User avatar
alaskagold
Senior Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Alaska

tomf wrote:I think it was in 1964 that an earthquake in Alaska sent a tidal wave down the coast and wiped out a number of coastal areas all the way down to California.
You are correct. 1964 Good Friday Earthquakes was a 9.2.

And there is also the subduction zone 100-300 miles off the west coast that can do just as much damage.

User avatar
alaskagold
Senior Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Alaska

DoubleDogFarm wrote:My last day of 15 years in the equipment rental business end with a shake rattle and roll. Feb 28th 2001. This 6.8 earthquake had no fatalities but millions in property damage. I was working in Federal Way at the time witch is very close to the epicenter.

Eric
I was there in Renton when that earthquake happened. I remember it like yesterday because I also was at the night befores Mardi Gras and saw the 3 teenage kids that started the riots. I was also sicker than a dog with 102 temp and called in sick the next morning. Thinking my cat was jumping on me, I told him to stop until I realized he was laying right next to me and putting his claws in me. I jumped up ran to the front door and held on as I watch a red wood tree of some kind and about as round as a VW bug shake so hard I thought it would snap.

After the earthquake, I remember the old 1930's house I was renting, which had a tilt as the foundation had settled wrong, was now straight. The chimney fell off the roof. My fish bowl was suction cupped to the hard wood floor and my fish were still in it swimming as I heard a suction popping noises as it was losing it's water slowly. I got dressed, not thinking straight, I went to work sicker than a dog still and in about 30 minutes after I got to work they declared my neighborhood a possible disaster because there was a mud slide and the river was backing up into the golf course and that neighborhood.

I also remember the news agencies making fun of the Mayor since he said there was a ban or something like that, on any Mardi Gras in the future and Mother Nature didn't like that.

Then I had more bad news about my Mom and Dad. That day I will never forget, one of the worst days, besides 9/11.

User avatar
tomf
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 am
Location: Oregon

READ TODAYS NEWS; IT GOT WORSE!

Yesterday I tuned in my favorite rock radio station and there was some Dj talking about how safe Nuclear power is and how the accident in Japan is blown out of proportion in the media. This guy was talking apple to oranges and had no real idea of what he was talking about, science is obviously not his thing. He was saying you get the same amount of radiation released naturally in a year. The fact is that amount of radiation released by the accident was over a short time making it harder for the body to heal it self. If one stays in the contaminated area for a prolonged time the radiation exposure you get goes way up. Radiation is not all created the same; the radiation coming from the plant has compounds that can enter you body and stay there. Also I would like to add that any of us that were in the army were trained in monitoring radiation exposure and the health effects. This person did not show any remorse for all the suffering and dead people in Japan.

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

I have no remorse for the people in Japan. To me remorse implies some level of guilt. I've not heard any news reporting talking head express remorse for it. I have heard almost all of them express compassion and a compassionate response is what I believe the citizens of Japan need. I'm no longer even watching the news casts covering it because I already know it is bad. I don't need the talking heads to tell me over and over it is bad and it is probably getting worse. If they would pay less attention to the severity of the problem and more attention to ways we can help them, it would mean something to me. Right now when I see the beginning of a newscast on the subject, I get a sick feeling in my gut because I feel like one of the gawkers who always slow down or stops for a chance to see the bodies after a terrible traffic accident. I simply don't want to gawk anymore. I already know I will be contributing to the Red Cross and a few other groups with proven records of helping in times of crisis. I don't want Japan to become another Haiti where no one knows where all the relief money went. What more can I or you do?

