Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
7. My, my
Sat Jun 1, 2013, 10:22 AM
Jun 2013

How very Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

So a manufacturer ripped off a company or failed its quality control, an installer failed to ensure that it's inverters or it's switchgear and its blocking diodes were up to scratch. Millions of people were exposed to radionucliotides as a result.
.
.
.
Oh, wait - no they weren't so exposed

Let me tell you a story about a nuclear power station, it was built really early on in the nuclear era and nothing went wrong. It didn't meltdown like 3 reactors at Fukishima or the one at Chernobyl or Idaho Falls or the one at Luzern 1962 or Sosnovyi Bor in 1975. It didn't kill workers by radiation like the one in Tokaimura. It didn't poison vast areas of the Irish Sea and contaminate the surrounding countryside like Windscale. It was hardly involved in poisoning the countryside at all unlike Chernobyl or the Kyshtym dump or the Hanford nuclear reservation.

It is true that intermediate level waste was the source of at least 1 hydrogen explosion and that the intermediate level waste was sunk in a shaft filled with groundwater. It is also true that remains of fuel rods litter the sea floor nearby and that the beaches have been closed for the foreseeable future.

Part of the establishment, it is true, were test reactors but apart from their additional load of waste they hardly feature. No the reactors I am talking about were designed to produce electricity, electricity too cheap to meter. They have produced a lot of electricity but every single watt has been subsidised from the public purse as all nuclear reactors are subsidised; be it in France, England, Japan or the good old US of A. Never have the reactors I am describing produced electricity at a price sustainable by the market.

And now they have to be dismantled. Amazingly this is supposed to be complete by 2025, the hundreds of tonnes of contaminated coolants, the 10s of 1000s of cubic metres of soil and similar volumes of liquors and similar volumes of intermediate wastes. This clean up is supposed to include the 100s of tonnes of high level waste in the nuclear reactors an environment only just imaged for the first time in 50 years. This dismantling is supposed to be done by robot because no human can survive in the containment building. Except no-one has built a robot that can function in high radiation environments for more than a few hours.

Next we come to the elephant in the room, all this waste will not just vanish; no magician will wave a magic wand and the radioactivity vanish in a puff of fairy dust. Every single cubic metre and tonne will have to be treated, cased, diluted and buried except there is no facility that can do this as yet, there is no safe burial site and every single gramme and cc will have to be subsidised by the public purse.

Tell me again how good nuclear power is ... I need a laugh.

Recommendations

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

Your comment: "Heckuva job anti-nukes" hlthe2b Jun 2013 #1
He can't. He only has one mode: nasty. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #10
Behaves the same way @ Daily Kos FogerRox Jun 2013 #14
Venomous hyperbole aside, I'd rather live next to failing solar panels than a leaky nuke reactor. djean111 Jun 2013 #2
"Or shoot it at middle easterners", it just became clear to me why we invaded Iraq. bahrbearian Jun 2013 #6
Right now, we're radiating the Pacific ocean. BlueToTheBone Jun 2013 #11
So is the sun. wtmusic Jun 2013 #39
You are going to equate sunlight and nuclear BlueToTheBone Jun 2013 #40
I can't do that, can I. wtmusic Jun 2013 #44
If we cannot build a solar cell with no moving parts Downwinder Jun 2013 #3
You lost me at Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #4
Thats why I switched to Burning Coal. bahrbearian Jun 2013 #5
My, my intaglio Jun 2013 #7
Someone woke up on the dumb shit side of the bed this morning, eh? MjolnirTime Jun 2013 #8
Do you mean the New York Times, or do you mean the people who can't understand the words in it? n/t NNadir Jun 2013 #19
Like the proverbial bad penny, you just keep turning up, don't you? kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #9
Sounds to me like you have a dog in this fight. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #12
They DO last Yo_Mama Jun 2013 #13
NNadir would you buy Nuclear fission reactors from China & install it in your home state? FogerRox Jun 2013 #15
Excellent point wtmusic Jun 2013 #16
That would be wind. & who is the number 1 turbine manufacturer in the world? FogerRox Jun 2013 #17
To stay on topic wtmusic Jun 2013 #18
You are aware - actually I doubt it - that all of the magnets in every damn gas entrenching wind... NNadir Jun 2013 #35
The Chinese are world leaders in the construction of nuclear reactors today. NNadir Jun 2013 #22
LOL! jpak Jun 2013 #46
A side-effect of China's massive PV boom NickB79 Jun 2013 #20
That was my first thought as well. GreenPartyVoter Jun 2013 #31
Um, uh, they come with a warranty against this sort of defect. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #21
Um, um, um...making worthless toxic junk over and over and over because it can't be manufactured... NNadir Jun 2013 #24
Flame bait and overall RW nuttery in his seven sentences of commentary. He started another flame war Kolesar Jun 2013 #23
It's too bad that the "I hear what I want to hear" squad can't alert a DU Jury to articles in the... NNadir Jun 2013 #25
The NY Times is RW Nuttery? Renew Deal Jun 2013 #26
they have their share rurallib Jun 2013 #29
See for example their cheer leading the Iraq war. Warren Stupidity Jun 2013 #30
Key words: "his" and "commentary" ... eom Kolesar Jun 2013 #33
"RW nuttery?" caraher Jun 2013 #32
It is classic "RW nuttery" kristopher Jun 2013 #34
Nuclear is certainly his obsession; but that's not the issue. caraher Jun 2013 #36
"RW nuttery" is rooted in their methodology kristopher Jun 2013 #41
I'm not sure the choice is Solar vs. Nukes Renew Deal Jun 2013 #27
That article is worthless as a measure of the actual failure rate of solar panels. kristopher Jun 2013 #42
There's no such thing as a competition between solar and nuclear energy. NNadir Jun 2013 #47
k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. Laelth Jun 2013 #28
NNadir was pre-emptively hostile muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #45
When a solar cell fails, how many pregnancies end up in birth defects? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #37
Depends on how much cadmium in the replaced panel enters the food chain. wtmusic Jun 2013 #38
Simple fix - mandatory recycling. kristopher Jun 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Oh. Oh. It appears that...»Reply #7