Same BS excuses and explanations with the pro-nuke spin. Contamination never left containment, contaminated water was just in the water near the site (after all contaminated water released in a lake would not go mix with the rest of the water in the lake right? ). Then you have the “safe amounts” below EPA standards, yada yada. Then you create this big cloud of confusion, divert the attention away from the accidents you simply can’t defend and throw in meaningless comparisons to natural sources of background radiation that are clearly not relevant when we are talking about radioactively contaminated particles that are inhaled and ingested by all living creatures in an affected accident area.

Each one of the accidents mentioned above you slid in the typical “no cause for concern, nothing to see here, move along!” BS! Yet those failed components are essential safety systems. What if two, 3 or more failed at the same time? Remember, these reactors are WAY past their service life. Some of them were failing when they were new! So how big does an accident need to be before the public should be concerned?

If it is as safe as you say, why do risk calculating insurance companies not cover nuclear power plants? Why does your home insurance not protect your property from radiation damage? Why can’t private companies not build and operate nuclear plants without Government subsidy? How long (if ever) does it take for a nuclear power plant to be paid off and become profitable?

The only defense the nuclear industry has is to ridicule those who speak up against them, spin facts in their favor and control media to sway public opinion. Unfortunately for the nuclear industry, the internet is very hard to control and the masses are being informed. You yourself admit that nuclear plants built several decades ago were built in an unsafe fashion because of corruption, poor funding and operating beyond their service life. Yet how can you guarantee this would not happen again? Seems to me there is more corruption than ever in today’s Government. We are trying to stretch a dollar further than ever so you think cost cutting will not affect nuclear power plants? How about human errors?

As long as there is a buck to be made, the nuclear industry will keep trying to pull the wool over our eyes…

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Same BS excuses and explanations with the pro-nuke spin. Contamination never left containment,

It's not an excuse. If something doesn't leave the containment vessel, it is not contamination. By definition.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: contaminated water was just in the water near the site

Proven by the EPA.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Then you have the “safe amounts” below EPA standards, yada yada.

Safe amounts are scientifically proven to cause no harm.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Then you create this big cloud of confusion, divert the attention away from the accidents

The accidents you posted had nothing to do with nuclear contamination. Freon leak, sure. Fire? Yeah. But most of them never caused contamination of a nuclear variety.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: you simply can’t defend and throw in meaningless comparisons to natural sources of background radiation

There's nothing meaningless about it. Background radiation causes you to absorb 4 millisieverts of ionizing radiation per year. That's 4,000 microsieverts. Or 133 and 1/3 more microsieverts more than living near a properly operating nuclear reactor per year.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: that are clearly not relevant when we are talking about radioactively contaminated particles that are inhaled and ingested by all living creatures in an affected accident area.

Yes they are, because alpha and beta particles aren't the only types of radioactivity produced. Gamma radiation is a thing. And gamma radiation is produced every day naturally.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Each one of the accidents mentioned above you slid in the typical “no cause for concern, nothing to see here, move along!” BS! Yet those failed components are essential safety systems. What if two, 3 or more failed at the same time?

Not one of those accidents mentioned that I 'BSed' released contamination. Which is the point of the argument. If two or three or more failed, the system would shut down safely. Like they all did already.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Remember, these reactors are WAY past their service life.

So build newer, safer designed, Gen IV and Gen V ones. Which is my initial statement to begin with.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Some of them were failing when they were new!

This is an outright lie. Even the terribly-built New York reactor you listed lasted ten years before its first failure.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: So how big does an accident need to be before the public should be concerned?

Big enough that it affects the public meaningfully.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: If it is as safe as you say, why do risk calculating insurance companies not cover nuclear power plants?

Because risk calculating insurance companies don't typically cover things older than 20 years. For a house older than 20 years, you typically cannot get some kinds of insurance. Cars older than 20 years are typically pushed toward classic insurance instead. It's how risk calculating insurance companies work. They want new, not old.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Why does your home insurance not protect your property from radiation damage?

Because insurance companies are typically looking to screw people out of money any way they can. For example, Allstate won't give you homeowner's insurance if you have more than three dogs. OMG, DOGS MUST BE OUTLAWED. /sarcasm

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Why can’t private companies not build and operate nuclear plants without Government subsidy?

They can. They can't operate without government studies though. But you also aren't allowed to build any building without government studies or approvals. (You need a permit to put a house on your own land, for example.)

