Environment & Energy

madokie

(51,076 posts)

44. The weight of the concrete has nothing to do with the fact that the concrete is in two pieces

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 12:45 PM

Jan 2012

Thankfully the weight will hold it together but it being a structurally strong structure any more, it isn't, at this point.
Oh and yes it is removing or compromising, if you will, a critical safety feature and by pointing that out is not decreasing anyones credibility as your saying it does does to yours.

The nuclear power industry lied to us from the beginning and no amount of your trying to change that is going to make a hill of beans of difference. the NRC lied to us just as well also. The government lied to us also by trying to paint a happy face on this whole nuclear genie thing. The government simply wanted acceptance of these new big bangs they've developed so they mislead us into thinking that these things are no worse than the stove in your home. What is troubling is supposedly otherwise smart people buy into this big lie just as you have.

Why don't you get your tail over to Japan and talk to the people there or Chernobyl even and see what they have to say about nuclear safety. You can bet your sweat ass what you hear won't be the shit you spout here daily.

Thats my hunch anyway

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