|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:36 AM Original message |
Nukes, Baby, Nukes! Don't worry. Nuclear energy is safe. Just like oil, an accident is unlikely |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:36 AM Response to Original message |
1. +10000000.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
uponit7771 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:39 AM Response to Original message |
2. I rethought my stance on nuke power & now Republicans are the my biggest objections to nukes power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:41 AM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Not sure I understand your post. Republicans are opposed to nuclear power plants? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dogmudgeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:03 AM Response to Reply #4 |
10. Yup. It's "Socialism". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:10 AM Response to Reply #10 |
11. Good paying middle class jobs that can't be outsourced. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:28 AM Response to Reply #11 |
14. A nuclear "workers paradise"! I don't think so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:34 AM Response to Reply #14 |
17. Who said "workers paradise"? But 80% of nuclear workers are unionized. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:37 AM Response to Reply #17 |
19. I did! But, what's your point? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:43 AM Response to Reply #14 |
24. HEY..... An 'upside' to a nuke workers paradise. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:51 PM Response to Reply #24 |
117. You guys are insane. 80k your first day, safer than a warehouse |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 02:30 PM Response to Reply #117 |
185. Well HOT DAMN! Lookie at all that MONEY!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WhoIsNumberNone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:16 AM Response to Reply #4 |
12. I don't think the Republicans are against nuclear power- |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:56 PM Response to Reply #12 |
136. Nuclear power is a Republican darling and has been for 50 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:31 PM Response to Reply #136 |
152. No it is supported by people at MIT. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:40 AM Response to Original message |
3. Better not fly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tekisui (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:31 AM Response to Reply #3 |
16. Are you eye rolling the oil leak in the Gulf and a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:49 AM Response to Reply #16 |
32. I am eye rolling the illogical position that an accident in the gulf coast |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zoeisright (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:06 PM Response to Reply #32 |
94. FAIL. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KansasVoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:28 PM Response to Reply #3 |
57. Wow, dumb logic. Happens a lot here! You have to fly You have to drive...... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:32 PM Response to Reply #57 |
59. Automobiles kills millions of people, fossil fuels millions, radon gas (natural radion) millions. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:54 PM Response to Reply #59 |
72. There you go ruining a perfectly good rant with all your fancy facts and reason |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KansasVoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:10 PM Response to Reply #59 |
77. But unbelievable potential for death. Any industry has accidents, the shuttles... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:40 PM Response to Reply #77 |
88. But don't you know that humans and their machines are now perfect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:54 PM Response to Reply #88 |
121. SO how many more thousands of safe reactor years does the navy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:39 PM Response to Reply #121 |
157. A big difference between the Navy and the private nuclear industry |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:42 PM Response to Reply #157 |
159. oh sure, the just meltdown reactors on billion dollar vessels all the time... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 02:53 PM Response to Reply #159 |
186. you might believe that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:40 PM Response to Reply #57 |
63. You don't have to fly, so with that off the table |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:47 AM Response to Original message |
5. Had BP had even a single level of redundancy the accident could have been avoided. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:51 AM Response to Reply #5 |
6. But they win government safety awards every year. Except the gov't postponed this years awards. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:58 AM Response to Reply #6 |
7. So you don't fly or drive, because accidents happen and you could be killed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:30 AM Response to Reply #7 |
15. Because everyone knows that comparing the risks of modern daily life |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:35 AM Response to Reply #15 |
18. Your right they are not comparable. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:43 AM Response to Reply #18 |
23. Therefore we should make nuclear power driven cars! :) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:55 AM Response to Reply #18 |
37. But I can choose not to drive or fly. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:00 PM Response to Reply #37 |
41. Kinda hard to hide something like that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:27 PM Response to Reply #41 |
56. The front range of Colorado is loaded with radon gas.. Yea I know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:30 PM Response to Reply #56 |
58. Radon occurs naturally. It isn't a man made product. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:39 PM Response to Reply #58 |
62. Yea I know but the question is, so we add man-made fallibilities |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:03 PM Response to Reply #37 |
43. You can choose not to live next to a reactor |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:44 AM Response to Reply #15 |
25. LOL, yea, you could slip in the bathtub! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:47 AM Response to Reply #25 |
30. Your comments do not address your illogical position on nuclear power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:54 AM Response to Reply #30 |
36. both my parents worked on the first reactor at Hanford |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:59 AM Response to Reply #36 |
40. LOL, my father holds all sorts of patents for pump designs, that doesn't make me a pump expert |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:05 PM Response to Reply #40 |
