Nuclear Power Debate - Dallas, TX

Until we can find viable options without cutting the US off at the knees in terms of we need nuclear power.

Not safe, not clean, and not necessary. There are other alternatives that are safe, and clean. The US isn't pursuing these, though other countries have been, and are. Ask yourself, why is that?

The plants today are much safer than the ones in Japan. the U235 atom splits when you pluck a neutron onto it, but the neutron has to go a certain speed. Plants today use heavy water to slow down the speed to cause a nuclear reaction. If the cooling water leaks out, the neutrons going through it speed up and the U235 atoms no longer splits. Other words, if the coolant leaks out, the reaction stops. Very safe.

6880 wrote:

Not safe, not clean, and not necessary. There are other alternatives that are safe, and clean. The US isn't pursuing these, though other countries have been, and are. Ask yourself, why is that?

You are wrong.
very safe, very clean and it is necessary.

Completely unsafe if the rads posted around 'safe' nuclear power plants are accurate.

Depends on the design of the plant. Older plants are no where near as safe as the newer designs. The modern nuclear power plant is extremely safe.

Impossible for a melt down, because when the cooling water is gone, so is the reaction 100% of the time.

When your wind turbine breaks down - people do not get killed and get cancers. Equipment costs are hugely less to install. For nuclear, there are issues of spent fuel rods (60 - 14 foot long cylinders of highly radioactive poison in EACH assembly. Reactor 2 in Fukushima has 548 fuel assemblies in the reactor AND 587 spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool. That is 68,100 rods!)When my wind turbine or solar panels break, the ground for 50 square miles is not contaminated for 60+ years. Get the facts! Get informed!

Jim-Bo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong.
very safe, very clean and it is necessary.

Valeriedb wrote:

When your wind turbine breaks down - people do not get killed and get cancers. Equipment costs are hugely less to install. For nuclear, there are issues of spent fuel rods (60 - 14 foot long cylinders of highly radioactive poison in EACH assembly. Reactor 2 in Fukushima has 548 fuel assemblies in the reactor AND 587 spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool. That is 68,100 rods!)When my wind turbine or solar panels break, the ground for 50 square miles is not contaminated for 60+ years. Get the facts! Get informed!<quoted text>

There have been nuclear accidents in the past that caused harm. The one in Japan as well. But if Japan had the newer desgin of nuclear plants, there would be nothing to report in the news. Melt downs and run away reactions would be virtualy impossible. When the plant has issues, water loss, or over heats, the reaction just simply stops.... due to design. The total radioactive waste from the plant can fit underneath a desk.

I think older nuclear plants should be replaced by the new models. Get the facts! Get informed!

The plants in Japan are from 1971, long before the new design.

Check out AEHI.com

Ever hear of a thorium nuclear plant, we used to have them--sponsored by and build by the U.S. goverment but done away with as a thorium nulear plant does not produce weapons grade material. has 1 to 5 percent of waste a regu;lar nuclear plant does. And its waste has only a life span of 500 years. Requires less storage space for used nuclear waste. Has anyone got any knowledge of this type nuclear plant and why it is not being built at this time. Why not nuclear powered cars? Has this use of nuclear power been studied yet?

Just think how many miles per K?H you could get on a car.

It's all good until you have to get rid of the waste. They're currently putting the waste on top of an aquifer in west Texas and want to bring in other states nuclear waste for the money.

REP, read that the other day, the waste is sitting over an aquifier. And people are now worried about the water supplies being contaminated by the nuclear waste. Once the nuclear waste enters the water system it ios to late as that is what happened in California with some chemical waste that caused a lot of people to get cancer and the waste in the water is still entering the systen and there is no stoppinfg the contamination.

Folks the texas lakes are being contaminted by mercury coming from coal fired generating plants. But if that mercury contaminaion is fallinto our lakes it surely must be also contaminating the soil. But so far I have seen or read nothing about the mercury contaminating the soil. So many of the vegetables and food we eat must be contaminated by mercury. And the meat must also be contaminated by mercury as the animals are eating the grass and hay and feed coming out of the soil. So far no mercury research done on this cantaninate that may and probably has been containated the soil. If it travels by air currents, it is in the water and the fish, And our drinking water sources we are drinking. So what ty o hard does a mercury contaminate do to a fetus or a new born baby drinking the water? If fish are contaminated, then so are the people who use that water as a source of drinking water.

Looks like no one is interested in nuclear power. looks like people are ok with living in our contaminated world. They must like the [possibility of being nuked in the next big microwave. Japan got microwaved.

So folks you have a choice of disaster causing generating plants--nuclear or coal fired plants. one causes death by radiation or radiation exposure causing cancer or the coal fired plants that poison our water by putting its waste of mercury into our water syatems and our soil. now that is waht I call real choice or we can go to the renewable green energy. but as the chinese goverment has said in articles I have read they are interested in that same renewable engery. And guess what, that is where most renewable green engery materials are manufactured and imported from and into our country. So guess who gets first choice at buying that soar and wind generating energy production fiorst, China.

pappy wrote:

So folks you have a choice of disaster causing generating plants--nuclear or coal fired plants. one causes death by radiation or radiation exposure causing cancer or the coal fired plants that poison our water by putting its waste of mercury into our water syatems and our soil. now that is waht I call real choice or we can go to the renewable green energy. but as the chinese goverment has said in articles I have read they are interested in that same renewable engery. And guess what, that is where most renewable green engery materials are manufactured and imported from and into our country. So guess who gets first choice at buying that soar and wind generating energy production fiorst, China.

I think you should move to california

The time to move toward a cleaner form of electrical power generation is now. We must become independent of Foreign Oil Suppliers.

How about safe and environmentaly clean nuclear power?
Would you liberal nut jobs go for nuclear power if it is clean and safe?