Responsible or risky? "People & Power" examines NRC oversight of US nuke fleet

Please explain (0.50 / 2)

"The US has more than 100 reactors similar to Japan's destroyed Fukushima plant."

Really? >100?

Perhaps one the nuclear experts here can explain the similarities (and how they lumped all ~100 together) to me.

---

by: TomBrady @ Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 22:52:27 PM UTC

Why? (4.00 / 1)

You wouldn't even read the answer before you started spewing some nonsense about "liberal propaganda."  

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 14:48:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why bother? (0.00 / 0)

If all you are going to say is "I don't know and I don't care enough to find out"

---

by: TomBrady @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 20:05:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honey vs Vinegar (4.00 / 1)

As my mammy used to say, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar, so it would help greatly if you dropped the attitude and were more respectful.  The respect you get in return are based directly on the tone of arrogant 4$$holism in your comments.

If you had a single clue as to what you are complaining about before you opened your mouth, then you would already be aware that there were four different reactors at Fukushima, and the USA has over 100 of those types combined.  The statement in question is neither unclear nor ambiguous.  It only presents a problem for uneducated proxies looking to pick a fight on behalf of the propagandists that indoctrinated them.

So, the answer to your question is yes, the USA does have more than 100 ancient and decrepit nuclear power plants with known fatal design flaws still in operation today and that the NRC is rubber-stamping another 20 years of operation after their designed 40 year lifespan.

Vermont Yankee's GE Mark I reactor was known to be a faulty design BEFORE it was ever built!  The NRC is made up of nuclear energy proponents, so the NRC's sole job is to approve everything without ever looking at the data.  The only time they actually stop something is when it is so obviously wrong that it is almost guaranteed to fail - and that would make the nuclear power industry look bad.

For example: the NRC approved VY's extra 20 years of operation, after it's original 40 year designed lifespan, FOUR DAYS after Fukushima's identical GE reactor exploded live on TV!

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that the way the world is doing nuclear power is the single most dangerous boondoggle method of electricity generation ever devised by humankind.  The only people that want nuclear power are either nuclear power employees or people that refuse to look at the data and live in fantasy land that it is 'safe, clean and reliable'.

They used to say that nuclear power would be 'too cheap to meter', but hey dropped that slogan because we know now that it is single most expensive way to make electricity.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 17:18:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some followup questions (0.00 / 0)

"there were four different reactors at Fukushima, and the USA has over 100 of those types combined"

The reactors at Fukushima were different how? Were they are LWRs? PWRs? BWRs? What generation reactor? What generation containment? If you can't answer those questions without Googling the answer, maybe it's you who doesn't have a clue?

"the USA does have more than 100 ancient and decrepit nuclear power plants with known fatal design flaws"

So you are stating that no matter when the power plant went into service and no matter what the design, they are ALL "ancient" and "decrepit" and all suffer from "fatal design flaws"?

"so the NRC's sole job is to approve everything without ever looking at the data"

You actually believe this? The NRC never actual looks at any data, they just blindly approve everything?

Your take on "too cheap to meter" is also incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

If you want to be taken seriously by anyone outside this echo-chamber of a blog, I suggest you do a little more homework before posting again.

I've stated my education background in regards to nuclear power, I've yet to see any of you do the same.

---

by: TomBrady @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 20:04:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read no evidence of particular knowledge in your comments. (4.00 / 1)

You have stated that you are a "nuclear physicist."  Since you haven't credentialed yourself to us, we will simply have to take your word for it, but that statement doesn't trump any argument.  So you might as well give it a rest unless you are prepared to identify yourself and take what comes.

We're quite clear on where your sympathies lie; and that you hold a complete contempt for the community represented on this blog.  

What remains a mystery is why you return, time and again, apparently desperate for hostile engagement.  You never have anything new to bring to the conversation. The best you can ever seem to manage is to pick apart the language that has been chosen.  

Pettiness is never persuasive.

You're welcome to disagree with the video posted by Stardust, but you haven't raised any points that alter the impact of its message.  Most of the facts are simply a matter of record.  

