FXMastermind, your posts about how everyone’s arguments are “crap” (or how you haven’t bothered to read their posts at all) are threadshitting, and your comments about language are off-topic. You will either improve your tone and your responsiveness and become less obnoxious, or you will stop participating in this thread.
Enough said.
Off topic continued here
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13916733&postcount=703
There’s a saying about “giving someone enough rope.”
What are the odds of a tsunami hitting Nebraska? Pretty slim. And yet…
Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed
Read more: Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed
Haven’t I been pointing out that the next nuclear accident wouldn’t be caused by an earthquake-tsunami combo?
Gee, I’m prophetic. Fire and flooding. No meltdowns yet we know of though, so that’s good news. The big danger seems to be one of those pesky overloaded spend fuel pools.
Why is it when nuke plants get into trouble, planes aren’t allowed to fly overhead and take pictures? What do they have to hide?
The fact that a really expensive (and potentially very dangerous) nuclear power plant has no flood protection, it’s beyond absurd. They quickly build a temporary wall around part of the facility and then pray. Are you fucking kidding me?
And this is America. Imagine how shitty the standards are in other less stable parts of the world.
Well, they have earthen berms, and sandbags, so they were adequately prepared for this impossibility that only happens once every 10 billion years, or whatever the nuclear risk-assessors claim.
Well as far as the Nebraska plant goes:
Actually it was last year that the NRC had noted that current conditions had required upgrading flood protections and such upgrades had been in progress.
Not quite sure what this episode of inspections working as they should and multiple redundant systems being put in place to provide extra levels of safety is supposed to prove.
As to the flight restrictions. The stated answer is
Which honestly makes sense.
And back to the issue of whether or not we should be in support of shutting down nuclear plants and what the consequences of doing so would be:
I know … they’re full of crap.:rolleyes:
I’m still pro-nuclear.
Just saying.
The true nuclear supporter will still support nuclear power no matter how many reactors meltdown, blow up or leak radiation into the world.
I’ve asked them before, and they always avoid answering.
How many people, how much land, what is the point you would change your mind?
They never answer. Instead they try to talk about coal or relative risk, anything but simply answering the question. The avoidance of even thinking about it is quite telling.
Science and logic don’t work like that.
I reject your definition of “true”. I’m a true nuclear supporter in the sense that I’m not being dishonest about it, in large part because nuclear power doesn’t lend itself to meltdowns, blow-ups or leaks, or at least not to an extent comparable to the harm of coal and oil.
Like I said, no answer.
It’s easy to answer the question. Up until Fukushima I supported nuclear power plants, even building new ones.
Now I don’t.
The cost and risk are too great, especially when lower cost cleaner technology can replace nuclear power.
I have my doubts you’ve fully and fairly considered the costs and risks, and I suspect an overly optimistic view of the ability of “cleaner” (wind/solar/tidal/hydroelectric/etc. I assume) energy sources to feasibly replace nuclear.
Maybe the people who actually study and are smart know stuff.
Again, not a “nuclear supporter” by any objective measure as I do not think it will do much more than preserve its current share in any competition in which true costs are monetized. Not a true supporter or a true Scotsman for that matter. But it is a simple answer to give and I gave it. And I asked you a question in response which you have refused to answer: why do you value deaths caused by coal as less valuable lives to lose than hypothetical deaths from nuclear? What other answer other than “when it is more than there would be without it” could make sense?
Even the author recognizes a place for nuclear, with Yucca Mountain as a waste depot.
I find it fascinating that a simple question is so avoided. One nuclear supporter was honest (not on internet) and said even if a nuclear plant melted down and killed his entire family he would still support nuclear power plants. He did however hedge when asked how much land it would take, made uninhabitable by radiation, to get him to change his mind.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html
Even when faced with the cold hard facts about costs, nuclear supporters stick to their grim belief system.
Okay… 1000 square miles of blighted land and 10,000 human deaths.