD, the anti-nuclear policy remained in place. However, with the victory of the CDU/CSU and the FDP in the 2009 federal election, it is expected that the phase-out will be delayed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

Finns more positive towards nuclear
15 February 2010

"Almost half of Finns are now in favour of nuclear power, an opinion poll commissioned by Finland's energy industry has found.

The percentage of Finns whose attitude towards nuclear power is positive, at 48%, far outweighs the 17% with negative attitudes recorded in the poll, which was commissioned by national industrial association Finnish Energy Industries (Energiateollisuus, ET). Some 29% of respondents' attitudes were classed as neutral, with only 5% of the 1000 respondents returning a 'don't know'.

According to ET, the numerical difference between positive and negative sectors has never been so wide before during the 28 years for which results are available. With nearly three decades of results at ET's disposal, it is clear that nuclear's position has been strengthening steadily, growing from just 24% in favour in 1982. The percentage opposing nuclear has fallen just as steadily over time, from a peak of just over 50% in the early 1980s."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Finns_more_positive_towards_nuclear-1502107.html


The tide is shifting.

[Statistical]

33. Germany is phasing out nuclear energy and at the same time it imports electricity from France ...

made by nuclear energy.

The complete irony of it all. No nukes (but we will gladly buy power from nuclear utilities on the other side of an imaginary line).

France maintains a nice balance of trade by by selling nuclear energy to Germany and other countries who "don't want nuclear energy".

[wtmusic]

39. Kinda like Arizona selling nuclear power to Nevadans who opposed Yucca

Arizona gets to deal with the nuclear waste created by all those little lights on the Strip.

Yes, the irony of it all.

[retread]

16. Instead of waste disposal call it temporary storage and recycling? n/t

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html

[omega minimo]

22. That's why French women don't get fat

Fries it off 'em.

[MuseRider]

19. Nightmares.

5 year old kids watching the Duck and Cover films. Talking and talking, listening to the grown-ups. Whispering of skin melting off your bones or throwing up until you died from it....it was not a good way to spend your grade school years. Never thought we would live to adulthood, we were never sure we would live to be teens.

[omega minimo]

23. "Never thought we would live to adulthood, we were never sure we would live to be teens."

:hug:

[spoony]

47. And yet I'm not sure what the threat of

Tsar Bomba being dropped on you has anything at all to do with commercial nuclear power.

[omega minimo]

58. We are not yet intelligent enough to handle the power of nuclear atom

or we would know where to put the waste instead of producing it without a viable and sane solution

[JVS]

94. Don't worry. The Indigo Children are on the way and will make quick work of that problem.

[omega minimo]

115. "Jobs, peace, healthcare"

and hatefulness. How do you work all that out in your lil noggin? :freak:

[Robb]

24. I think I get what you're trying to say

...but it's a touch disingenuous.

We didn't duck and cover because of nuclear power, any more than because of the nuclear family. The Cold War was not fought at Three Mile Island.

[EFerrari]

28. But Three Mile Island is a good example of a dangerous technology supported

by our government for short term gain without fullfilling even the basic purpose of government, the safety of the people.

Also of the hypocrisy. It's great when we fool around with it but sanctioned when others do.

Mostly, I don't see much deliberate rethinking here but more a political negotiation. And for those of us who weren't heartened by that protective layer of old gum during the drills in the early sixties, it's not a sale.

[cali]

31. fine.disconnect from power

there are no easy answers when it comes to producing energy. There simply aren't.

[wtmusic]

40. Coal kills more people every day than nuclear has in the last 50 years

Now, what were you saying about dangerous technology?

[EFerrari]

45. That's sort of a false dilemma. I don't appreciate this "clean coal" bs, either. n/t

[wtmusic]

46. It's a worthwhile comparison

that highlights the extreme safety of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is, in fact, safer than solar (mostly due to people falling off roofs trying to put up panels).

Wind is safest of all, but there's no evidence it can supply more than a fraction of the power Americans will be using - especially if electric cars become commonplace. And for the amount of power it generates, its environmental footprint is huge. This was once a beautiful desert landscape:

[omega minimo]

61. Yes that's convincing. Claim the "extreme safety" and COMPLETELY IGNORE the waste issue

:evilfrown:

[BeFree]

48. I find it odd

That we can have clean nukes but not clean coal.
Of course, we have neither.
But we do have folks say we can have clean nukes because of technology but deny the possibility of clean coal. Makes no sense.

We can have cleaner coal via technology and if we ever have clean nukes it will be thru technology. The thing is the nuke waste is far more un-manageable given its potential long-term harm.

[wtmusic]

95. Dealing with nuclear waste is easier than dealing with CO2 from coal

because its volume is so small. It's vitrified into glass, so it can't dissolve in water (or more correctly, it could dissolve, but it would take longer than the half-life of the radioisotopes contained within).

The high-level nuclear waste for 20 years of power for a family of four is the size of a cigarette lighter. I don't know the exact figure, but a rough guess would be that the same power from coal would generate thousands of tons of atmospheric CO2.

[BeFree]

97. Oh

Gee, I didn't know that. It is easier? Just because you say so?