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 20:57:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A nuclear physicist is not the same thing as a nuclear engineer :) (0.00 / 1)

It's quite clear that the "community" here has no intention of actually discussing nuclear power other than to engage in hysterics, exaggerations, and outright lies. Your "side" wants to raise the snark and not discuss the issues/questions I've raised, fine with me.

Ironic how you try to bash me for using an "appeal to authority" when I've done no such thing but it's fine for the Gunderson's (and their supporters) to do it.

By the way, I'm still wondering what an "engineering assistant" is. Maggie seems to have fled since someone with actual experience and knowledge has shown up to refute the nonsense.

---

by: TomBrady @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 22:36:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry for the typo. (0.00 / 0)

You have said that you are a "nuclear engineer."  

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 23:19:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

discussing nuclear power other than to engage in hysterics, exaggerations, and outright lies (4.00 / 1)

As far as that goes it's the NRC and nuclear power lovers that "engage in hysterics, exaggerations, and outright lies".

Entergy, under oath: 'There are no underground pipes.', 'you didn't ask about buried pipes which are not the same thing as underground pipes and even so there is no such thing as tritium', 'well, yes there is tritium leaking from the pipes that we said don't exist, and yes, we said that there was no tritium, but how is our consistently lying under oath any kind of problem?'

Who is lying?

The Anti-nuclear activists I know do not lie, do not engage in hysterics, and only exaggerate to make a point to someone like yourself that doesn't care what the facts are because your mind is made up already.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 02:41:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your 4$$holism is showing again (4.00 / 1)

"The reactors at Fukushima were different how? Were they are LWRs? PWRs? BWRs? What generation reactor? What generation containment? If you can't answer those questions without Googling the answer, maybe it's you who doesn't have a clue?"

You act as if you already know the answer and are quizzing me.  And if I don't pass your purity test, then I can't progress past 'ideologue' in your estimation?

"So you are stating that no matter when the power plant went into service and no matter what the design, they are ALL "ancient" and "decrepit" and all suffer from "fatal design flaws"? "

Clearly not, but you want me to be doing so, just so you can dismiss my points and continue living the lie that nuclear power is a good thing.

"You actually believe this? The NRC never actual looks at any data, they just blindly approve everything?"

I make my decisions based on how I see the NRC so it's job.  It is clear and unambiguous that they are all on the side of the industry, that they see their role not as overseer, but as gatekeeper.  If we did have a real regulatory body, they would not have blithely approved VY's extension while Japan's identical reactor (#1) was simultaneously exploding live on TV. If we had a real regulatory agency that actually regulated their industry they would have erred on the side of caution and done SOMETHING.

"Your take on "too cheap to meter" is also incorrect."

Thank you for the enlightenment: "Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter".  I'll put nuclear power alongside jetpacks and rocket cars.  Today's convenient industry lie is 'clean'.  Yeah, right, high-level radioactive waste is 'clean'.  And just like Walter Marshall the industry will say 'the press mistook what we meant, we didn't mean that nuclear power was clean, we meant that we kept our workspace clean, it was you guys that misconstrued our statement.'

"I've stated my education background in regards to nuclear power, I've yet to see any of you do the same."

I missed that post, and judging the depth of your scorn and arrogance, I can peg you right alongside Atomic Rod in your refusal to see nuclear power for the inherent danger it is.

Just to be clear: I have no problems with developing nuclear technology, I have problems with HOW we've (every nation on the planet) developed nuclear technology.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 03:01:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wipe the spittle off your screen comrade (0.50 / 2)

Of course I knew the answers to those questions, just as you should have before you decided to post that nonsense about reactor types along with the rest of your little anti-nuclear tantrum.

That's right, I'm the asshole for pointing out your hypocrisy and ignorance in a calm, reasoned manner. I'm sure it's more convenient to dismiss me if you think I am some sort of Republican plant.

---

by: TomBrady @ Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 03:29:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"This video has been removed by the user." (0.00 / 0)

The clip is available here.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Mon Feb 27, 2012 at 14:46:57 PM UTC