44. thank you for proving my point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:43 PM Response to Reply #44 |
66. Nothing has been "proven" in regards to your points |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:00 PM Response to Reply #25 |
42. Ouch my head |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:46 AM Response to Reply #15 |
27. True, you are far more likely to die in a plane crash or car crash |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:23 PM Response to Reply #27 |
50. I can choose not to drive or fly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:44 PM Response to Reply #50 |
67. People are killed on the ground by crashing planes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:46 PM Response to Reply #67 |
69. Nuclear energy is 100% safe? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:48 PM Response to Reply #69 |
70. Is flying? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:07 PM Response to Reply #70 |
75. I have absolutely no expectations that flying or driving is 100% safe. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:10 PM Response to Reply #75 |
76. Your question is built on the foundation that any risk is unacceptable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:21 PM Response to Reply #76 |
83. Nice cop out... So then we agree that nuclear energy is not 100% safe?! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:23 PM Response to Reply #83 |
84. What we can agree upon is that your position against nukes is an illogical one |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:37 PM Response to Reply #84 |
87. And your proof? Because the industry itself says it's safe? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:47 PM Response to Reply #87 |
89. The difference between our positions is that my in one that is based on risk/cost analysis |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:59 PM Response to Reply #89 |
91. Flying is not safe, planes fall out of the sky. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NJmaverick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:04 PM Response to Reply #91 |
93. So you think that with the current technology all the world's energy needs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:04 PM Response to Reply #93 |
138. There is absolutely no question that renewables are enough. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:06 PM Response to Reply #138 |
140. Evidence? (nt) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:25 PM Response to Reply #140 |
150. Yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:32 PM Response to Reply #150 |
153. And your position just falls apart. 137,000 MW hr. Please supply a simple bom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:51 PM Response to Reply #91 |
99. Have you looked at how much energy we use? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:05 PM Response to Reply #99 |
139. We can build out renewables faster and cheaper than nuclear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:02 PM Response to Reply #89 |
137. Really? What do you know about the limits of such analysis? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
immoderate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 01:08 AM Response to Reply #84 |
181. Don't you see the difference in the level of risk? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dogmudgeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:00 AM Response to Reply #6 |
9. BP actually IS pretty good -- for the oil industry |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:00 AM Response to Original message |
8. Do you drive or ride in cars or busses or airplanes? Do you buy stuff delivered by truck? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:19 AM Response to Reply #8 |
13. Nukes, Baby, Nukes! Is that taken from nuclear power industry news release? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:42 AM Response to Reply #13 |
21. You deride the poster upthread for posting what you think is... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:45 AM Response to Reply #21 |
26. So you object to DU'ers using progressive websites for their information? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:47 AM Response to Reply #26 |
28. Nothing progressive about anti-science garbage. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:07 PM Response to Reply #28 |
141. No they don't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:48 AM Response to Reply #26 |
31. No, I prefer objective sites for my objective news and information...nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:26 PM Response to Reply #13 |
55. Just the facts: I hate cars. I hate oil. I hate coal. I hate natural gas. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:39 AM Response to Reply #8 |
20. I think you missed the point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:42 AM Response to Reply #20 |
22. "a core nuclear meltdown could contaminate a nation for thousands of years" - Nope |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:47 AM Response to Reply #22 |
29. And that of course is why Three Mile Island was not at all a serious problem. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:51 AM Response to Reply #29 |
33. TMI was a serious accident however the danger to the Public was contained |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:16 PM Response to Reply #33 |
45. You right. Just like the oil spill. Shit happens! Can't do anything about it. Nukes, baby! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:17 PM Response to Reply #45 |
48. No you can do something about it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:11 PM Response to Reply #48 |
102. "It was kind of like the Titanic." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occulus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:53 AM Response to Reply #29 |
35. No n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:24 PM Response to Reply #29 |
52. In a word, yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:52 AM Response to Reply #22 |
34. Yes. Really |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:56 AM Response to Reply #34 |
38. You seem to confuse a core meldownl with loss of containment. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:16 PM Response to Reply #38 |
46. Maybe another poster has more facts at his fingertips than I right now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:24 PM Response to Reply #46 |
51. China syndrome was a movie. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:42 PM Response to Reply #51 |
65. Well Duh.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:22 PM Response to Reply #65 |
171. Has a nuclear weapon ever been armed fused and fired in the us by "insiders" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:39 PM Response to Reply #171 |
174. I suggest you rethink.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:44 PM Response to Reply #174 |
175. As of yet no security personnel have contributed to an event. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:51 PM Response to Reply #46 |
