The post is meaningless without a similar post showing any and all accidents/consequences of using other means to generate power, unless he is advocating not generating power at all. There were also many things listed which show no real harmful effects. Some of the things listed also have nothing to do with nuclear power plants, like an ICBM exploding. More than 20,000 people died in one incident at a pesticide plant in India, but that does not mean that we are not going to use pesticides anymore. Posting a list of incidents, most of which resulted in zero deaths does not exactly show a reason not to use nuclear power.
The uniqueness about nuclear accident is that radioactive fallout is much more difficult to contain and clean up, and it lasts much longer -- depending on the half lives of the isotopes. In addition, various daughter elements of decaying wastes bring another layer of difficulty and complexity because of the differing chemical and phyical properties from their ancestor element(s). For other hazards, even if you are in close proximity, you are not in real danger unless you have a direct contact. It's another matter in case of radiation. The exposure to the radioactive wastes is multifacet. I hope you realize this.
Seriously, do you not agree that most if not all of your posts in D&D are negative towards the current administration. As for being a contributing member, I have my choices on where to donate, it doesn't have to be a basketball BBS. There are many places with more worthy causes.
Huh, does it touch your nerve? Why are you so defensive about the current administration? Do they deserve your endorsement? Well, good for you. But remember, if you intend to take on meaningful discussion, be prepared to have a reasonable finish. You can search for a few posts of yours to see what I mean.
Apparently nuclear energy is becoming acceptable. From what I understand there was somebody with Greenpeace who recently advocated it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately...
Hehe, I am not surprised Greenpeace "wackos" have no concern about nuclear fallouts. The trees and grasses will stay green and survive the last death of any animals, unless God decides to replace chloroplasts in the photosyntheses with something else ...
I don't know about the other incidents, but the way this is presented is hugely misrepresentitive. First, this was a reactor built in the 1951 for testing purposes. This was where the first reactor ever made was built, and this was one of a series designed to determine how to build reactors that would work well. SL-1 turned out to have a major design flaw. Reactors built today wouldn't be approved with this design flaw, and since then many additional technical saftey details have been introduced and are required design issues. link Using the SL-1 incident is like pointing to the 1916 Signal Corps problems as proof that air travel in inherently unsafe.
I tend to think that's counterintuitive but at least it's interesting. If you can provide some info, I'd defintely read it. However, is higher succeptibility to radiation damage necessarily equal to higher mortality? I would say it may mean flora are more prone to radiation-induced mutations, but they (flora) are likely to survive, yeah?
Search is only for contributing members , and if you are talking about threads like the one about EU has the better economy system than US, yet people argue 10% unemployment rate vs 5% somehow is not important, I guess I just lose the interest to debate any further.
That was just one example. Yes thread was about EU vs US economic systems, but there was a micro discussion about US workers' stagnant wages under Bush administration. You seemed to try to use 1 month of data (salary and spending) to argue for the last 5 years, which I objected. But you stopped there. I was, you know, kinda disappointed.
