Just heard.

[beaslbob]

I got some good examples. Colombia, Nicaragua, Bolivia... they are doing better now without the US interfering as much.

Germany is in the global economy too, and being better at it than the US in some industries. Look at their car industry for example. They sell more, pay their employees better, have more social benefits and yet they don't have a military. Don't tell me this can't happen here. I'm just saying reduce it and stop being world police. The world doesn't need it.

The Germans rely on actually building something that is quality and offering it a reasonable price. I'd say we should be a bit more like the Germany of today.

which is the reason volkswagon build a plant here. LOL

 

[2quills]

It doesn't matter what a lot of people said or thought about bp.....what matters is the reality. The bp incident was a regional disaster limited to the oceanic life in the Gulf of Mex. No one died nor did anyone ever say that masses of people would die and that birth defects were now inevitable. Their is not an exclusion zone in the Gulf resulting from bp spill. The planet was never going to get cooler because oil spilled in the Gulf.

I haven't heard anything about being able to re-purpose nuclear waste? Plants are all fine and dandy when they are brand new....but nothing stays new. They start to deteriorate, but the need to stay open and working continues. Can't just shut the plant down in a decade and start over with the latest technology. This results in what you saw in both Chernobyl and Fukushima. Old run down plants continued to operate.

Never ever said I was against being involved in world affairs. I said that we don't need to be world police and we don't need to be manipulating world affairs where it is obvious the results could be things like, oh 911, war after war after war. Somehow I think we can do commerce the old fashion way without attempting to manipulate societies who are too receptive.

No one died from the disaster?

Not re-purpose but re-claim/recycle/re-use. Recycling spent fuel has been happening since the 40's. The problem till now is that it has always been more expensive to recycle it than to just dispose of it. But with disposal feels now sky high due to limited space etc. and advancements in re-cycling methods the cost has started to tip in the other direction.

 

[beth]

I knew I'd get tripped up on that comment. I should have phrased it that masses of people didn't die, nor were future generations exposed to horrendous genetic and health compromises due to Gulf oil spill. Now environmental catastrophe. Yep. However, not on the scale that would result from meltdown of one n-reactor.

 

[bang guy]

Again I'll say it. There has been far more radiation "leaked" from coal plants than from nuclear fueled power plants.

 

[2quills]

Aside from the immediate deaths from the accident how many people have died in the wars or the spin-off conflicts associated with the oil wars in the last 20 years vs all of the nuclear accidents combined?

Chyrnoble had no containment system. Fukishima also failed to meet basic safety standards. The one meltdown we have had in the states at three mile island was contained, there were no deaths and exposure to the environment was virtually non detectable

Not saying there aren't risks. But I think history shows that we've had a pretty good track record with it. Ofcorse, anything we build here in the states going forward would hopefully be even smarter/safer than old generation technology.

Just a thought.

 

[bang guy]

Add to that the fact that in the modern designs nuke plants don't even have enough fissionable material to cause a melt down. Even in the worst case.

 

[beth]

Add to that the fact that in the modern designs nuke plants don't even have enough fissionable material to cause a melt down. Even in the worst case.

Which generation reactor are you talking about?

 

[bang guy]

The High Temp Gas Cooled reactors for example. Since they don't need a water source they can be built in remote areas, even underground.

 

[darthtang aw]

The High Temp Gas Cooled reactors for example. Since they don't need a water source they can be built in remote areas, even underground.

Yep!

 

[beth]

Yes, but why have they not been generally implemented if so much better? Apparently the tech has been around for awhile.

 

[bang guy]

Because people are scared of nuke plants.

 

[2quills]

You'd think the global warming folks would jump all over it. But then again you mention the word nuclear and the same hysteria comes into play.

 

[bang guy]

The one fact that escapes a lot of people is that unless we build new nuke plants the old ones will need to be kept. Those things were built in the 60's, designed to last 30 years, are all disasters just waiting to happen, and expensive as all get out to maintain.

If nothing else build some modern plants to replace the old ones to at least save the cost and eliminate the disaster waiting to happen.