| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author
 |
Message |
Daninsky
Let my people go
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 9910
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| XM in Dallas wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | daver40 wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | daver40 wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | Always fun when the mods join in the trolling. 
Why don't you get Front Row to prove his point???
I seriously think Ryan gets these guys from the Sean Hannity fan club. |
How is that trolling? Why not just answer that question? |
Sorry, I don't do bullies and trolls, especially lying ones.
Front Row is trying to extrapolate something the scientists in his article aren't saying, so the onus is on him to try and make his point before I disprove it. |
So you are saying XMiD is a lying, bully, troll? He really must have smacked you around. |
I'm saying he joined in, unfortunately an all-to-common trait among the overly partisan mods.
I had hoped he would be better, and if he is, he will go back and read the posts more thoroughly and realize he was wrong to side with the trolls. |
You might want to look again at the list of moderators of the Political Discussion forum. |
I call it as I see it.
I've never seen a mod criticize a conservative, or ask them to leave the forum.
_________________
America's finest news source |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thomps2525
One of us is stupid and it's not you!
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 17192
Location: Glendale CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Could that be because conservatives don't usually use profanity or resort to ad-hominem attacks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGunslinger
Gone to pot. Poaster of the Weak weener.
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 18530
Location: was here
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | Waymore wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | Nuclear is still too scary for my preference.
I did an insurance job down next to the Fermi 2 nuclear plant in Monroe Michigan area years ago. Place was right on the river and whole area looked like some old backwoods lakefront with modest shacks and dirt roads laid out like a bad trailer park...
..........
So when Fukushima went critical after the earthquake/tsunami in Japan and they put out 50 mile alert I looked on map and saw that I am well within that sort of zone at 45 miles from Fermi.
......
Maybe I'm just paranoid; but if you live within 50 miles or so of a nuke plant: could they ever evacuate everyone in the 50 mile circle in time?
....... |
I'm 35 miles from Shearon Harris, I've been here since '83 and only remember one somewhat scary incident .....
now the only thing scary is that security unionized and they probably still aren't up to code with federal fire safety regulations |
There are 25 Mark One Nuclear plants in the US that are active.
Fukushima were Mark One designs. |
Misplaced fear.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html |
No it is not: without waste storage we can all rely upon each nuclear site becomes an ever growing pile of potential disaster.
Fukushima showed the waste to be as big or bigger of a problem as the fuel in use.
Saying not to worry about the waste is like saying don't worry about the deficit or don't worry about shoreline erosion; sooner or later you just can't ignore some things.
Lots of people get all worked up about Iran getting nukes; the worst case scenario with an Iranian bomb matches the worst case scenario with a meltdown.
Then we look at New Hampshires Yankee nuke plant and the leaking radioactive isotopes into the ground water and we realize it's a Mark One design and we shrug off the alarm bells even though we have no clear idea where the leak is...
No: we aren't as smart as the government and industry hacks want you to believe.
The NRC wanted to shut every Mark One reactor down in the 70's; but decided that to admit they were that dangerous and that the science had been that flawed would be to deal a death blow to the entire nuclear industry.
Be afraid; be very afraid.
_________________
Went looking for intelligent life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TRG
Super XM Fan
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 17959
Location: Great Desert Southwest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daninsky wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | daver40 wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | daver40 wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | Always fun when the mods join in the trolling.
Why don't you get Front Row to prove his point???
I seriously think Ryan gets these guys from the Sean Hannity fan club. |
How is that trolling? Why not just answer that question? |
Sorry, I don't do bullies and trolls, especially lying ones.
Front Row is trying to extrapolate something the scientists in his article aren't saying, so the onus is on him to try and make his point before I disprove it. |
So you are saying XMiD is a lying, bully, troll? He really must have smacked you around. |
I'm saying he joined in, unfortunately an all-to-common trait among the overly partisan mods.
I had hoped he would be better, and if he is, he will go back and read the posts more thoroughly and realize he was wrong to side with the trolls. |
You might want to look again at the list of moderators of the Political Discussion forum. |
I call it as I see it.