118. Fact (not fiction). From the Smithsonian: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:17 PM Response to Reply #38 |
49. You're right again. Nuclear meltdowns are no big thing. Shit happens! Nukes, baby, nukes! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:26 PM Response to Reply #49 |
54. Your President supports nuclear power as does majority of Democrats and majority of Americans. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:57 PM Response to Reply #54 |
90. So you think I ought to join the silent "nuclear majority"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:03 PM Response to Reply #90 |
92. What "next" major nuclear accident? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:42 PM Response to Reply #92 |
96. The one after TMI. Oh. You didn't think warranted being callled a nuclear accident. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:19 PM Response to Reply #96 |
169. Proof that dumbshits should not set policy. Reality is lost on the usa today crowd |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
underseasurveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:33 PM Response to Reply #22 |
60. And a containment building could never be breeched? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:23 PM Response to Reply #60 |
106. There were real fears it might happen at TMI |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:47 PM Response to Reply #106 |
113. Yet now major studies conclude there was no impact to public |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:56 PM Response to Reply #113 |
123. There are conflicting studies, you know that, and questions raised... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:58 PM Response to Reply #123 |
124. Pitt study is 25 year independent study |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fascisthunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 11:58 AM Response to Original message |
39. I see the pro-nuke crowd doesn't like your message |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:37 PM Response to Reply #39 |
61. More like the "pro-logic" crowd. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:44 PM Response to Reply #61 |
68. so you actually think that in the context of the BP accident, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:14 PM Response to Reply #68 |
78. Not in the least. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:19 PM Response to Reply #78 |
82. I thought the point of the OP was that we are constantly being lied to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:15 PM Response to Reply #82 |
103. A somewhat fatalistic position, is it not? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
immoderate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 01:24 AM Response to Reply #103 |
183. Sounds like you are determined to learn from experience. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fascisthunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 05:46 PM Response to Reply #61 |
101. would you really trust businesses to do the right thing with Nuclear Power Plants |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:27 PM Response to Reply #101 |
108. What a load of bull. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:13 PM Response to Reply #108 |
142. You keep repeating that false assertion. It is FALSE, get it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:21 PM Response to Reply #142 |
145. A single, relatively recently published paper, is no slam dunk counter argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:22 PM Response to Reply #145 |
146. Show me one that says renewables can't do it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:34 PM Response to Reply #146 |
154. Your position, link one that can, tomorrow. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 12:32 AM Response to Reply #154 |
177. MIT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Echo In Light (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:50 PM Response to Reply #39 |
71. They are a diligent lot |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:17 PM Response to Original message |
47. We in PA know the truth. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:25 PM Response to Original message |
53. Nuclear power doesn't make us invade middle eastern countries |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:18 PM Response to Reply #53 |
79. Does that include Iran and what guarantees can you provide? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:25 PM Response to Reply #79 |
85. Yes they are, pursuant to their rights under the NPT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:35 PM Response to Reply #85 |
86. So you don't think their pursuit of nuclear power could lead to military attack on their land. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Recursion (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:16 PM Response to Reply #86 |
95. Under the old SALT, the Soviets did |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
closeupready (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:41 PM Response to Original message |
64. Yep. You nailed it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 12:56 PM Response to Original message |
73. Chernobyl Still Poses 'Urgent' Threat on Anniversary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:17 PM Response to Reply #73 |
104. two very different situations..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:23 PM Response to Reply #104 |
107. identical? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:29 PM Response to Reply #107 |
109. Don't be childish. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:38 PM Response to Reply #109 |
110. give me a break |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:47 PM Response to Reply #110 |
112. Lol, simply because I call you out on your bullshit, I'm a "corporate apologist?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:50 PM Response to Reply #112 |
116. more lack of word comprehension |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:53 PM Response to Reply #116 |
120. No, you weren't careful with your words. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:56 PM Response to Reply #120 |
122. I think we wouldn't be having this discussion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:58 PM Response to Reply #122 |
125. "If weren't an ass?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:03 PM Response to Reply #125 |
128. welcome |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:13 PM Response to Reply #128 |
131. Hey, not my fault you have no sense of humor! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mwooldri (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:02 PM Response to Original message |
74. Speaking of nukes, didn't I hear somewhere that a good way to shut off that oil geyser... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:18 PM Response to Reply #74 |
80. No, that's not a good way to shut off the oil geyser... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dchill (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:23 PM Response to Reply #74 |
