Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [NY Times] Uranium Plant Using Laser Technology Wins U.S. Approval
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[NY Times] Uranium Plant Using Laser Technology Wins U.S. Approval - Page 4

post #31 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortunex View Post

Nuclear power is the safest form of generating electricity. There have been zero nuclear-power related deaths in the US, and less than a couple thousand globally, in the past 30 years (including Chernobyl). Coal, natural gas, oil, hydro etc. are all more dangerous than nuclear, but I bet you're fine with having one of those power plants near you. 1,000 people die from falling down stairs every year. Are stairs too dangerous for you? Are you not going to find stairs where you live, based on that chance?
Sooner or later, an accident is going to happen at ANYTHING. Walking down the street, driving, shopping, taking a shower. Are those too risky for you?

I dont know why Im arguing with you because I understand with what you are saying, but the implications of your comparisons are way off and thats why I am posting.

when a plant melts down it causes cities to move, relocate, ect. When you fall down stairs and die people call you stupid and laugh it off....

There have been "scenarios" where the "chain of death" or some crazy scenario is explained where if fukushima melts down too the point they cant control it, other nuclear plants are in that area where the radiation would be too high to do maintenance and control them forcing them to be abandoned and do the same thing over a long period of time, causing more plants in those plants range do the same..... and so on. Japan could be lost.

Before you laugh at that they also had "scenarios" that explained if a earthquake followed buy a tsunami could knock out power to Fukushima. People arent laughing now.

Do I believe this stuff? of course not, this is some dooms day engineer going off the deep end. But what it does show is theres a lot more damage to surrounding areas then you falling down a set of stairs.

WE as humans already talk of over populating this world, and even though there is much land/water/forrrest left, there comes a point where you ask yourself what if a plant near New York went. OR a plant near a major fresh water supply that flows to lands that grow food.

Its much more complicated then 1000 people die from being stupid falling down stairs a year, no one died from a melt down this year so stairs > melt downs for whats more dangerous.
Edited by ttwerdun - 9/28/12 at 8:23pm
post #32 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortunex View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyMcFlych View Post

As the consequences for nuclear accidents are forever I find the "almost zero" and "very unlikely" and "almost impossible" and ... reassurances to not be very reassuring. You have to be brain washed to accept nuclear power where you live, because in an long enough timeline "almost zero" and "very unlikely" suddenly become "almost 100" and "very likely".
Until you can say "accidents are impossible" and "zero chance of accident" you won't find nuclear power ever where I live.
edit: I should go through this thread and find all the quotes essentially admitting that sooner or later a nuclear accident will happen at any given reactor. "next to none" was used as I typed up my post.

Nuclear power is the safest form of generating electricity. There have been zero nuclear-power related deaths in the US, and less than a couple thousand globally, in the past 30 years (including Chernobyl). Coal, natural gas, oil, hydro etc. are all more dangerous than nuclear, but I bet you're fine with having one of those power plants near you. 1,000 people die from falling down stairs every year. Are stairs too dangerous for you? Are you not going to find stairs where you live, based on that chance?

Sooner or later, an accident is going to happen at ANYTHING. Walking down the street, driving, shopping, taking a shower. Are those too risky for you?

Ok, you too are ill-informed. Like Fortunex said, the odds of fatalities at ANYTHING are possible. Did you know that there have been n estimated 4.7 million dog bites that occur in the U.S. each year, and even worse 800,000 of them need medical care... We should do away with Dogs, they are a health hazard.

Also, claiming that :"nuclear accidents are forever" is, quite frankly, unfounded. The statements that are made about nuclear fallout taking thousands of years to be habitable again are hogwash.. need proof? Look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... I don't believe (and my memory is quite often wrong) that WWII was several thousand years ago.