I've never seen a mod criticize a conservative, or ask them to leave the forum. |
I think what Dallas is trying to tell you is that he is NOT a moderator on the political forum. Therefore he is just another poster here. Got it?
BTW, XM in Dallas isn't a conservative either. And in my opinion, even though we don't always agree, XM in Dallas has always been fair. Unlike some of the self appointed moderators around here. You know who you are.
.
_________________
Praying for our brothers and sisters devastated by tornados in Texas and Oklahoma
http://www.redcross.org/
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XM in Dallas
Moderator/XMelot #3/XM Suck-up/PLM/IE8-elot
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 46025
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TRG wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | daver40 wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | | daver40 wrote: | | Daninsky wrote: | Always fun when the mods join in the trolling.
Why don't you get Front Row to prove his point???
I seriously think Ryan gets these guys from the Sean Hannity fan club. |
How is that trolling? Why not just answer that question? |
Sorry, I don't do bullies and trolls, especially lying ones.
Front Row is trying to extrapolate something the scientists in his article aren't saying, so the onus is on him to try and make his point before I disprove it. |
So you are saying XMiD is a lying, bully, troll? He really must have smacked you around. |
I'm saying he joined in, unfortunately an all-to-common trait among the overly partisan mods.
I had hoped he would be better, and if he is, he will go back and read the posts more thoroughly and realize he was wrong to side with the trolls. |
You might want to look again at the list of moderators of the Political Discussion forum. |
I call it as I see it.
I've never seen a mod criticize a conservative, or ask them to leave the forum. |
I think what Dallas is trying to tell you is that he is NOT a moderator on the political forum. Therefore he is just another poster here. Got it?
BTW, XM in Dallas isn't a conservative either. And in my opinion, even though we don't always agree, XM in Dallas has always been fair. Unlike some of the self appointed moderators around here. You know who you are.
. |
_________________
Classic Vinyl/Classic Rewind: Why have one great channel when you can have two crappy ones instead?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XM in Dallas
Moderator/XMelot #3/XM Suck-up/PLM/IE8-elot
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 46025
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheGunslinger wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | Waymore wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | Nuclear is still too scary for my preference.
I did an insurance job down next to the Fermi 2 nuclear plant in Monroe Michigan area years ago. Place was right on the river and whole area looked like some old backwoods lakefront with modest shacks and dirt roads laid out like a bad trailer park...
..........
So when Fukushima went critical after the earthquake/tsunami in Japan and they put out 50 mile alert I looked on map and saw that I am well within that sort of zone at 45 miles from Fermi.
......
Maybe I'm just paranoid; but if you live within 50 miles or so of a nuke plant: could they ever evacuate everyone in the 50 mile circle in time?
....... |
I'm 35 miles from Shearon Harris, I've been here since '83 and only remember one somewhat scary incident .....
now the only thing scary is that security unionized and they probably still aren't up to code with federal fire safety regulations |
There are 25 Mark One Nuclear plants in the US that are active.
Fukushima were Mark One designs. |
Misplaced fear.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html |
No it is not: without waste storage we can all rely upon each nuclear site becomes an ever growing pile of potential disaster.
Fukushima showed the waste to be as big or bigger of a problem as the fuel in use.
Saying not to worry about the waste is like saying don't worry about the deficit or don't worry about shoreline erosion; sooner or later you just can't ignore some things.
Lots of people get all worked up about Iran getting nukes; the worst case scenario with an Iranian bomb matches the worst case scenario with a meltdown.
Then we look at New Hampshires Yankee nuke plant and the leaking radioactive isotopes into the ground water and we realize it's a Mark One design and we shrug off the alarm bells even though we have no clear idea where the leak is...
No: we aren't as smart as the government and industry hacks want you to believe.
The NRC wanted to shut every Mark One reactor down in the 70's; but decided that to admit they were that dangerous and that the science had been that flawed would be to deal a death blow to the entire nuclear industry.
Be afraid; be very afraid. |
Did you read the article? And it doesn't even address the explosions at fossil fuel plants that we've seen for years. We have actual deaths in the United States from burning fossil fuels, but we have potential deaths from nuclear. Whenever there's any kind of issue at a nuclear plant, the press goes into a frenzy. But you never see stories about the pollution deaths that we have year in and year out.