148. Oh, dammit! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LanternWaste (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 01:18 PM Response to Original message |
81. I imagine that the Outpatient Cancer Treatment/Radiation Center |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:44 PM Response to Original message |
97. Nothing will work if implemented poorly. And while some fools seem to think that's an argument for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 02:46 PM Response to Reply #97 |
98. "get a brain" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 04:45 PM Response to Reply #97 |
100. And some may think you just made an argument in favor of offshore oil drilling |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:19 PM Response to Reply #100 |
105. Nice loaded question there. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #100 |
115. The navy is on a 5700 reactor year run. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:00 PM Response to Reply #97 |
127. Let's face it, it would all be done better if the companies involved were not all greedy bastards. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:18 PM Response to Reply #127 |
134. Heavily regulated, as it should be. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:45 PM Response to Original message |
111. Choices, coal, nuclear, or kneepads |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
G_j (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #111 |
114. you left out hemp |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 06:52 PM Response to Reply #114 |
119. Hemp can replace many petroleum products |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:11 PM Response to Reply #111 |
130. Guess you never heard of wind or solar along with other alternatives. So Nukes, Baby, Nukes and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:14 PM Response to Reply #130 |
132. You know that some people at MIT wrote a neat little paper on this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 12:39 AM Response to Reply #132 |
178. MIT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:15 PM Response to Reply #130 |
133. The day somebody shows me wind and/or solar... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:27 PM Response to Reply #133 |
151. I provided that study. You rejected it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:35 PM Response to Reply #151 |
155. Perhaps you should look up the word "rejected" and it's meaning. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:41 PM Response to Reply #151 |
158. 150,000 wind turbines, or 37 nuclear, and no mention of storage problems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:09 PM Response to Reply #158 |
164. No it doesn't. You must have read that study like you read the MIT study. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:14 PM Response to Reply #164 |
166. Yes, I read it. I gave you page numbers. Like nuclear they want gov money too |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:16 PM Response to Reply #164 |
167. Yes, it in fact does. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 10:59 PM Response to Reply #167 |
176. You don't seem to have a full view of the situation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 12:44 AM Response to Reply #176 |
180. I have to admit, you make a very compelling argument. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:20 PM Response to Reply #111 |
143. Nope |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:52 PM Response to Reply #143 |
161. You didn't actually read it did you.. See it relies on stuff that is not invented yet |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 12:43 AM Response to Reply #161 |
179. No it doesn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:00 PM Response to Original message |
126. Well, it's a good thing we don't have lawyers designing nuclear reactors |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
workinclasszero (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:03 PM Response to Original message |
129. Hey what could possibly happen? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 07:20 PM Response to Reply #129 |
135. Yeah, because doing what we're doing now is working so well, right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:21 PM Response to Reply #135 |
144. Dude there are hundreds of studies showing that assertion is false. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:22 PM Response to Reply #144 |
147. There are hundreds, yet you keep posting this same one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:24 PM Response to Reply #147 |
149. Show me ONE plan / resource assessment that says renewables can't do it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:37 PM Response to Reply #149 |
156. Hey, you first :P You claimed there were hundreds supporting your position. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:45 PM Response to Reply #149 |
160. That would be yours (page 167).. It references storage technology that does not exist now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Robeson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 08:59 PM Response to Original message |
162. Hard to believe on a "progressive" site, this only has 10 recs.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eqfan592 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:05 PM Response to Reply #162 |
163. That's because there are some solid arguments in support of expanded... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Robeson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:16 PM Response to Reply #163 |
168. Maybe so. But I have a sneaking feeling that if the President came out against expanding... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:20 PM Response to Reply #168 |
170. Some would. But there is a long term national security interest |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:09 PM Response to Reply #162 |
165. Progressive does not mean stupid, reactionary, argue from emotion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 08:26 AM Response to Reply #165 |
184. So exactly why do you consider Greenpeace and environmental groups "stupid and reactionary"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tutankhamun (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:25 PM Response to Original message |
172. I live about 15 miles from the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in SoCal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon May-03-10 09:32 PM Response to Reply #172 |
173. I have lived or worked around reactors for 30 years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
breadandwine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue May-04-10 01:16 AM Response to Original message |
182. Oh don't be so squeamish. What hijacker would fly a plane into a civilian target? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 13th 2024, 01:35 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC