Nuclear Power Debate - Van Wert, OH

explain my vote? chernobyl; three mile island; Japan earthquake; let the sun shine! but then the power companies couldn't charge for that.

I think right now there is fear of them due to the tsunami in Japan, however, how many hours has that plant ran since the early 70's when it was built? How many coal miners and oil well workers have died in accidents in that time. The big difference is the potential for widespread damage by radiation. But those odds are very minimal.

laughing wrote:

I think right now there is fear of them due to the tsunami in Japan, however, how many hours has that plant ran since the early 70's when it was built? How many coal miners and oil well workers have died in accidents in that time. The big difference is the potential for widespread damage by radiation. But those odds are very minimal.

Yes, there were coal miners killed mostly because of company policy; that's where unions came from; and oil workers have been killed,too, again usually because of company policy; so you are saying because we rid ourselves of these problems it is OK to replace them with something more threatening? Please take a look at the Canadian web site "Prairie Island Coalition". You will see the scientific effects of low levels of radiation exposure and much more information about the nuclear power industry.

Over 3,280 worldwide lost their lives in coal mines. Over 14 lost their lives in Texas oil fields last year. No one has lost their life in a nuclear power plant.

AuntMaud wrote:

Over 3,280 worldwide lost their lives in coal mines. Over 14 lost their lives in Texas oil fields last year. No one has lost their life in a nuclear power plant.

Yea, they have; it just takes a little longer to die of cancer. Have you checked the facts on this? Type in effects of low level radiation in your search engine and at least study the other view points to be made. Thanks. Oh and by the way type in Cherynoble and learn about the deaths; diseases and birth defects from this nuclear accident while you are at it.

Are u stupid maud,....if you believe that u will believe anything!! Drew is right on look up lima's cancer rate jst fm the tank plant! Wow stupid people in this town!

Ahem, Mr. agree, that was uncalled for and immature to berate Aunt Maud like that. This is one of the few threads that was a discussion without personal attacks...ya douchebag!

Another interesting topic to research about the nuclear power industry is what happens to all the nuclear wastes that are produced by these plants. Hint; they get buried somewhere; after they have been transported to the location; often by trucks.

valid point drew, but there are many long term waste problems in alot of industries. Are you against paper Drew? it does leave mercury, a carcinogenic heavy metal in the water they use in wood pulp and paper mills. It's also present in the new CFL bulbs...buy a hazmat suit in case you break a light bulb.

laughing wrote:

valid point drew, but there are many long term waste problems in alot of industries. Are you against paper Drew? it does leave mercury, a carcinogenic heavy metal in the water they use in wood pulp and paper mills. It's also present in the new CFL bulbs...buy a hazmat suit in case you break a light bulb.

Actually; it is law that if a CFL bulb breaks in a school they have to evacuate until there is a proper clean up. As far as paper is concerned some of the older chemical plants use an outdated process involving mercury but alternative cost effective chlorine and caustic soda production technologies abound(and I might add this is so because people SPOKE UP as the 200,000 or more nuclear protestors did this last week in Germany.) If you really want to see the big picture; the "green" movement as it is called actually started in Ohio when the Cuyahoga River caught fire from all the pollution in it.(We have a beer named after it: Burning River by the Great Lakes Brewing Company-it's good.too) A group of college students began a fight to keep our environment fit to support life; it is an on going process so really just because you have other long term wastes problems is no reason to accept nuclear hazards when viable alternatives are available. Also the debate is nuclear power not other long term wastes.

i vote no on nuke power to many alternatives , solar , wind , hydro just to name a few. im no tree hugger but would like for my grandchildren to have a planet , you can make fuel from hemp oil so.... jump into the new millinium swallow your pride and grow marijauana for fuel,paper and clothing. just a couple of plants put off more oxygen than a full grown oak tree... go ahead and call me a stoner , hippie or whatever else you want to say about me.. but it wont change the facts that this is a valid answer to the problem of being dependant on foriegn oil

Solar and wind energy have been around quite awhile and make such a small impact as energy sources. Hydro and nuclear energy are the only viable options vs. coal and oil as electric sources. Oil is almost non-existant due to cost as a power producing fuel. Honestly, the long term effects of buried nuclear waste is a huge problem. I think that is more of a threat than the small chance of a melt down.

i agree with laughing about the long term effects of burried nuke waste not sure i agree that wind and solar are'nt better form of energy than nuke power ten years ago an electric remote control boat was slow and kinda worthless .i have a brushless remote control boat now that will exceed 80 mph . they just need to focus on there objective and that is to create as much power as they can with as little wind and sun as possible . 50 years ago computers were only a vision, now they fit in your pocket smart cars and microwaves, in the 60's were'nt even a thought ,and i know it is not an immediate answer to the problem, but with some effort and $$$ this dream can be realized

If you want to see something interesting go to yahoo news (it may only be up just for today) and look at the article on Germany's radio active boars of today from the effects of Chernobyl.

You need to Google ‘natural gas generator efficiency’ it is now used more than nuclear for electrical generation, and just a little less than coal, without the pollutants that coal produces. Natural gas is produced right here in the USA, is more efficient than solar, or wind, and no nuclear waste to get rid of. If a hurricane hits a natural gas generator, it may blow up, but there will not be any nuclear fall-out. As was with computers in the past, it was not as small and efficient as today.

Each year. on average, 35 U.S. coal miners are killed and 4,000 are injured. In China, 2,600 coal miners were killed in 2009, following 3,200 dead in 2008.(Recent U.S. uranium mining deaths: zero.) Coal-burning power plants release close to three times as much radioactivity as nuclear plants. I focus on coal because it's the one other energy source we can count on to deliver a big piece of predicted rising demand, but even solar cell manufacture involves toxic waste production.

Point is, there's no risk-free way to do this. Is radiation sickness or cancer a horrible way to die? Yeah. So is black lung.

Chernobyl's planners and operators did almost every possible thing wrong, combining poor design with outrageous human error. The plant had no containment building to prevent radiation release in the event of an accident.

Thirty-one people died soon after the accident, most of acute radiation exposure, with perhaps a few more in the years since. More than 100 others suffered radiation injuries. Some 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been diagnosed in Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians who were under 18 at the time, many likely stemming from radiation exposure via milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. However, only 15 deaths had been reported as of 2009 — thyroid cancer is readily treated. There's evidence of increased leukemia and cataracts among recovery workers who received higher doses, but no health effects otherwise.(Experts project an eventual 4,000 additional cancer deaths among the 600,000 people most exposed — i.e., an increase of a few percent beyond the 100,000 cancer deaths you'd expect for this group.)

and despite many common misconceptions, a nuclear power plant can't explode in an nuclear explosion.

drew wrote:

explain my vote? chernobyl; three mile island; Japan earthquake; let the sun shine! but then the power companies couldn't charge for that.

Respected and very reasonable. So let's examine the blue prints of the plants, upgrade to a new and better designed facility with contingency plans for worse case scenerios.
Let's stop bitching about the problems and focus on a solution. Not implying that you are drew.

Aren't Three Mile Island Cernybl and Japan enough. You are already putting up these gut wrenching (vibrations will w your guts) Windmills. The real question should be when is the government going to develope and deliver Solar cells. All the rest are corporations preserving their control on your power/comfort.