Really, it is a very safe form of power. More people die from falling off of power line poles than of nuclear radiation from the plants.
post #33 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortunex View Post

Nuclear power is the safest form of generating electricity. There have been zero nuclear-power related deaths in the US, and less than a couple thousand globally, in the past 30 years (including Chernobyl). Coal, natural gas, oil, hydro etc. are all more dangerous than nuclear, but I bet you're fine with having one of those power plants near you. 1,000 people die from falling down stairs every year. Are stairs too dangerous for you? Are you not going to find stairs where you live, based on that chance?
Sooner or later, an accident is going to happen at ANYTHING. Walking down the street, driving, shopping, taking a shower. Are those too risky for you?

People. Real families. Generations of human beings have been living at and around chernobyl and fukushima for as long as there have been humans. 10's (100's?) of thousands of years of human habitation. All changed irrevocably in an instant. People will never live at these sites again.

No other power generating technology has the potential to render large chunks of habitable land uninhabitable forever. Which is why "almost zero" and "next to none" while acceptable for other technologies isn't for nuclear power.

honestly... what does 1000 people falling down stairs have to do with this... falling down stairs doesn't render them radioactive forever.

The deaths associated with these failures are immaterial to my opposition to nuclear power. They are human tragedies that I feel compassion for but people die every day in all sorts of ways. My opposition is because the consequences for nuclear plant failures arn't just for us. They are also for our descendants. A thousand generations of humans will be dealing with chernobyl and fukushima.
post #34 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyMcFlych View Post

As the consequences for nuclear accidents are forever I find the "almost zero" and "very unlikely" and "almost impossible" and ... reassurances to not be very reassuring. You have to be brain washed to accept nuclear power where you live, because in an long enough timeline "almost zero" and "very unlikely" suddenly become "almost 100" and "very likely".

Until you can say "accidents are impossible" and "zero chance of accident" you won't find nuclear power ever where I live.


edit: I should go through this thread and find all the quotes essentially admitting that sooner or later a nuclear accident will happen at any given reactor. "next to none" was used as I typed up my post.

How many people per year die from nuclear power plants, on average since they've existed? Maybe 3-4 people. By your logic you shouldn't allow cars anywhere near your neighborhood, or electricity, or gas, or other people, etc. You'll want to shut down all coal power plants as those are much more deadly than nuclear power.
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttwerdun View Post

I dont know why Im arguing with you because I understand with what you are saying, but the implications of your comparisons are way off and thats why I am posting.
when a plant melts down it causes cities to move, relocate, ect. When you fall down stairs and die people call you stupid and laugh it off....
There have been "scenarios" where the "chain of death" or some crazy scenario is explained where if fukushima melts down too the point they cant control it, other nuclear plants are in that area where the radiation would be too high to do maintenance and control them causing them to do the same thing over a long period of time, causing more plants in those plants range do the same..... and so on. Japan could be lost.
Do I believe this stuff? of course not, this is some dooms day engineer going off the deep end. But what it does show is theres a lot more damage to surrounding areas then you falling down a set of stairs.
WE as humans already talk of over populating this world, and even though there is much land/water/forrrest left, there comes a point where you ask yourself what if a plant near New York went. OR a plant near a major fresh water supply that flows to lands that grow food.
Its much more complicated then 1000 people die from being stupid falling down stairs a year, no one died from a melt down this year so stairs > melt downs for whats more dangerous.

So where's the complaints for coal, oil, hydro or natural gas? All more dangerous both to the populace and the environment, but I can almost guarantee you're getting your electricity from one of those.

