Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

33. I disagree with all three statements.

Mon Dec 12, 2011, 04:16 AM

Dec 2011

1) "Per unit of energy generated nuclear is the safest form of energy available."

No it isn't. The analysis you routinely post you are basing that claim on is false. It grossly understates the mortality associated with nuclear, fabricates numbers for solar and simply lies about wind. You know that it is false.

2)"...Davis-Besse incident never put anyone at risk."

"Risk is the potential that a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss (an undesirable outcome). The notion implies that a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (or existed). Potential losses themselves may also be called "risks". Almost any human endeavor carries some risk, but some are much more risky than others."

Yes it did. This:

Together with condition we now know the containment building to be in (that didn't happen overnight) means the risk was all too real.

3) You didn't try to portray the risk or discuss the risk of the nuclear plant in any manner; you tried to disrupt the thread.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

First Energy Davis Besse nuclear: cracks in the containment vessel to go with corrosion in the head [View all] Kolesar Dec 2011 OP

Here is a contribution with photos... kristopher Dec 2011 #1

Oh goody FBaggins Dec 2011 #2

So factual evidence is spam? madokie Dec 2011 #4

When posted over and over and over? Sure. FBaggins Dec 2011 #5

Facts never get old... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #21

The thing with concrete is there is no difference between a hairline as they put it, or a big crack madokie Dec 2011 #3

Another corrosion photo wtmusic Dec 2011 #6

Could just as easily be corrosion due to inhalation of radioactive particles. diane in sf Dec 2011 #7

Actually, no. wtmusic Dec 2011 #8

Yes - that's why taxpayers have spent BILLIONS to compensate nuclear workers for radiation-induced jpak Dec 2011 #9

Nope (and capitalizing lies doesn't make them true) wtmusic Dec 2011 #10

I've posted on the TWO federal compensation programs many times here jpak Dec 2011 #11

The GOGLE and the GOGGLE both show more cancer deaths from coal. wtmusic Dec 2011 #12

I did your work for you - here's some links jpak Dec 2011 #13

wt where did you go madokie Dec 2011 #14

Please chime in, madokie wtmusic Dec 2011 #16

Only someone who is in denial about the dangers their pet project will ask that question madokie Dec 2011 #25

That's correct, no evidence can be found. wtmusic Dec 2011 #28

#1 Scientific method requires a claimant to back up their own claims wtmusic Dec 2011 #15

Ha! From nuclear weapons testing. wtmusic Dec 2011 #17

Nope - it includes workers in the nuclear fuel cycle - jpak Dec 2011 #18

All for nuclear weapons. wtmusic Dec 2011 #24

Sorry - the same enrichment plants that made HEU for bombs make fuel for commercial nukes jpak Dec 2011 #26

Since your post 3 Americans have died from coal pollution wtmusic Dec 2011 #27

Nope jpak Dec 2011 #29

Didn't do the work very well... PamW Jan 2012 #40

Despite the obvious logic... That won't fly here FBaggins Jan 2012 #41

I'm not responsible for their delusions PamW Jan 2012 #45

Those programs cover uranium miners and millers, and uranium enrichment plant workers jpak Jan 2012 #48

Bright shiny object thrown... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #19

What's to 'take your eyes off'? wtmusic Dec 2011 #20

Bet you love flying... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #22

Did someone die at Fukushima? wtmusic Dec 2011 #23

This is exactly the kind of disruption an effective host could end. kristopher Dec 2011 #30

What would you propose? joshcryer Dec 2011 #31

Per unit of energy generated, nuclear is the safest form of energy available wtmusic Dec 2011 #32

I disagree with all three statements. kristopher Dec 2011 #33

Fine, your disagreements are based on personal prejudice and not on fact. wtmusic Dec 2011 #34

When you remove a critical safety feature... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #35

And when you refer to a hairline crack in millions of pounds of concrete... FBaggins Jan 2012 #43

The weight of the concrete has nothing to do with the fact that the concrete is in two pieces madokie Jan 2012 #44

It also shows a lack of engineering knowledge... PamW Jan 2012 #47

I understand that you support nuclear, but it is sad that your only response is a deflection` Kolesar Dec 2011 #37

First Energy Nuclear Operating Company Names Kendall Byrd Director of Engineering at Davis-Besse ... Kolesar Dec 2011 #36

Protesters stage skit before Davis-Besse hearing about cracks in the containment vessel Kolesar Jan 2012 #38

Don't know what caused the cracks, but don't worry, it's safe. kristopher Jan 2012 #39

You don't need to know what causes new hair to grow in your ears... FBaggins Jan 2012 #42

As you've told me.. PamW Jan 2012 #46

Environmental Coalition Challenges Davis-Besse License Extension on Shield Building Cracks Kolesar Jan 2012 #49

Before giving Davis-Besse another 20-year operating license,crack the case of the cracks:PDeditorial Kolesar Jan 2012 #50

See post #42 FBaggins Jan 2012 #51