Ted

User avatar
Kisal
Mod Emeritus
Posts: 7646
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:04 am
Location: Oregon

I agree with you, Tedin.

cynthia_h
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 7500
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 7:02 pm
Location: El Cerrito, CA

Not to derail this thread *completely* from its named topic, but those who would like to help people in Japan, New Zealand, Australia (floods, wildfires), or Haiti might look into the Lutheran World Relief organization, whose NON-denominational help has been and is being offered in these and other places around the world: https://lwr.org

There are small personal hygiene kits, school-supply kits, and other necessities of daily life which individuals or groups can put together. The LWR collects these, ships them, and gets the kits to their people on the ground in these disaster zones to give to those victimized by disasters. Persons with even basic sewing skills can make LWR quilts, which are more like blankets/bedding than the American word "quilt" normally conjures up: https://lwr.org/beinvolved/quilts.asp

Even small contributions ($5, $10) can cover shipping charges for several of the kits or quilts from the U.S. to a disaster zone.

These are ways in which even those of us without much money can help. Or find a Lutheran church and get all of those never-used pencils lying in a box somewhere in your house over to that church for LWR. :wink: Supplies must be new or at least never used; clothing must be unstained and not torn (baby outfits).

Cynthia
(who is, BTW, not a Lutheran)

User avatar
tomf
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 am
Location: Oregon

I am doing Red Cross.

User avatar
hendi_alex
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Central Sand Hills South Carolina

I'm going to wait about two months, then will give a series of contributions, each two three months apart. One problem with these kinds of events is that a mountain of cash comes in all at once, and then people tend to forget about the ongoing crisis. The needs in this one will, just like in Haiti, will linger or even deepen six months or a year out. Also, I'm afraid that the large bulge of initial cash may overload the delivery systems, such that the cash gets spent in less efficient ways, as opposed to that deployed after various networks get established in the regions affected.

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

I believe Japan is a justifiably proud nation. I believe the worst thing we as individuals or as a nation can do is somehow take actions or make statements that diminish that pride. They are not and will never allow themselves to be regarded as a "charity case".

I remember some of the first statements from Israel (our friend) after 9/11 were essentially "Good, now you know how we feel". I still consider Israel a friend to America, but I have a long memory. I don't want America to be that kind of friend to Japan. I think as a nation, we should simply offer our sympathy and assistance and let them tell us how we can help. When Japan has expressed it's needs, we can channel our sympathetic and financial resources to fill those needs.

While this thread has deviated from it's original intent, my statements include any assistance we can provide to deal with the future nuclear issues.

Ted

Charlie MV
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm

tedln wrote: I don't need the talking heads to tell me over and over it is bad and it is probably getting worse.

Ted
You've pretty much described how I have watched news for 5 years. I watch the first 5 minutes and stop because there isn't anything there that I haven't already read.

User avatar
ozark_rocks
Senior Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:58 pm
Location: Arkansas

I live 70 miles from a nuke plant. This plant is near the New Madrid fault, and a new fault they are calling the Guy Swarm. The plant is also near the Ozark Mountains the Ozark National Forest, and the Arkansas river.

Ever since the Chernobyl Disaster, it has made me sad to think, that it could happen here. The mountains, forests and wildlife, that I love would be changed, and maybe gone forever.

It is a shame to use something so potentially dangerous, with such long term effects for electricity.

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

ozark_rocks,

I agree with you. My wife and I spent last week in the Quichita mountains near Mena, Arkansas riding our ATV. The Quichita mountains are the southern tip of the Ozarks. The beauty of the mountains is indescribable and it would be a terrible tragedy to lose that beauty for any reason.

I am curious if you have any thoughts about how we can shut those dangerous nuclear power plants down. Should we simply shut them down and lower our consumption of electricity? Remember we will need more electricity to power all those electric cars we will soon be driving. Should we replace them with thousands of wind turbines or millions of solar panels? We can't build any more power generation plants using coal as fuel. Resistance is growing to drilling more oil or gas wells to power the plants. Should we simply shut the nuclear power plants down and worry about the results later?

Just curious!