_________________
Classic Vinyl/Classic Rewind: Why have one great channel when you can have two crappy ones instead?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGunslinger
Gone to pot. Poaster of the Weak weener.
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 18530
Location: was here
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | Waymore wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | Nuclear is still too scary for my preference.
I did an insurance job down next to the Fermi 2 nuclear plant in Monroe Michigan area years ago. Place was right on the river and whole area looked like some old backwoods lakefront with modest shacks and dirt roads laid out like a bad trailer park...
..........
So when Fukushima went critical after the earthquake/tsunami in Japan and they put out 50 mile alert I looked on map and saw that I am well within that sort of zone at 45 miles from Fermi.
......
Maybe I'm just paranoid; but if you live within 50 miles or so of a nuke plant: could they ever evacuate everyone in the 50 mile circle in time?
....... |
I'm 35 miles from Shearon Harris, I've been here since '83 and only remember one somewhat scary incident .....
now the only thing scary is that security unionized and they probably still aren't up to code with federal fire safety regulations |
There are 25 Mark One Nuclear plants in the US that are active.
Fukushima were Mark One designs. |
Misplaced fear.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html |
No it is not: without waste storage we can all rely upon each nuclear site becomes an ever growing pile of potential disaster.
Fukushima showed the waste to be as big or bigger of a problem as the fuel in use.
Saying not to worry about the waste is like saying don't worry about the deficit or don't worry about shoreline erosion; sooner or later you just can't ignore some things.
Lots of people get all worked up about Iran getting nukes; the worst case scenario with an Iranian bomb matches the worst case scenario with a meltdown.
Then we look at New Hampshires Yankee nuke plant and the leaking radioactive isotopes into the ground water and we realize it's a Mark One design and we shrug off the alarm bells even though we have no clear idea where the leak is...
No: we aren't as smart as the government and industry hacks want you to believe.
The NRC wanted to shut every Mark One reactor down in the 70's; but decided that to admit they were that dangerous and that the science had been that flawed would be to deal a death blow to the entire nuclear industry.
Be afraid; be very afraid. |
Did you read the article? And it doesn't even address the explosions at fossil fuel plants that we've seen for years. We have actual deaths in the United States from burning fossil fuels, but we have potential deaths from nuclear. Whenever there's any kind of issue at a nuclear plant, the press goes into a frenzy. But you never see stories about the pollution deaths that we have year in and year out. |
Granted Both are very harmful; I just don't want to trade one evil for another.
Especially when the waste on the worst evil have half lifes as long as the planet has been here in some cases. 
30,000 years half-life is common with this stuff.
That's like 5 times before the pyramids ago going backward.
Let's get a grip on the amount of waste generated:
We took weapons grade fuel from thousands of old Soviet nukes in a program to use it in nuclear power plants in the US and other 'safe' nations.
This stuff, (some of it is at Fukushima), is even more lethal than regular fuel rod waste by the way and is now all over the freaking place sitting in pools of water.
Anyway - one would think that thousands of nuclear bombs would keep us all nuking for quite a while seeing as this is the bad ass variety.
It's all pretty much used up already, and is now sitting in, or slated to be soon, those pools of water between us and disaster.
That's just the last decade or so of waste, and it's not the bulk of it generated here.
Nuclear is not long term anymore than fossil fuels are.
There isn't enough uranium accessible to sustain it.
We need real renewable energy sources - not more places that can kill us when government and industry let us down.
And oh yeah - they will let us down man.
_________________
Went looking for intelligent life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donc13
Super XM Fan
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 9610
Location: I should get one
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | XM in Dallas wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | | Waymore wrote: | | TheGunslinger wrote: | Nuclear is still too scary for my preference.
I did an insurance job down next to the Fermi 2 nuclear plant in Monroe Michigan area years ago. Place was right on the river and whole area looked like some old backwoods lakefront with modest shacks and dirt roads laid out like a bad trailer park...
..........
So when Fukushima went critical after the earthquake/tsunami in Japan and they put out 50 mile alert I looked on map and saw that I am well within that sort of zone at 45 miles from Fermi.
