Piketon project gets more time

Solpwr wrote:

Well...back to insults.
I would think that with your education, you could produce some research regarding the support of your industry. Please produce even a biased source.

Do your own research. I did three years worth of (original) research as a grad student to get my degree. I've done more peer-reviewed research than you could ever dream of doing. You have done nothing like that, this much is self-evident.

Tomorrow wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL
You know you have lost the battle, and now start to give orders???~!!!!!!

Where did you come from? Four bloggers in one! Same o'same o'!

James B wrote:

<quoted text>
Do your own research. I did three years worth of (original) research as a grad student to get my degree. I've done more peer-reviewed research than you could ever dream of doing. You have done nothing like that, this much is self-evident.

So, which facility do you work in? I'll tell you what the hazards are. If you don't work in a facility and just support the industry, I can understand. I just don't take the health of employees in a nuclear facility lightly.

I'll give you a break...forget the back up info or links. What about compensation? Do you think employees that get sick due to a work environment such as Piketon deserve compensation? Do you think they are dishonest? This would include collaboration with doctors and false medical records and all that. Give your opinion.

Solpwr wrote:

<quoted text>
So, which facility do you work in? I'll tell you what the hazards are. If you don't work in a facility and just support the industry, I can understand. I just don't take the health of employees in a nuclear facility lightly.
I'll give you a break...forget the back up info or links. What about compensation? Do you think employees that get sick due to a work environment such as Piketon deserve compensation? Do you think they are dishonest? This would include collaboration with doctors and false medical records and all that. Give your opinion.

The suspense is killing you isn't it?
Why do you want to know if he/she works there so bad?
I know many people that work there, they are not too worried about their health. So why are you so worried about them? What's it to you?
Do you think the people that work at Mills Pride deserve compensation?
How about the Walmart employees, do you think they deserve compensation?
Any job has it's risks.

Solpwr wrote:

<quoted text>
So, which facility do you work in? I'll tell you what the hazards are.

Nah, nah, nah, that dog won't hunt. Save your overblown rhetoric. The (nuclear) facility I work in is safer than working outside. I get less radiation in here than you get from the sun. In that sense, from a radiation safety viewpoint, my work is safer than work that would be done at a solar power facility, if such a monstrous boondoggle were ever to be created.

I have personnel monitoring whenever I work. It shows I get nothing above background radiation. I get yearly health exams. I am healthier than most workers in non-nuclear industries. I haven't had so much as a sniffle in the last five years. My employer values the health and well-being of his employees and takes steps to ensure that such is the case going forward, which is a darned sight more than employees get in other fields of work. My children are all healthy and normal. Well, the one has an IQ of over 150, so I guess he's not "normal", but is otherwise well-adjusted and happy. And as far as my wife being happy and well-cared for, all I can say is, after 25 years together, she's not had any complaints.

So don't worry about "hazards". I know them all, and they are essentially non-existent. You are probably getting more radiation from your computer screen reading this message than I would ever get from the work I do.

solpwr wrote:

Cancers in counties like Pike are higher than any county without the facilities.

Which cancers? Which of those cancers have been shown to be related to radiation exposure?

solpwr wrote:

Wow, advocates for a fuel that can poison you for 40,000 years. The clean up in Piketon will take 20 years if it is done right. Of course, you could send prisoners in the sites and have them work till their death (like the Russians in Chernobyl) but that would not employ anyone in Piketon. Safe clean up is what we need.
Nuclear energy is supplying 6% of Ohio's energy. By conserving (bad,bad word) we could eliminate these catastrophic time bombs and invest monies into solar and wind.
The renewable energy industry would be the largest boom to the workforce and economy if it was advocated by the government. Bigger than the space program in education and science. Nuclear is a dead industry. Can you give me any reason (except risk) why insurance companies will not insure nuclear facilities?
Yes, people died at Three Mile Island and still are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserma...
There is no way to safely mine, mill, process, use or dispose of uranium. Investigate yourself. And if you have any information that gives a glowing report about nuclear energy, please share.

Nobody died from Three Mile Island. If you're going to post an argument against nuclear, at least research your facts. The reason the ongoing clean-up is taking so long is that we have created massive regulations surrounding the proper treatment and disposal of wastes associated with nuclear and it therefore takes a tremendous amount of effort to SAFELY handle the remnants of the cold war. This facility enriched uranium for weapons - which the new facility will NOT, i.e., the waste to be disposed is not as "potent" if you will. The public called for the regulations, science aided us over the decades in hazards, leachability, proper disposal given half-lives, etc., and we have responded as an industry. This nation currently gets 20% of its energy from nuclear. It would take covering the entire state of New Jersey in solar panels or the covering the entire state of West Virginia with windmills (which have an extremely short life also) to achieve that percentage. Chernobyl was NOT built with containment which is ONE of the reasons the outcome was what it was - we do NOT b build them that way in this country. Have news for you on another front - the insurance companies are not out of the commercial nuclear industry - RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK if you really want to support your position.

Solpwr wrote:

<quoted text>
Sweep the entire experiment under the rug, ignore the health costs to the people and close your mind to new innovations in energy. The tide of energy is flowing in a different direction and you will be stuck in the glory hole of nuclear. You still have failed to give me one article that supports nuclear energy and the upside to this costly and unsafe industry. Are you sure it is safe? I say it is not?
The sites in Piketon are dirty otherwise there would be parks and farms on the grounds of the old facilities. Contract with DOE to grow corn for human or animal consumption on all their sites and they will laugh you out of their offices. They know how dirty the sites are. Ignoring the obvious is where "ignorance" is bred.
My sources are on this thread, where are yours? Do you need more?

I will look for some articles for you to review on the low cost and safety of nuclear later when I have more time. I would like to recommend that you visit the Fernald Reserve (yes, Reserve) just outside of Cincinnati. You see it was a +1000 acre site that supported the cold war effort that was completely remediated after more than 5 decades supporting nuclear. Did I mention its a reserve now? There is a public information/visitors' center and you can tour the site.