1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Yes, no or maybe to nukes?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by JayFarrar, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    So I was eating lunch today with a buddy, who used to be in state government.
    He did environmental stuff and we started talking about the energy crunch and what is going to happen.
    He started in on nuclear power. How long it has been since the country has built a plant and why.
    It was interesting and a lengthy conversation, but, outside the waste, you really don't have a good argument against nuclear power.
    France gets 80 percent of its national electricity from nuclear power. They haven't had an accident.
    The places that have had ones were using technology 40 years old.
    He said with modern construction and computers, accidents have been reduced to a near statistical improbability.
    So why isn't the country building nuclear plants?
    His answer surprised me, the environmental-types are opposed because it virtually guarantees the end of wind and solar power. The kilowatt hour cost of nuclear is fractions of one percent in cost compared to wind and solar.
    He also said that sooner or later it will happen and the company who gets them going will make some fat bank.
    So you got some smart people floating around here.
    What's the arguments for or against nuclear power?
  2. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    I'll take away the need for about five pages of this thread.....

    "but, but, but, but if we have nuclear energy children who live near the power plants will have three thumbs and 12 toes and where are you going to dump the waste in your backyard? Hmmm, hmmmm? I mean, ask the people of Three Mile Island if they think it is a a great place to raise a family, hmmmm, hmmmm? And what if one of these things blows -- you might kill a polar bear!!!...."

    There, now we have elminated the need for about 85 percent of the one-trick pony known as the SportsJournalists.com liberal mafia to check in........
  3. Angola!

    Angola! Guest

    i'm pretty sure they are about to build one near andrews, tx.
  4. Angola!

    Angola! Guest

    well my mom did get cancer from hanford and then passed on some lovely parting gifts to me and my siblings' reproductive systems. so, i can understand some fear.
  5. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    She got cancer from Hanford?

    Or did she develop cancer and it was blamed on the Hanford Site?

    I'm not trying to be a prick, but so many of these "cancer cluster" stories and studies have been debunked over the years, it is hard to know what is real and what is imagined.
  6. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    Damn, you're not even trying?
  7. Angola!

    Angola! Guest

    well she grew up downwind of it. i know she has been apart of a class action suit for years.
  8. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    So, outside the waste, what's the problem?

    That's the spirit. Leave it for our kids to deal with. It won't be our problem because we'll be gone.
  9. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    I know all about the downwinders legislation against Hanford and that's my point -- there was a whole lot of unanswered questions in the wake of the jury trial, particularly since four of the six original defendents for all intents and purposes lost their case and the other two were awarded a total of about half of million combined, which is peanuts in these kinds of cases.

    More importantly, the Hanford site I believe was built sometime in the mid 1940's and in a time when technology for nuclear energy was not nearly as safe as it is today.

    So yeah, Hanford was a contaminated site with a lot of waste -- but it was also very outdated and with as much of the updating of the technology and with the French model leading the way, nuclear power and energy is much safer than it was in the 1960's and 1970's, so the scare and fear and paranoia and resistance is just as outdated as the old technologies that led to some of the problems.

    We as a nation should be leading the way when it comes to new energy sources and exploring every avenue -- instead we bog every attempt down with ridiculous legislation and regulation and wonder why we're stuck spinning our wheels.

    PS -- I am very sorry to hear about your mother and am in no way attempting to minimize your loss and I mean that with all sincerity.
  10. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    Yes to nuclear, yes to solar, yes to wind, yes to WHATEVER works. But breaking our overwhelming dependence on oil has got to become a highest priority. The nuclear thing seems to be working magnificently with zero accidents for the French so far. If they can do it, why not us?
  11. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Bring 'em. The nuke plant in Port Gibson, Miss., is one of the cleanest facilities I've ever set foot in. There were talks a few years ago about building another one there.
  12. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    What -- Are you going to allow us to store the waste in tanks under your backyard? [/jgmacg, Fenian Bastard, AlleyAllen, JR, the rest of the SportsJournalists.com liberal mafia]
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page