......
Maybe I'm just paranoid; but if you live within 50 miles or so of a nuke plant: could they ever evacuate everyone in the 50 mile circle in time?
....... |
I'm 35 miles from Shearon Harris, I've been here since '83 and only remember one somewhat scary incident .....
now the only thing scary is that security unionized and they probably still aren't up to code with federal fire safety regulations |
There are 25 Mark One Nuclear plants in the US that are active.
Fukushima were Mark One designs. |
Misplaced fear.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html |
No it is not: without waste storage we can all rely upon each nuclear site becomes an ever growing pile of potential disaster.
Fukushima showed the waste to be as big or bigger of a problem as the fuel in use.
Saying not to worry about the waste is like saying don't worry about the deficit or don't worry about shoreline erosion; sooner or later you just can't ignore some things.
Lots of people get all worked up about Iran getting nukes; the worst case scenario with an Iranian bomb matches the worst case scenario with a meltdown.
Then we look at New Hampshires Yankee nuke plant and the leaking radioactive isotopes into the ground water and we realize it's a Mark One design and we shrug off the alarm bells even though we have no clear idea where the leak is...
No: we aren't as smart as the government and industry hacks want you to believe.
The NRC wanted to shut every Mark One reactor down in the 70's; but decided that to admit they were that dangerous and that the science had been that flawed would be to deal a death blow to the entire nuclear industry.
Be afraid; be very afraid. |
Did you read the article? And it doesn't even address the explosions at fossil fuel plants that we've seen for years. We have actual deaths in the United States from burning fossil fuels, but we have potential deaths from nuclear. Whenever there's any kind of issue at a nuclear plant, the press goes into a frenzy. But you never see stories about the pollution deaths that we have year in and year out. |
And you do know, that if a coal plant had to operate under NRC regulations, they'd be shut down due to radon emissions, don't you?
People absoultely freak out at the word "radiation" with NO concern for the amount or type of radiation.
_________________
My PCR is tuned just where I want it to be. 
------
Don |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TRG
Super XM Fan
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 17959
Location: Great Desert Southwest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donc13 wrote: | | People absolutely freak out at the word "radiation" with NO concern for the amount or type of radiation. |
This parallel is fitting in the "global warming" thread. Natural warming cycles are widely accepted. However, unsubstantiated theories regarding man affecting said cycles make the alarmists go psycho. "Radiation" is another one of words like "global warming" that make the alarmists "freak out" as you put it. If it were not for solar radiation the earth would be a very cold, dead place.
.
_________________
Praying for our brothers and sisters devastated by tornados in Texas and Oklahoma
http://www.redcross.org/
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGunslinger
Gone to pot. Poaster of the Weak weener.
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 18530
Location: was here
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I get the distinct feeling that you guys feel that an accident at a nuclear power plant is acceptable collateral damage for 'progress'; but you feel that a possible nuclear strike by Iran would be the end of the world and must be prevented at all cost.
Hell - it's not a feeling - it's the Sky-Gods honest truth.
WTF is wrong with you people?
| Quote: |
Here is the list of U.S. reactors using the GE Mark 1 design:
Reactor Location Size Year operation began
Browns Ferry 1 Decatur, AL 1065 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 2 Decatur, AL 1118 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 3 Decatur, AL 1114 MW 1976
Brunswick 1 Southport, NC 938 MW 1976
Brunswick 2 Southport, NC 900 MW 1974
Cooper Nebraska City, NE 760 MW 1974
Dresden 2 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Dresden 3 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Duane Arnold Cedar Rapids, IA 581 MW 1974
Hatch 1 Baxley, GA 876 MW 1974
Hatch 2 Baxley, GA 883 MW 1978
Fermi 2 Monroe, MI 1122 MW 1985
Hope Creek Hancocks Brdg, NJ 1061 MW 1986
Fitzpatrick Oswego, NY 852 MW 1974
Monticello Monticello, MN 572 MW 1971
Nine Mile Point 1 Oswego, NY 621 MW 1974
Oyster Creek Toms River, NJ 619 MW 1971
Peach Bottom 2 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1973
Peach Bottom 3 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1974
Pilgrim Plymouth, MA 685 MW 1972
Quad Cities 1 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Quad Cities 2 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 620 MW 1973
|
_________________
Went looking for intelligent life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donc13
Super XM Fan
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 9610
Location: I should get one
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheGunslinger wrote: | I get the distinct feeling that you guys feel that an accident at a nuclear power plant is acceptable collateral damage for 'progress'; but you feel that a possible nuclear strike by Iran would be the end of the world and must be prevented at all cost.