Like I say, it is odd that folks say clean nukes but can't fathom cleaner coal.

The same people say technology will save us, but the technology is so limited that it can't clean up emissions from coal plants. But when it comes to nukes it works. Its easy, they say.

The hypocrisy is odd, eh?

[wtmusic]

98. No, because it is.

Right now we have a way to store (note, not "dispose") nuclear waste for thousands of years safely. Again, since you seem to be missing the point, the volume is TINY, on the order of billions of times smaller than corresponding waste from coal plants. Within hundreds of years (possibly within 50) we will have reactors which will burn that waste, create more energy, and produce waste which is only dangerous for hundreds of years.

Right now the technology exists to clean up the emissions from coal plants. SO2 and NOX can be scrubbed from the output very efficiently. But the elephant in the room is carbon dioxide - there is no cost-effective way to convert CO2 into a form that doesn't end up in the atmosphere and warm the planet, and there is nothing on the horizon. Seen from that point of view and with the scale involved, CO2 is more toxic than plutonium. It will make the Earth unliveable before the first drop of water enters the caverns inside Yucca Mountain.

[BeFree]

99. Oh...ok

Even tho billions have been spent on a way to safely take care of the nuke waste and they haven't found the answer, it is because they haven't gotten around to asking you?

CO2 is more toxic than plutonium? Really?
Now I can see why they haven't bothered to ask you.

[wtmusic]

100. You are full of shit.

And ignored. It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with your willful ignorance. Bye! :hi:

[BeFree]

101. Eh?

Good bye.

[SidDithers]

102. Hammer met nail squarely on the head...

good posts, good effort. :applause:

Sid

[omega minimo]

60. Nuclear waste has the power to kill more people for 1,000s of years into the future.

:crazy:

Now, what were you saying about dangerous technology?

[wtmusic]

96. Can you explain how specifically?

:shrug:

[BeFree]

105. Heh

The government has spent billions in an attempt to find an answer that makes nuke waste safe for our great great grand children's, great grand children.


To suggest that we foist our nuke waste on them is preposterous.
Enough. We are already messing with them. Just end it. No more nuke waste.

[omega minimo]

109. It's icky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7733153&mesg_id=7737839

and prove that it will be successful.

[wtmusic]

110. There is no proof of that any technology will be successful

what's fairly certain is that about half of every living species on Earth will be gone within 40 years if we don't do something about climate change.

Yucca Mountain would have been the best solution for temporary storage, but miguided and ill-informed opinions are now keeping nuclear waste in 120 locations across the country, close to waterways.

Ignorance is even more dangerous than nuclear waste.

[omega minimo]

111. Then don't send your toxic waste into the future for others to deal with

There are clean technologies available now. We don't need more nuke plants or waste from them.

[Statistical]

112. Even if we build no new plants we still have a waste issue to deal with.

The point is anti-nukker don't want the waste issue solved because that would be a pro for more reactors.

Anyone looking at the issue honestly would say
1) There are 10,000 tons of high level waste.
2) It isn't going anywhere
3) A single well guarded location, underground, in a geological deep repository would be the safest place.

Nobody is saying it would be 100% safe but it certainly would be safER than keeping spread out all over the country in 120+ sites exposed to the elements, in containers that were built for temporary storage (Yucca originally was suppose to open in 1998).

Regardless if you are pro or anti-nuke the waste will need to be dealt with eventually. The only reason why we haven't is because anti-nukker don't want to the "right thing" because in this instance doing the smart/right thing would help "the other side".

[omega minimo]

114. What a stupid, irresponsible and bogus thing to say.

:evilfrown: not to mention INSANE. :puke:


"The point is anti-nukker don't want the waste issue solved because that would be a pro for more reactors."

"The only reason why we haven't is because anti-nukker don't want to the "right thing" because in this instance doing the smart/right thing would help "the other side"."


That's not honest. That's disgusting bullshit.

"Eventually" has a long half-life, esp. if insane and irresponsble bullshit artists are making the arguments for your "side."

Fucking reprehensible.

[BeFree]

116. It sure is

How low will they go to make the whole world glow?

I've read some of-the-wall crap from nukers, but stats takes the cake.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pavulon]

43. Yep, no deaths. 20 year study backs that it was a non event.

barring a jane fonda movie expect a new generation of reactors. You know in addition to the dozens already generating a power.

[SidDithers]

25. Unrec...nt

Sid

[cali]

29. really? things are about as bad as they can get?

open your eyes. grab a clue. For billions around the world things are far worse than they are for Americans.

[Odin2005]

38. Anti-Nuclear is effective pro-coal.

Nuclear energy is depressing and frightening?

If the anti-nuclear people were right the French would be glowing in the dark.

[wtmusic]

41. But...but...long after people have died of cancer from coal smoke

nuclear waste will STILL be radioactive :scared:

[Confusious]

67. I would say yes.

yes, but not enough to kill.

Highly radioactive will be so only for a short time, less then 100 years.

Low level radioactive will be so for thousands.

Lower still will be hundreds of thousands.