Ted

lily51
Greener Thumb
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:40 am
Location: Ohio, Zone 5

I agree with marlingardener. Ohio has had two nuclear incidents, one near Cinci, which residents said had to be leaking radiation due to high cancer rates among children in the area. 20 years later it was disclosed that there had been a leak.
The Davis Bessie plant, about 60 miles north of here, sits on Lake Erie, part of the largest surface fresh water resources in the world. It was shut down for quite a long time due to a crack. It is up and running now, presumabably safe?
It doesnt' take an earthquake to cause a nuclear event. Energy compannies are about making money. And then there's the spent fuel rods that will be radioactive possilbly longer than humans are on earth.

Humans make errors, machines and equipment fail. As one scientist said, nuclear energy just may be an energy source for which we do not have the wisdom to use.

Now if some alien would just land and tell us a safe, clean, renewable, inexpensive, plentiful source, we'd be good. :)

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

I'm in Cincinnati. Near us we used to have Fernald Nuclear Weapons Materials Processing Plant and Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant. Fernald was not a power plant, it was a place where uranium was processed to be weapons grade. They had lots of radioactive materials stored on-site. It was supposed to be safe, but it was well documented that they had lots of leaks, not only into the soil, but into the Miami River aquifer, from which we get a lot of our drinking water and agricultural water. After lots of work from activists protesting, making the documentation known, educating people, civil disobedience, Fernald was finally closed. It is now a "nature preserve," just because the radiation levels there were too high for them to use it as anything else.

Zimmer was going to be a nuclear power plant, sitting right on the Ohio River (also a drinking water source). There were so many defects and problems in its construction that it was eventually shut down before it ever went in to operation. (Not before many millions of dollars were spent on it though, which we know ultimately came out of consumer/ taxpayer pockets.)

The best energy is energy we don't use and there is PLENTY of room for conservation. After that there are solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal ....

If twenty years ago when lots of people already understood the situation we are in (remember Reagan and GW Bush both talked about the need for us to quit depending so heavily on foreign oil) we switched from subsidizing (with tax breaks, grants etc) coal, nuclear, and petroleum to subsidizing renewables, we would already have a power grid based mainly on renewables.

Running central air conditioning uses about 2000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year ( https://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-electricity-do-appliances-use.htm ) That is the energy equivalent of a ton of anthracite coal ( https://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/energy/coal/electricity_conversion.html ) So if everyone turned off the A/C we would save 100's of millions of tons of coal worth of electricity. May sound tough, but I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as central air in ordinary residences. Up to about 50 years ago, humanity survived without central air (admittedly fewer of them lived in places like Phoenix!). I personally have not used central air for a couple decades or any air conditioning for the past decade (just fans). I don't live in Phoenix, but it does get hot and humid here.

User avatar
ozark_rocks
Senior Member
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:58 pm
Location: Arkansas

tedln wrote:ozark_rocks,

I agree with you. My wife and I spent last week in the Quichita mountains near Mena, Arkansas riding our ATV. The Quichita mountains are the southern tip of the Ozarks. The beauty of the mountains is indescribable and it would be a terrible tragedy to lose that beauty for any reason.

I am curious if you have any thoughts about how we can shut those dangerous nuclear power plants down. Should we simply shut them down and lower our consumption of electricity? Remember we will need more electricity to power all those electric cars we will soon be driving. Should we replace them with thousands of wind turbines or millions of solar panels? We can't build any more power generation plants using coal as fuel. Resistance is growing to drilling more oil or gas wells to power the plants. Should we simply shut the nuclear power plants down and worry about the results later?

Just curious!

Ted
I don't have a easy answer for you.There are other energy options availabe,(solar, hydro,geothermal, wind turbine,methane and hydrogen gas) but they all have draw backs. Shutting the nuclear plants down would require dealing with the radio active material with in...so where would they put it? I do think we could all lower our energy consumption, but it would take everyone changing a few habits to make a difference.

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

RBG, If I understand your reasoning, in order to save the beauty of the Ozark mountains, we need to shut down the nuclear plants as Ozark_Rocks suggests to protect that beauty. We would then replace the lost power with those beautiful wind turbines covering every peak in the mountain range or cut down the trees on each side of every mountain to accommodate the vast arrays of solar panels tracking the sun each day as it moves across the sky.

