Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:42PM, d_p_m wrote:

...Unfortunately both popular culture and the popular media tend to wax hysterical over things nuclear....

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but saying the other side tends to "wax hysterical" over nuclear tells me that your position is not any better. If you had a valid position you would not have to dismiss the other side the way you have here. I go by the facts, not hysteria. I want the facts. The pro nuclear doesn't present facts, but factoids - things that look and act like facts, but are not facts.

They poo-poo the fact that nuclear is the worst environmentally. Just getting the fuel wreaks havoc leaving hyper toxic waste all over the place, then there is the waste from the plant itself that produces something so toxic that it could kill for tens of thousands of years.

They ignore the fact that because of nuclear power we now have two large chunks of the Earth that shall remain uninhabitable for hundreds, or more, years.

They don't even mention the fact that nuclear power plants are not insured. If there is an accident; they don't have to pay a dime. If they had to be insured at the same rate as other generating plants the cost would double the already high cost.

Then there is the decommissioning costs that the rate payers have to pick up the tab for. They wouldn't dare make the stock holders or anyone making a profit off of the plant for that.

As I said earlier they could save the amount of electricity the plant would produce, and do it cheaper, just by buying everyone in the service area a new refrigerator.

No, nuclear makes no sense.

Instead put all that money wasted on a nuclear plant and put it towards making alternative sources more efficient. Saving, efficiency, and renewable are the only way for a civilized society to go.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 5:50PM, mountain_man wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:42PM, d_p_m wrote:

...Unfortunately both popular culture and the popular media tend to wax hysterical over things nuclear....

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but saying the other side tends to "wax hysterical" over nuclear tells me that your position is not any better. If you had a valid position you would not have to dismiss the other side the way you have here. I go by the facts, not hysteria. I want the facts. The pro nuclear doesn't present facts, but factoids - things that look and act like facts, but are not facts.

i can't agree. Consider MRI - Magnetic resonance imaging. A very userful technology for certain types of medical diagnosis. MRI machines used to be called NMR machines... as in nuclear magnetic resonance - which accurately describes how they work. But people were scared of them because of the word nuclear in the name, so they changed it. The machine is the same, the process is the same, but an irrational fear forced a PR rebranding of the technology.

I think some Folks worry-worry-worry about "Radiation" so much because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, or hear it ... So it seems MUCH creepier than the Chemical Spill when a Pipeline breaks or some Rail-Cars  fall off the Tracks on the other side of Town ...

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:09PM, d_p_m wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 5:50PM, mountain_man wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 4:42PM, d_p_m wrote:

...Unfortunately both popular culture and the popular media tend to wax hysterical over things nuclear....

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but saying the other side tends to "wax hysterical" over nuclear tells me that your position is not any better. If you had a valid position you would not have to dismiss the other side the way you have here. I go by the facts, not hysteria. I want the facts. The pro nuclear doesn't present facts, but factoids - things that look and act like facts, but are not facts.

Consider this. Two of the three worst 'nuclear power disasters' in history were Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. There was tons of media coverage of the 'disaster'.

In how many other human activities do you find zero casualty disasters? In the case of Three Mile Island there was no significant damage of any kind outside the boundaries of the plant. That's not a disaster, that's an industrial accident.

But because it's 'nuclear' it gets promoted to major disaster, decades after the fact, still denounced as a catastrophe by anti-nuclear campaigners.

Poppycock.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:05PM, d_p_m wrote:

i can't agree. Consider MRI - Magnetic resonance imaging...

A false comparison that has nothing to do with anything I said. Most people are intelligent, and educated, enough to know the difference between MRI and nuclear power.

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:39PM, mountain_man wrote:

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:05PM, d_p_m wrote:

i can't agree. Consider MRI - Magnetic resonance imaging...

A false comparison that has nothing to do with anything I said. Most people are intelligent, and educated, enough to know the difference between MRI and nuclear power.

I think you may be over-estimating 'most people'. It's a common failing - the intelligent people tend to think everyone else is more like them. I'd cite the research, but I'm lazy. It did link back through data on the Dunning-Kruger effect and the tendency of competent people to understimate their competence relative to the general propulation.