INDIAN POINT: THE TRUTH

NY Post ^ | September 9, 2003 | ROY SINCLAIR

[presidio9]

Nope. Just that you keep saying dumb things and then you try to change the subject. And you have given up responding to Chimera, who is clearly more knowledgable than yourself on this matter. This is not a high school debate. If you want to start a thread about the evils of modernization, I would be happy to call you a fool there, but as we are talking about the safety and affordability of nuclear power here, and the left's ability to co-opt so called "conservatives" to their cause through the use of irrational scare tactics, I'd say we have more than enough on our plate without getting into whether Long Island is overdeveloped. Stay with the program. Tell us what you think could happen.

[presidio9]

An end to immigration because this country has enough people.

A) That is nonsense.

B) That will not change our current energy issuses.

[Age of Reason]

I will not waste my time debating engineering specs with someone who is incapable of grasping the whole of the question, which involves experience in and knowledge of more areas than mere engineering theory.

The larger picture includes the unknown, hubris, and human fallibility.

Just look at the 2nd space shuttle disaster: foam pieces falling off were supposed to be safe.

Now they discover foam pieces are not safe.

Foam--even something as simple as that, they miscalculate--and that after the 1986 disaster, which the same kind of organizational oversight caused and after which they should have learned something.

There are always unforseen dangers--sometimes from lack of scientific knowledge, sometimes from human or organization error, sometimes from both.

And the more complicated something is, the more likely something unforseen might go wrong.

Oh--and by the way: Remember the first and second Northeast blackouts?

After the second one, the experts told us they fixed things such that it would never happen again.

Last month, it happened again--and worse than the last time (which itself was worst than the first time).

So much for the experts

[presidio9]

I will not waste my time debating engineering specs with someone who is incapable of grasping the whole of the question, which involves experience in and knowledge of more areas than mere engineering theory.

Start making some sense dude. You have made no indication or demonstration of any working knowledge of engineering on this thread. In fact the egineering behind a nuclear reactor is actually fairly straightforward -far less complicated than, say, the Northeast Power Grid. And furthermore, you have gone out of your way to avoid responding to chimera. In short, you are 10 pounds of BS in a 5 pound bag.

Again, you have no idea what could go wrong, you just allude to some erethral disaster. The worst nuclear disaster to ever occur in this country (where we have saftey measures on our reactors, the technology is not 50 years old and we are not producing weapons-grade materials inside) was on Three Mile Island almost 30 years ago. Care to guess how many people died on Three Mile Island? Hint: It was slightly less than we lost on the Titanic (actually it was less than the Challenger too).

[Steely Tom]

Ask the enviro-nuts that.

I believe that is what I was doing. If you catch my drift.

(steely)

[Age of Reason]

I answered much that went over your head.

"dude"

[Age of Reason]

You have made no indication or demonstration of any working knowledge of engineering on this thread.

When I was young, I too was intoxicated with technology.

Then I grew up and learned to use both sides of my brain.

"dude"

[chimera]

One major accident in a major population center like the Northeast would do more harm than all those reactors have done good.

This scenario has been exhaustively analyzed, using worst-case assumptions and time after time the results show little or no adverse health impacts on the general public.

For one thing, these plants aren't near urban centers. Even the subject of this thread, Indian Point, is quite far removed from the population centers of NYC and LI. Any kind of reasonable accident model, which incorporates real-life effects like source term, removal mechanisms, and a meteorological dispersion model, shows that contamination that is of concern in terms of health impact (things like radioiodine, et al.) is confined almost completely to the exclusion zone. Know what that is? That is the land area immediately around the facility, access to which is under the control of the licensee (i.e., no residential or business zones).

And that's for worst-case accidents. Know what the public health implications are for the most likely accident scenarios? Zero. That is, the release is fully contained. That will have an economic impact on the plant operator and maybe the surrounding region if the facility is put out of business, but in terms of health effects? Bah!

Keep things in perspective here. You're talking about zero fatalities among the general public from the use of LWR technology. We lose about 100 people a day from automobile accidents in this country (not that use of IC technology is bad, its just that we make a decision, consciously or not, that the benefits of using the technology outweigh the risks), and close to 3000 a day from legalized abortion. Apply your Age of Reason to those problems before going after nuclear energy, because they're a lot more dangerous.

[presidio9]

I answered much that went over your head.

This is a lie. I asked you what specific danger was posed by nuclear energy and you tried to change the subject. Translation: You have no answer.

[presidio9]

When I was young, I too was intoxicated with technology. Then I grew up and learned to use both sides of my brain.

Let me guess, then you stopped using it altogether? What is this machine in front of you with the typewriter keyboard and the TV screen that you are reading this on?

The fact that a strange technology scares you is not a valid argument against it implementation.

You're sure fond of the word "dude," aren't you?

[presidio9]

Apply your Age of Reason

Don't hold your breath.

[Age of Reason]

Let me guess, then you stopped using it altogether? What The fact that a strange technology scares you is not a valid argument against it implementation.

I majored in math and physics.

I come from a family of technical people.