As you suggest, we could cut back on consumption. I also didn't have air conditioning until I was grown. I remember the misery of the hot Texas summers. We used to build houses designed to capture prevailing winds and considered it "air conditioning".

We can't depend on hydro power. The greenies want to remove the dams because the minnows are in danger. With the tidal turbines, the technology is proven. The practicality isn't proven. I remember reading about tidal turbines in "Popular Mechanics" when I was a kid.

The great plains of the United States became habitable when water became available with windmills. They were able to start farming the land when they were able to pump millions of gallons of water from the ground with motors burning fossil fuels. Now they depend on electric pumps to irrigate the fields we will continue to need for our food supply. (I grow a nice garden, but not enough to feed my family year round through cold weather and hot weather)

I guess if everyone agrees, then it sounds like a plan to me. I will raise my hand and volunteer to let them build a few hundred of those ugly wind turbines near my house and while they are here, they may as well fill the landscape with those ugly, inefficient solar panels. I will do almost anything to save the natural beauty of our landscape.

I almost forgot! Wasn't there another president somewhere in the time frame of Bush and Reagan named Carter? If I remember right, under his watch we had an oil shortage, mile long lines to fuel up at the gas stations, 55 MPH maximum speeds on every road in the United States and the Ayatollah conquered Iran. How well has that worked out? I long for the good old days under Carter with an inflation rate of 20%.

Ted

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

Scoff all you want... We can work on figuring this stuff out now while we have a little time or we can scramble in total crisis/emergency mode when the time runs out. That probably won't be in my life time, but it probably will be in my son's. I worry what times will be like for him and his (at this point theoretical :) ) children.

I'm not suggesting there are easy answers, just that there are answers if we would come together to work for them. It won't be any one magic bullet, it will be piecing together a whole combination of things.

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

This has been a most frustrating read. :?
Scoff all you want... We can work on figuring this stuff out now while we have a little time or we can scramble in total crisis/emergency mode when the time runs out. That probably won't be in my life time, but it probably will be in my son's. I worry what times will be like for him and his (at this point theoretical ) children.
20 years or less.

Eric

Charlie MV
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm

DoubleDogFarm wrote:This has been a most frustrating read. :?
Scoff all you want... We can work on figuring this stuff out now while we have a little time or we can scramble in total crisis/emergency mode when the time runs out. That probably won't be in my life time, but it probably will be in my son's. I worry what times will be like for him and his (at this point theoretical ) children.
20 years or less.

Eric

Agreed, I need a shower. Ever smelled wet coyote? It aint pretty.

lily51
Greener Thumb
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:40 am
Location: Ohio, Zone 5

THanks for the info on the Cinci situation. Couldn't quite remember what the exact cause was, but knew it had health ramifications, and that those were denied for years.

And it's always nice the way these are located on drinking water resources, not to mention the effect on the animal life there.
It just seems there's no easy answer,and certainly not one everyone will like. :(

The problem may be we humans took that go forth and multiply thing too seriously. :)

DoubleDogFarm
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:43 pm

The problem may be we humans took that go forth and multiply thing too seriously.
:wink:

Eric

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

Eric,

I'm sorry! It isn't my intent to confuse anyone. I'm simply asking the question "what do we do if we shut down the nuclear power plants?". The fact is I would love to shut them down. Not because I believe they are any more dangerous than other conventional methods to generate electricity. I would like to shut them down because we have no way to dispose of or store the spent fuel rods long term.

I don't believe big brother in Washington has any answers or intent to do anything. I don't care which political party they belong to, they all have special interests which are best served by not shutting them down. We as a group need to remember that big brother got us into this mess when one president decided to pass a law outlawing the construction of natural gas fired power plants and shift over to coal. Since he graduated from Annapolis with a degree in nuclear engineering and served under Admiral Hyman Rickover, he felt his new department of energy had the right idea proposing more nuclear power plants. You need to remember that Hyman Rickover was the father of nuclear energy used for propulsion in military vessels.

