Is Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant strong enough? (Scottsboro, Eva: power lines, home)

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by FTG-05

Hey, I can dream!

And speaking of crazy, my next door neighbor, you know, the one that works in the nuclear power industry and would really, really like to work on those two (possible) new reactors in Scottsboro? Guess who he voted for? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Cuz nuclear power is the only issue facing America.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

I think people react more to the word "nuclear" than they do to the *actual* risks involved, which are just different (and in my opinion, preferable) to the risks/costs of other energy sources.

I think people react to 20+ mile evacuation zones. Map of Evacuation Zones Around Japan Nuclear Plant - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/world/asia/japan-nuclear-evaculation-zone.htm - broken link)#

[zenjenn]

And.. that would be irrational. Is that map supposed to be alarming? People live near all kinds of dangers. We can look at maps showing the danger zones for earthquakes, tornado, and charts showing your probability of death or injury due to riding in vehicles, etc.

Life is a series of calculated risks.

[zenjenn]

I have to add.. in general, I am disgusted with how we have become such a fear-driven culture. Loss, risk, difficulty - it's part of the game. At the current rate of growth for hysteria, we (or at least our children) will be walking around wearing helmets and respirators because at some point, someone somewhere will come up with a study that demonstrates statistical lower chance of death, injury, and disease while wearing helmets and respirators.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

And.. that would be irrational. People live near all kinds of dangers. We can look at maps showing the danger zones for earthquakes, tornado, and charts showing your probability of death or injury due to riding in vehicles, etc.

Life is a series of calculated risks.

Its not irrational at all. An earthquake, a tornado, etc; these things may have a higher probability of killing you, but they don't make a 20-mile area uninhabitable. Death isn't the only risk.

But I don't discount the irrational fear either. I personally would rather face down a more more probable immediate threat than one where if it were to happen, there's a good chance I won't know that I was harmed until 10 years later when I have cancer, or my daughter needs her uterus removed.

These are legitimate concerns. But you're also packing a case of apples and oranges here, comparing natural danger to man-made danger. I'm not adamantly opposed to Nuclear Power per se, but there is no threat if there is no plant. There will always be tornadoes.

Concern about their safety shouldn't be dismissed as liberal whining, anymore than having less concern should be considered conservative recklessness. If we're going to have Nuclear Power, let's do all we can to ensure it is as safe as possible. If we're not going to do all we can to make it as safe as possible, then let's not have it.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

I have to add.. in general, I am disgusted with how we have become such a fear-driven culture. Loss, risk, difficulty - it's part of the game. At the current rate of growth for hysteria, we (or at least our children) will be walking around wearing helmets and respirators because at some point, someone somewhere will come up with a study that demonstrates statistical lower chance of death, injury, and disease while wearing helmets and respirators.

So, you're not a fan of soap then eh?

Hysteria, Prudence; Tomato, Tomahto. I imagine people said what you're saying when someone first proposed the threat of invisible, omnipresent germs.

The movement to require seatbelts in cars was called liberal whining too.

[zenjenn]

EVERYTHING has risks though. You do realize people are fare more likely to be exposed to more carcinogens living near conventional power plants than they will being next to a nuclear power plant, right?

I highly recommend reading "The Power to Save the World" be Gwenyth Cravens. The author is an environmentalist who set out to write a book against nuclear power, but in doing her research ultimately concluded that nuclear power is the most environmentally-friendly feasible source of power that can realistically meet actual energy needs.

A quote from the author:

If an American got all his or her lifetime electricity solely from nuclear power, that person’s total share of the waste would fit into one soda can. Of that, only a trace is long-lived. In France, where nuclear fuel is recycled, waste is drastically reduced, so that the lifetime total for a family of four would fit in a single coffee cup.

Half of our electricity comes from burning coal. If an American got all his or her electricity from coal over a lifespan of 77 years, that person’s mountain of solid waste would weigh 68.5 tons and would and would fit into six 12-ton railroad cars. That person’s share of carbon dioxide from coal emissions would come to 77 tons.

[Watchman57]

Earthquake risk at TVA nuclear plants upgraded | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by zenjenn

EVERYTHING has risks though. You do realize people are fare more likely to be exposed to more carcinogens living near conventional power plants than they will being next to a nuclear power plant, right?

I highly recommend reading "The Power to Save the World" be Gwenyth Cravens. The author is an environmentalist who set out to write a book against nuclear power, but in doing her research ultimately concluded that nuclear power is the most environmentally-friendly feasible source of power that can realistically meet actual energy needs.

A quote from the author:

You've mistaken me for someone opposed to nuclear power on principle. My point in posting in this thread was to counter-balance what I perceived as a stereotypical cowboy conservative attack on "whiny" libs for being cautious where all caution is rightly due. We're not talking about the risk of a short term event that might kill a few dozen, or hundred, people. We're talking about the risk of ecological disaster that can render an area uninhabitable - at least two multi-reactor plants I'm aware of are located in geologically high risk locations in California. There is no reason to think what is happening in Japan, can't happen here. Even BF isn't terribly far from geologically risky faults to the northwest like New Madrid. And the question still remains, where will you put the waste for the next couple thousand years?

I don't see a silver bullet solution to our energy needs, but I think its foolish to mock caution in adopting nuclear power (as in, what genius decided to put TWO in southern california?). I'm pretty sure that all energy options will be on the table throughout my lifetime... that is except conservation, I think that's unamerican or something. How would we light up our landscapes and the exteriors of our houses? (yes, I'm being facetious)

[elephant08]

Originally Posted by FTG-05

Hey, I can dream!

And speaking of crazy, my next door neighbor, you know, the one that works in the nuclear power industry and would really, really like to work on those two (possible) new reactors in Scottsboro? Guess who he voted for? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Ack! Stop it you are making me laugh..... seriously...... I am laughing so hard my tummy is hurting.