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: How long (if ever) does it take for a nuclear power plant to be paid off and become profitable?

Depends on the type. Gen IV Molten Salt? 5 years or less. Older style reactors? Decades.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: The only defense the nuclear industry has is to ridicule those who speak up against them, spin facts in their favor and control media to sway public opinion.

Except those facts aren't spun. They're physics. That's how physics work. I've yet to see anything you have posted that actually negates the facts put forth. On the other hand, the coal, oil, natural gas and fracking industries have all proven to be much worse in this regard than nuclear, yet you seem to be complacent in their bull.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: You yourself admit that nuclear plants built several decades ago were built in an unsafe fashion because of corruption,

Emphasis mine. No I didn't.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: poor funding

Nope. Poor planning.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: and operating beyond their service life.

This is the only one I'll give you, because this is the only one I actually said. You've twisted my words. Spun them, even. That's a dishonest thing to do.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Yet how can you guarantee this would not happen again?

I can't. The only reason the current reactors are operating past their service life is because anti-nuclear nuts are not allowing those who actually know what they're doing to build safe, clean power generation.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Seems to me there is more corruption than ever in today’s Government.

I'll agree with you there. The anti-nuclear lobby from the coal, oil and natural gas firms has you believing in their BS. Either that, or you're a shill for the coal, oil or natural gas firm yourself. Either way, the government is getting paid by coal, oil and natural gas to suppress nuclear because nuclear is cleaner and safer than coal, oil and natural gas.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: We are trying to stretch a dollar further than ever so you think cost cutting will not affect nuclear power plants?

Because the designs themselves are purposely done to combat this.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: How about human erros?

Human error will plague any power generation method you select. That's a straw-man argument and therefore invalid.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: As long as there is a buck to be made, the nuclear industry will keep trying to pull the wool over our eyes…

That's right, and the coal, oil and natural gas industry have very well and truly taken you as their sucker. Way to go, there, chief.

Once again, this is a thread hijack. If you wish to continue, PM's.

quote Originally posted by Ravant: Once again, this is a thread hijack. If you wish to continue, PM's.

All I can do is chake my head at your previous post. I have no affiliation with any source of power generation. I am in the I.T. industry. Yet I am a shill for the oil, coal or gas. Case an point. Ridicule, try and disscredit and then close the convrsation claiming victory. I will leave this "thread hijack" as you put it. Lets see who was right in a decade from now if there still is a nuclear industry.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: All I can do is chake my head at your previous post. I have no affiliation with any source of power generation. I am in the I.T. industry. Yet I am a shill for the oil, coal or gas.

IT can exist in any industry. I was unfortunately stuck in IT under a tobacco company at one point. Being in an IT department doesn't shield you from the industry you're in. I'm in IT under smart metering. I don't care where my power comes from, as long as I get some to meter. And I'm hoping its as clean as nuclear.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: Case an point. Ridicule,

There was no ridicule. Insinuation? Sure.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: try and disscredit

There was no try. There was simply placing facts in response to fear-based misinformation.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: and then close the convrsation claiming victory.

There was no close. I was asking you to continue it in PM's. But there you go again, twisting my words.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: I will leave this "thread hijack" as you put it. Lets see who was right in a decade from now if there still is a nuclear industry.

That's your choice to end the conversation, not mine.

quote Originally posted by Purple86GT: I would be extremely impressed if you were able to run an AC unit (especially an RV unit) off a 12V system. The cable gauge would be insane and the run time would be very minimal.

Be impressed then. Most new motorhomes, especially high end ones dont have generators. They use a battery bank / gas engine to run only an inverter up to and over 6000+ watts. The inverter uses only the power from the battery bank and the gas engine keeps them charged. A friend has a new 40' one like that with 3 rooftop AC units he runs all weekend at the racetracks where there is no landline power available. Mine has only one roof AC unit and it runs fine along with everything else on a 4000 watt generator (though not an inverter). I can post some of them up if you want to see them. I had just a 200 watt inverter hooked to an auxilary battery in the back of my Magnum to run a 32" tv and soundbar at car shows. It ran all day for 2 days (about 16 hours total) before needing recharged. It was not wired to alternator and I charged it at home. The RV power inverters provide 120v, 12v, or even 240v power. 13,000 btu RV a/c uses less than 1500-2000 watts each.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 04-18-2014).]