The department of energy was created specifically to find ways to reduce Americas dependence on foreign oil. Now we are in 2011 using more foreign oil than ever and the dapartment of energy is still spending twenty two billion dollars per year. I would propose the closing of the department of energy and using that money to fund research and provide rewards for major advancements in renewable energy resources. It could also be used to promote research in battery technology and as incentives for home owners and commercial companies to convert to new sources. Current wind turbine and solar panel technology is stone age technology compared to what is needed.

My personal belief is that we should announce the shutdown of one nuclear power plant within two years and close the oldest plant first. if we find renewable energy sources can fill the needs created by the closing of one plant, we then announce the closing of two more plants in two years. If conservation and renewable sources fill that need, we announce the closing of two per year until all forty six are closed. The closures can be delayed if or when replacement energy sources or conservation can no longer match the energy losses. I have no desire to return this country to the dark ages. It won't matter much to me because I will be long dead by then.

Now see how many politicians, from either side; you can get to buy into a plan like that.

I think the public should understand that we can't stop using coal as a fuel source, nuclear energy as a fuel source, hydro electricity, and drilling for oil and gas simply by flipping a switch and hoping other sources can fill the void. We need a plan. I was only asking for a realistic plan.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ted

User avatar
hendi_alex
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 3567
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Central Sand Hills South Carolina

It is ridiculous that we are not reprocessing the spent fuel rods. I wish that the government would agree to reprocessing as well as permanent disposal plan prior to licensing a single new reactor.
Last edited by hendi_alex on Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

Good thought Alex! I don't think you, and I am sure I; don't need to worry about it. They won't be licensing a new nuclear plant in my lifetime.

I think the storage problems could be solved by offering the good citizens of Nevada ten billion dollars yearly forever as a storage bonus. The money would be non taxable and equally divided among all currently registered citizens of the state. I'm willing to bet money will carry more weight than fake principle. If a citizen of Nevada reads this post and is insulted, I apologize. I would ask that a vote be taken in Nevada on taking the bonus or not taking the bonus and lets see who is right.

I'm sure someone is going to say "but how will you safely ship the spent rods to Nevada?". Has anyone ever asked how the new fuel rods get to the power plants? I don't remember any reports of accidents involving the new fuel rods in transit to the plants. Ship them the same way we are shipping the new rods.

Ted

User avatar
rainbowgardener
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 25279
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: TN/GA 7b

tedln wrote:Good thought Alex! I don't think you, and I am sure I; don't need to worry about it. They won't be licensing a new nuclear plant in my lifetime.

Ted
Dream on! Obama is pushing hard for new nuclear power plants and continues to do so through the whole Japanese disaster.

tedln
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: North Texas

Obama's position is the latest generation of nuclear reactors are totally safe from the type of accident that occurred in Japan. They probably are safe, but the rallying cry for the opponents will be about the same as the rallying cry against coal fired plants which was "there is no such thing as clean coal". The new cry shouted from the rooftops will be "there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy" I don't care if they are right or wrong, a new plant will not be built in my lifetime. Will they ever be built? Probably!

Japan will probably be the first nation to build new reactors for one very simple reason. They need the energy. At some point in the future, the United States will probably also start building new reactors because with population growth and other factors, we will also need the energy.

Ted

User avatar
alaskagold
Senior Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Alaska

rainbowgardener wrote:
tedln wrote:Good thought Alex! I don't think you, and I am sure I; don't need to worry about it. They won't be licensing a new nuclear plant in my lifetime.

Ted
Dream on! Obama is pushing hard for new nuclear power plants and continues to do so through the whole Japanese disaster.
rbg, I have to disagree with you. O isn't doing anything other than blowing smoke. We won't have any nuke plants built probably even in my life time and I am in my mid 30's.