APUvA.png

More people die from falling down stairs every year than the total death toll for nuclear power in the past 30 years. Nuclear power is extremely safe.
Edited by Fortunex - 9/28/12 at 8:32pm
COST EFFECTIVE
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz 1.24v Asus P8P67 Vanilla ASUS GTX660Ti DirectCU OC @ 1,250MHz/7,000MHz G.Skill Eco 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX) Intel 520 120GB LG SuperMulti CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 BenQ E2420HD Filco Majestouch 2 Tenkeyless w/ MX blues Seasonic SS-650HT 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair 500R Logitech G400 Steelseries QCK Asus Xonar DG 
AudioOther
Fiio E17 Alpen Beyerdynamic DT770 + Zalman clip-on mic 
  hide details  
Reply
COST EFFECTIVE
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz 1.24v Asus P8P67 Vanilla ASUS GTX660Ti DirectCU OC @ 1,250MHz/7,000MHz G.Skill Eco 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX) Intel 520 120GB LG SuperMulti CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 BenQ E2420HD Filco Majestouch 2 Tenkeyless w/ MX blues Seasonic SS-650HT 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair 500R Logitech G400 Steelseries QCK Asus Xonar DG 
AudioOther
Fiio E17 Alpen Beyerdynamic DT770 + Zalman clip-on mic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyMcFlych View Post

As the consequences for nuclear accidents are forever I find the "almost zero" and "very unlikely" and "almost impossible" and ... reassurances to not be very reassuring. You have to be brain washed to accept nuclear power where you live, because in an long enough timeline "almost zero" and "very unlikely" suddenly become "almost 100" and "very likely".
Until you can say "accidents are impossible" and "zero chance of accident" you won't find nuclear power ever where I live.
edit: I should go through this thread and find all the quotes essentially admitting that sooner or later a nuclear accident will happen at any given reactor. "next to none" was used as I typed up my post.

Do you have any idea what fossil fuels have done to this planet? Magnitudes more than any nuclear disaster ever will. The deaths from Chernobyl are absolutely dwarfed by the damage caused by fossil fuels on an annual basis. More people choke to death in a year than nuclear power has killed. Everything is relative and you really need to COMPARE it to something before you say it's a huge disaster.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post

How many people per year die from nuclear power plants, on average since they've existed? Maybe 3-4 people. By your logic you shouldn't allow cars anywhere near your neighborhood, or electricity, or gas, or other people, etc. You'll want to shut down all coal power plants as those are much more deadly than nuclear power.

Another person failing to understand. Am I really that bad at explaining my position? Please read my last post. The deaths involved in these disasters aren't the basis for my opposition.
post #38 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridden View Post

Ok, you too are ill-informed. Like Fortunex said, the odds of fatalities at ANYTHING are possible. Did you know that there have been n estimated 4.7 million dog bites that occur in the U.S. each year, and even worse 800,000 of them need medical care... We should do away with Dogs, they are a health hazard.
Also, claiming that :"nuclear accidents are forever" is, quite frankly, unfounded. The statements that are made about nuclear fallout taking thousands of years to be habitable again are hogwash.. need proof? Look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... I don't believe (and my memory is quite often wrong) that WWII was several thousand years ago.
Really, it is a very safe form of power. More people die from falling off of power line poles than of nuclear radiation from the plants.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, they did not experience the effects of neutron activation, most of the radiation had dissipated within 48 hours of the bombing because they were air burst detonations. Please don't think that radiation is not a threat, neutron activation makes materials that come in contact with the reactor maternally emit radiation, the vehicle graveyard from Chernobyl can still kill you if you go near them because they're so hot still.
MCP
(17 items)
 
Loki
(2 items)
 
Rinzler
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700K 5GHz Asus P8Z68 Deluxe Gen3 EVGA GTX-1080Ti (4x8GB) Crucial Balistix 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
A bunch of SSD's LG DVD Combo Apogee Xt Rev 1.0, 360 Rad + D5 Fedora 25 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Windows 10 Acer 32" 4k Acer 32" 4k Wacom Cintiq 27 QHD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Corsair AX850 Coolermaster HAF-X Corsair 
Audio
Xonar DG 
CPUGraphics
Intel i7-4558U Intel Iris 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 720QM Proprietary GTX 260M 4 gb DDR3 1066 
Hard Drive
500 GB WD Caviar Black 
  hide details  
Reply
MCP
(17 items)
 
Loki
(2 items)
 