If you were schooled as a scientist, you would not assume so much as you do.

You're sure fond of the word "dude," aren't you?

Actually, no.

I was quoting you, "dude."

[presidio9]

You have attempted to qualify yourself as an expert. Now give us your expert opinion. I ask you again: What specific danger do Shorham and Indian Point pose to us? Please give a detailed answer.


And try to get over the word "dude." It's just a word, dude.

[middie]

Your description of the Riverkeepers organization as merely a money-raising mechanism is completely erroneous. I've met the leaders of the group and worked on a very meritorious project jointly with them. The group is well intentioned, moderately well funded and, as a collective body, have the preservation of water resources for fishing, recreation and appropriate industrial use as their beneficial goal.

While I am not a member and certainly could not be properly labeled a environmental fanactic, I found Riverkeepers to be a group of reasonable and rational men and women who likewise should not be categorized with pejorative adjectives.

The people of central, panhandle and lower west coast Florida would appreciate (or at least should appreciate) the good works that Riverkeepers have done for their regions. These folks still have abundant recreational and human consumption water resources in significant part because of the dedicated efforts of Riverkeepers in conjunction with state agency employees and local interest groups.

[Age of Reason]

You have attempted to qualify yourself as an expert.

Another incorrect statement on your part: I merely said I majored in math and physics. That makes me an expert?

Now give us your expert opinion.

In what I am expert at, I will make an attempt.

I ask you again: What specific danger do Shorham and Indian Point pose to us? Please give a detailed answer.

That the experts could be wrong--as they so often have been.

[gridlock]

I only know Riverkeepers from the shameless scare-mongering they have engaged in over the Hudson River PCB remediation and Indian Point. They have completely discredited themselves in my eyes based on their actions in New York. They've been quacking like a duck and walking like a duck. In New York, I put them one rung of the ladder above PeTA.

Now, Florida may be a different matter. Perhaps the individual state chapters reflect the attitude of the local leadership.

[presidio9]

In what I am expert at, I will make an attempt.

Translation: "I can't."

That the experts could be wrong--as they so often have been.

Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about. I dislike nuclear energy because I have been brainwashed by the enviornmentalists/I am one.

We know for a fact that airplanes crash all the time with more catostrophic consequences than nuclear power is capable of producing. Should we also ban air travle (Help me out here, I'm just trying to get a handle on what sort of nut I'm dealing with)?

[chimera]

That the experts could be wrong--as they so often have been.

Experts can be wrong, but the laws of nature cannot. And it is simply a matter of reactor physics that LWR technology provides inherent safeguards, among them negative reactivity feedback, and relatively slow and manageable accident evolutions. Further, the laws of radioactive decay inherently limit the source terms for accidents that do not involve an active core. Spent fuel radionuclide inventory decays quite quickly. The radiochemistry of fission products results in reduction mechanisms from relatively simple engineered systems, such as a shielding pool filled with water, and plateout on building walls. The physics of time and space result in dramatic reduction in radionuclide content even a few hundred feet from the containment structure or auxiliary building (where spent fuel is stored), well within the exclusion zone.

Fear of technology is a poor basis for opposing its development. If mankind let his fear of new or exotic-appearing (at least at first glance) things drive his decision-making, we would never have crawled out of the caves or climbed down from the trees in the dim era of prehistory. Rather than a Luddite-like turning away from technology based on irrational fears, a better approach is to work to understand the principles involved, and work to improve and make safer and more useful those things we might at first blush find fearful.

Undoubtedly man's first reaction to fire was one of fear and uncomprehending resentment. But gradually fears gave way to curiosity and understanding, to the betterment of all.

[Age of Reason]

How many times do I have to tell you: I don't care what engineering calculations you trot-out.

Calculations by themselves not enough, even IF the empirical test of actual use for however many decades seems to bear them out.

Even were the specs 100% fool-proof (which no one can know for sure), you still have to wonder if the facility was truly built to spec, e.g., whether mistakes were made in construction or in materials supplied.

Then you have to worry about inspections being correctly performed . . .

. . . about fuel being correctly handled, stored, disposed.

No one has yet shown me a calculation that guarantees the competence of human management.

And I'm not even including terrorism or an employee going postal on a grand scale.

Nuclear facilities and any dangerous by-products do not belong near or in any place there is anything dear to mankind.

(Also I am a man--not a dude, etc. Please.)

[Age of Reason]

it is simply a matter of reactor physics that LWR technology provides inherent safeguards, among them negative reactivity feedback, and relatively slow and manageable accident evolutions. Further, the laws of radioactive decay inherently limit the source terms for accidents that do not involve an active core. Spent fuel radionuclide inventory decays quite quickly. The radiochemistry of fission products results in reduction mechanisms from relatively simple engineered systems, such as a shielding pool filled with water, and plateout on building walls. The physics of time and space result in dramatic reduction in radionuclide content even a few hundred feet from the containment structure or auxiliary building (where spent fuel is stored), well within the exclusion zone.

Too much trouble. Simpler to sleep when it's dark and wake when it's light.