O and salazer also said they were going to re-open drilling and the DOE head Chu said they would ... except ANWR. Why not ANWR? It has estimated amounts of oil and gas and already has a couple oil wells there near the little village of Kaktovik.

I have to agree with TEd, shut down DOE. There is no reason for it other than create headaches and statitical reports that do nothing and show nothing as most of the reports are fudged.

Nothing on this earth, can make as much energy as fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It is a fact that many just do not want to believe or think about.

lily51
Greener Thumb
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:40 am
Location: Ohio, Zone 5

At the moment fossil fuels and nuclear can make the most power, but new discoveries and inventions can change all that, even in a generation.
Computers were nothing more than huge printing machines, one taking up a whole floor of a building (in the 1970's); , today they're on your phone and can do 1000 x more things than those big monstrosities did. It has to start somewhere.

Hopefully, this energy crunch and dependance that we're in again will create the pressure needed to advance society's sources in a wise way. 8)

User avatar
alaskagold
Senior Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Alaska

lily51 wrote:At the moment fossil fuels and nuclear can make the most power, but new discoveries and inventions can change all that, even in a generation.
Computers were nothing more than huge printing machines, one taking up a whole floor of a building (in the 1970's); , today they're on your phone and can do 1000 x more things than those big monstrosities did. It has to start somewhere.

Hopefully, this energy crunch and dependance that we're in again will create the pressure needed to advance society's sources in a wise way. 8)
very true.. but I doubt that anytime in the near future is going to be productive. Oil seeps have been used since the beginning of time... yet never known what it really was. Coal was the wonderful burning rock used for thousands of years to keep warm and melt the metals we thought were rocks and natural gases were considered (all gases really) death as it killed people, even though it was "natural".

Until scientists get past the poly-political problems, or stop trying to rely on the government to help them, we will really never find new ways to make our lives easier. The only new things that have been invented or created were done by individuals, not with government handouts.

remember.... energy created now is for our own convienence. When it is gone, we all will revert back to the dark ages, sad as it may be. That is want most environmentalists want. I am a conservatists. I believe is useing only what is needed, and not have it break down right away to better myself. But people like myself are few and most like myself know that being self sufficent is the only way to survive.

Charlie MV
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm

My biggest problem is our lack of energy policy. We can only meet about 25% of our energy needs with wind and solar as of today. I can't see a way to get completely off fossil fuels and nuclear at this point. But even discussion of energy policy that involves conservation, alternative renewable energy is so polarized and political that it's just shut down.


Americans seem to be terrified of anything that might be termed socialism. The first instance of socialism occurred when Og and Grok the cavemen hooked up to bag a mastodon. They figured it was safer than going it alone. Nuclear power is possibly the most subsidized, socialized form of business on the planet today. Nuclear power would not be possible without heavy government involvement . The same thing applies to fossil fuels. They are socialist and subsidized.

I'd be happy if wind , solar and wave power along with conservation were given the same subsidies. But the issue is so politicized and the factions so entrenched in their views, we can't seem to make our politicians even sit at the same table to talk about it. And then there's , gasp, socialism.

User avatar
Kisal
Mod Emeritus
Posts: 7646
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:04 am
Location: Oregon

rainbowgardener wrote:Hey Kisal! Apparently we used to be more or less neighbors! If you saw my post in the tsunami thread, I mentioned that I was in the San Fernando Valley earthquake in 1971. I was living in Northridge, going to SF Valley State College (which has since become a University).

Small world!
Small world, indeed! :D I was living out in Sun Valley at that time. I think that's east of where you were. :)

User avatar
Kisal
Mod Emeritus
Posts: 7646
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:04 am
Location: Oregon

Interesting radiation chart! :)

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

cynthia_h
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 7500
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 7:02 pm
Location: El Cerrito, CA

Although Kisal was up on things, I was not; I still processed the idea of radiation exposure in terms of roentgens and rems.