Rinzler
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700K 5GHz Asus P8Z68 Deluxe Gen3 EVGA GTX-1080Ti (4x8GB) Crucial Balistix 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
A bunch of SSD's LG DVD Combo Apogee Xt Rev 1.0, 360 Rad + D5 Fedora 25 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Windows 10 Acer 32" 4k Acer 32" 4k Wacom Cintiq 27 QHD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Corsair AX850 Coolermaster HAF-X Corsair 
Audio
Xonar DG 
CPUGraphics
Intel i7-4558U Intel Iris 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 720QM Proprietary GTX 260M 4 gb DDR3 1066 
Hard Drive
500 GB WD Caviar Black 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortunex View Post

So where's the complaints for coal, oil, hydro or natural gas? All more dangerous both to the populace and the environment, but I can almost guarantee you're getting your electricity from one of those.
More people die from falling down stairs every year than the total death toll for nuclear power in the past 30 years. Nuclear power is extremely safe.

And why do you think everyone wants to turn to Nuclear energy or something like thorium, Because Coal, oil, hydro effects the planet in a negative way just over a longer period of time. People see this and say "hey id like this planet to last a few thousand more years, lets get something more clean then coal, oil ect" Nuclear energy is great when people dont get comfortable with "almost no way to meltdown" or "would not kill nearly as many people as stairs do each year"

Thats just a short sighted approach. Yes I use power and need all these energy sources, but we need to move forward and not just say "nothing can prove negative effects from nuclear energy". Really? ask the thousands of people relocated when those plants melted down. I bet they would say something different.

PS - insurance companies dont cover nuclear accidents cause by fire, flood, earth quakes in Japan.
post #40 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttwerdun View Post

And why do you think everyone wants to turn to Nuclear energy or something like thorium, Because Coal, oil, hydro effects the planet in a negative way just over a longer period of time. People see this and say "hey id like this planet to last a few thousand more years, lets get something more clean then coal, oil ect" Nuclear energy is great when people dont get comfortable with "almost no way to meltdown" or "would not kill nearly as many people as stairs do each year"
Thats just a short sighted approach. Yes I use power and need all these energy sources, but we need to move forward and not just say "nothing can prove negative effects from nuclear energy". Really? ask the thousands of people relocated when those plants melted down. I bet they would say something different.
PS - insurance companies dont cover nuclear accidents cause by fire, flood, earth quakes in Japan.

Those thousands of people are far better off than the hundreds of thousands that die per year from coal pollution.

Why can't people get comfortable with that? They're comfortable with every other source of power. Why is nuclear an exception? There's no reason to make a deal about nuclear at all because it is FAR safer than current popular power sources. Yes, there's a chance of an accident happening. I'd be more worried about the accident itself than the power plant in that case (like the Japan earthquake/tsunami, which killed tens of thousands times more people than the power plant it damaged).
COST EFFECTIVE
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz 1.24v Asus P8P67 Vanilla ASUS GTX660Ti DirectCU OC @ 1,250MHz/7,000MHz G.Skill Eco 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX) Intel 520 120GB LG SuperMulti CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 BenQ E2420HD Filco Majestouch 2 Tenkeyless w/ MX blues Seasonic SS-650HT 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair 500R Logitech G400 Steelseries QCK Asus Xonar DG 
AudioOther
Fiio E17 Alpen Beyerdynamic DT770 + Zalman clip-on mic 
  hide details  
Reply
COST EFFECTIVE
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz 1.24v Asus P8P67 Vanilla ASUS GTX660Ti DirectCU OC @ 1,250MHz/7,000MHz G.Skill Eco 1600Mhz 7-8-7-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX) Intel 520 120GB LG SuperMulti CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium x64 BenQ E2420HD Filco Majestouch 2 Tenkeyless w/ MX blues Seasonic SS-650HT 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair 500R Logitech G400 Steelseries QCK Asus Xonar DG 
AudioOther
Fiio E17 Alpen Beyerdynamic DT770 + Zalman clip-on mic 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [NY Times] Uranium Plant Using Laser Technology Wins U.S. Approval