Hell - it's not a feeling - it's the Sky-Gods honest truth.
WTF is wrong with you people?
| Quote: |
Here is the list of U.S. reactors using the GE Mark 1 design:
Reactor Location Size Year operation began
Browns Ferry 1 Decatur, AL 1065 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 2 Decatur, AL 1118 MW 1974
Browns Ferry 3 Decatur, AL 1114 MW 1976
Brunswick 1 Southport, NC 938 MW 1976
Brunswick 2 Southport, NC 900 MW 1974
Cooper Nebraska City, NE 760 MW 1974
Dresden 2 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Dresden 3 Morris, IL 867 MW 1971
Duane Arnold Cedar Rapids, IA 581 MW 1974
Hatch 1 Baxley, GA 876 MW 1974
Hatch 2 Baxley, GA 883 MW 1978
Fermi 2 Monroe, MI 1122 MW 1985
Hope Creek Hancocks Brdg, NJ 1061 MW 1986
Fitzpatrick Oswego, NY 852 MW 1974
Monticello Monticello, MN 572 MW 1971
Nine Mile Point 1 Oswego, NY 621 MW 1974
Oyster Creek Toms River, NJ 619 MW 1971
Peach Bottom 2 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1973
Peach Bottom 3 Lancaster, PA 1112 MW 1974
Pilgrim Plymouth, MA 685 MW 1972
Quad Cities 1 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Quad Cities 2 Moline, IL 867 MW 1972
Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 620 MW 1973
|
|
The biggest problem with nuclear is the waste, and that is exercabated by us having no place to put it, so it is stored ON SITE like at Fukishima and we know what happened to it there.
Had Yucca Mt. been opened and high level waste been stored there, that would be less and less of an issue. But people when ballistic about how the waste would be shipped to Yucca Mt. But those same people don't go ballistic about how the fuel gets TO the reactor in the first place.
And yea, Chernoble was an accident, more "acceptable" to the world than Iran driving a nuke into Tel Aviv and setting it off.
_________________
My PCR is tuned just where I want it to be.
------
Don |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Hoaxland
Super XM Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 32163
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donc13 wrote: | ....
Had Yucca Mt. been opened and high level waste been stored there, that would be less and less of an issue. ..... |
that's increasingly unlikely to happen. but if it does, the rest of you people are going to pay and pay and pay.
_________________
"You didn't build that, and neither will we." -- Brak al-Hussein Obsama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daninsky
Let my people go
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 9910
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TRG wrote: | | donc13 wrote: | | People absolutely freak out at the word "radiation" with NO concern for the amount or type of radiation. |
This parallel is fitting in the "global warming" thread. Natural warming cycles are widely accepted. However, unsubstantiated theories regarding man affecting said cycles make the alarmists go psycho. "Radiation" is another one of words like "global warming" that make the alarmists "freak out" as you put it. If it were not for solar radiation the earth would be a very cold, dead place. |
By "alarmists" do you mean every scientific organisation the world over?
And by "unsubstantiated theories" do you mean decades of scientific data?
_________________
America's finest news source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomps2525
One of us is stupid and it's not you!
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 17192
Location: Glendale CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daninsky
Let my people go
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 9910
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomps2525 wrote: | | It's too bad we don't have "scientific data" that go all the way back to this planet's creation so you could see that climate is---and always has been---in a constant state of change. This "climate change" doesn't alarm me---it's normal. Thank you and good night. |
How do you know that? ...did the easter bunny tell you?... or did scientists?
Why do you believe they are telling you the truth about billions of years ago but lying to you about the present?
_________________
America's finest news source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