So I did a quick lookup and read the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert to educate myself on this SI-recognized (nay, SI-required!) unit. Here's part of what it says:

"Frequently used SI multiples are the millisievert (1 mSv = 10E−3 Sv = 0.001 Sv) and microsievert (1 μSv = 10E−6 Sv = 0.000001 Sv).

"Equivalent dose is measured in the United States in rem:

* 1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv
* 1 mrem = 0.00001 Sv = 0.01 mSv = 10 μSv

* 1 Sv = 100 rem = 100,000 mrem (or millirem)
* 1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem
* 1 μSv = 0.1 mrem

"The rem and millirem (abbreviated mrem), as with other customary units in the United States, are in wider use among the general public, many industries, and government. However, SI units such as the sievert are frequently encountered in academic, scientific, and engineering environments."

Thank you, Kisal, for the informative chart and for dragging me a little more into the current SI units! (I mean, I *still* think of energy in terms of joules, and of atmospheric pressure in mm Hg!)

Cynthia

lily51
Greener Thumb
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:40 am
Location: Ohio, Zone 5

Ditto on everything Charlie said :)

Some people would rather fight and suffer themselves than to improve things.
And I'm all for getting rid of labels for groups...sets up stereotyping, biases and polarization.

User avatar
tomf
Super Green Thumb
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 8:15 am
Location: Oregon

Most people look for facts to support what they think, if they think and if they care about facts at all. Very few people let the facts decide what they think; deductive verses inductive reasoning. Most things are more complicated than we would like so we want simple answers. Often people take the word of someone they look up to as fact even if it is not. If one ignores enough facts they can make any argument . many people will defend a position no mater how wrong it may prove to be and this is why as Lily said Some people would rather fight and suffer themselves than to improve things.
This is of course only part of the story.
We are all ignorant just in different things.

Now back to nukes; I decided I will not have one in my yard. :roll: :? :shock: :lol:

lily51
Greener Thumb
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:40 am
Location: Ohio, Zone 5

Latest news i've seen on the Japanese reactors is that there must be a serious radiation leak, perhaps from plutonium, as some workers are showing radiation sickness/burns; water (not sure what water,if in reactor or for protecting spent fuel rods or even in nature) measuring 10,000 times the accepted amount. (Radiation in water is accetable ?)
Now the residents that were being told to stay inside and they would be safe are being told to evacuate.
This story, unfortunately, is not over. :(

To reinterate at the risk of being boring, "nuclear energy may be a source for which we do not have the wisdom to use."

Charlie MV
Greener Thumb
Posts: 1544
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm

In answer to the question in the topic heading, I'll consider nuclear power to be a good option when:

1-It can stand on it's own two feet financially.

2- It doesn't need government security.

3-Last and most importantly, when my insurance company does not exclude my house from nuclear accident coverage. Read your policy, nuclear accident is not covered. Why not?

I can think of no other coverage than war and civil disobedience such as riots that can't be bought. We can pay a premium and buy coverage for earthquake, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes and nearly every other disaster. We can even buy coverage from falling space debris. But neither for love nor money can we buy nuclear coverage. Think about it. Why do insurance companies exclude nuclear coverage?

User avatar
webmaster
Site Admin
Posts: 9261
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:59 pm
Location: Amherst, MA USDA Zone 5a

2- It doesn't need government security.


For more information about that, visit the Wikipedia page for the
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act]Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act[/url]. Utilities didn't want to build nuke plants because insurance companies didn't want to insure them beyond 60 million dollars, which was about ten percent of the estimated liabilities in the case of an accident. So in order to give the utilities an incentive to build the U.S. government promised to limit their liability and pay the difference out of our pockets. It still guarantees to pay the differnece out of our pockets.

I just did a little reading about this, from the nuke industry and the left side. The nuke industry tries to show how the 3 mile island disaster didn't cost the U.S. public money. The lefty side exagerrates how much it is costing us by calling the value of the insurance a subsidy (even though no money was paid out). I think we can find the truth somewhere in between those two extremes. :?



Return to “Non-Gardening Related Hoo-ha and Foo”