[GoCubsGo]

104. And, the mercury, heavy metals, and other shit from coal combustion

...will STILL contaminate every thing like they do now. And, all those mountains will still be devoid of their tops. And, all those streams below will still be contaminated and destroyed. :scared:

[anonymous171]

117. But at least we won't have to deal with scary sounding byproducts!

[Codeine]

69. +1 for common sense.

their answer to their entirely imaginary fears is to ignore the very real existing damage being done daily by their fuel of choice, all while waxing enthusiastic about alternative energy systems barely powerful enough to charge this laptop.

[G_j]

42. feels like blackmail to me -nt

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hayu_lol]

50. No, it is not harmless...

but neither are the other effective means we have now for electricity production.

[upi402]

55. We could ring the globe with solar panels

with the dough we've pissed away on banksters, wall street, and war. We have no moeny for a mission-to-the-moon type program for energy independence. Nuclear is old guard big money and a fools solution.

It can happen again. And I bet we have the technology for fucking up on that scale right now too.

[omega minimo]

63. SHOW ME THE TOXIC WASTE SOLUTION

:hi:

[Confusious]

65. I would, but you have me on ignore.

and even if I did post it, you wouldn't read it, because if you did, your binky would be gone.

[Forkboy]

66. Post it for me then.

[Confusious]

68. It's about as pie in the sky

As the solar dreams people have around here, and one key piece has been created already: an easy neutron creator.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

[omega minimo]

62. The watery watered down state of education at this moment in this country

is bloody fuckin scary.

[SidDithers]

90. I know!...

remember the "bomb the moon" threads? Those really highlighted just how bad science eductation is.

Sid

[proteus_lives]

57. It works for France. It would work in the US.

I say full speed ahead.

[ddeclue]

59. Fact free post.. there's nothing wrong with nukes.. I get sick of all the scare tactic threads on it

If you want electric cars, we're going to need them.

[Codeine]

70. Duck and Cover had absolutely zero to do with nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Power and Nuclear War are two entirely separate topics.

Another gloriously content-free post from OM.

[omega minimo]

71. How old are you?

We know how venal you are but what era did you grow up in?

[cherokeeprogressive]

72. Again, here's a link to the film itself. Find where nuclear ENERGY is mentioned AT ALL. n/t

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

81. Who? The poster who thought Duck and Cover was about power plants?

Yeah, that's pretty much a dumbshit move.

[omega minimo]

82. Work on your reading comprehension and get back to us.

[Codeine]

84. I love that line.

Translated from Weasel it means "I got nothin'."

[omega minimo]

86. Oh Darn. Another one bites the toxic dust.

:puke:

[Codeine]

87. Getting on her Ignore List means I've won.

:evilgrin:

[Codeine]

77. Immaterial to the discussion,

as the subject of Duck and Cover is demonstrably about nuclear bombs, not nuclear power. I've seen the short many times -- fabulously insane stuff; the sort of unintentional irony that only a government propaganda film can muster.

To satisfy your curiosity, however, I was born in 1970. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl and TMI and I'm still able to make a reasoned assessment of actual threat levels. Perhaps mine is simply a less hysterical generation?

[Confusious]

78. simply a less hysterical generation?

Most likely. 1969.

[SidDithers]

91. '67 here...

another member of the less hysterical generation.

Sid

[wtmusic]

106. Now, now

'58 here. I saw Duck & Cover in the classroom, I got underneath my desk and covered my head. My dad built a fallout shelter in our basement ('64).

I grew up in Illinois, home to the University of Chicago, the Manhattan Project, Argonne National Laboratory, and still the most nuclear-friendly state in the nation. It was in an atmosphere that was largely anti-arms-race but pro-nuclear power, when global warming was considered a fringe concept.

IMO a lot of anti-nuke sentiment is actually anti-corporate sentiment. Nuclear power is big business and some people can't get past that. If there was no waste at all people would find a reason to oppose it.

[omega minimo]

73. This bullshit argument splitting hairs over nuke power and IGNORING THE EXPERIENCE

of a generation are pathetic, stupid, desperate and shocking. Forgive me for thinking people at DU are not that stupid.

IF YOU DON'T GET IT OR REMEMBER OR UNDERSTAND IT, AT LEAST HAVE THE GODDAMNED SENSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ERA, THE EXPERIENCE AND THE MEMORIES EXIST.

Feh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. This would be the virtual equivalent of om saying "uncle" methinks.

[omega minimo]

76. Ope TOO LATE

Missed it by THAT much :thumbsdown:

[Codeine]

79. Read: Omegaminimo is wrong again,

but it's still somehow our fault. :crazy:

[Codeine]

80. I honestly do not care how irrationally frightened a handful of

Boomers may be because they cannot distinguish a nuclear bomb from a nuclear power plant. I trust that most of them are not that stupid.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

85. Wow. You showed me! nt

[SidDithers]

93. Only you would think that differentiating...

between nuclear power and nuclear weapons is "splitting hairs" :rofl:

Sid

[JVS]

92. Worst paranoia ever. You might as well be afraid fertilizer because McVeigh made a bomb out of it.

[omega minimo]

107. or be afraid of the horseshit attitudes that attacked the OP

:thumbsdown: