New nuclear reactors set to be OK'd for Georgia-first in 30 years

Another thread

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 10:58.

Hijacked by two people who will never agree! why don't you two grow up and agree to disagree. instead of relentless postings trying to persuade each other their position is right and correct . Not going to happen don't you guys get it...tdm

In Science, we objectively know RIGHT and WRONG!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 13:42.

Science is different than ANY other field of human endeavor because we have an absolute arbiter, Mother Nature; who can objectively tell us what is right and what is wrong.

In Science, we don't "agree to disagree" on what the value of Planck's constant is, or whether momentum in conserved in a collision.

Mother Nature tells us what is right and what is wrong.

The people who tell us things that disagree with what Mother Nature tells us are not just expressing an opinion to which they are entitled. NO - when they disagree with what Mother Nature tells us, then they are unequivocally, just flat out WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

This is a scientific forum read by real scientists. When the dimwit anti-nukes come in with fabrications that prove that they are merely thinking with their politics instead of their brains; then they and their foolish notions should be condemned in the strongest terms.

I concur

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 17:59.

I concur. One of the strong points of this site is that you have the BRAWM team of scientists giving us scientifically accurate information, i.e. the truth. To allow this site to allow fabricated propaganda from the anti-nuclear movement to go unchallenged would be a detriment. Hey scientists; keep up the good work of providing the public with honest, scientifically accurate information.

More on chairman jaczko Dissent vote

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 14:57.

The Vogtle project is considered by many observers to be a major test of whether the industry can build nuclear plants without the delays and cost overruns that plagued earlier rounds of building.
Close on the project's heels is South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., which is seeking permission to build two reactors at an existing plant in Jenkinsville, S.C. In addition, construction of a second reactor at the Watts Bar nuclear plant in Tennessee is under way after years of delay.
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko voted against the Vogtle license, saying he wanted a binding commitment from the company that it would make safety changes prompted by the Japan disaster.
"We've given them a license. They have not given us any commitment they will make these changes in the future," Jaczko said.
The meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant led to a series of recommendations by the NRC to improve safety at the 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. The changes are intended to make the plants better prepared for incidents they were not initially designed to handle, such as prolonged power blackouts or damage to multiple reactors at the same time.
The changes are still being developed, though Jaczko said it is clear that they will be required by the NRC before the new reactors begin operating.
Despite his opposition to the license, Jaczko called the vote "historic" and a culmination of years of work by Southern Co. and the NRC.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/NRC-approves-first-new-nuclear-pl...

All nuclear power plants are subject to revisions

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 15:37.

All nuclear power plants are subject to revisions by the NRC. If the NRC decides that nuclear power plants have to conform to some new standard; then they have to conform.

I therefore don't understand Jaczko's comment that they need some assurance from Southern Company that they will implement changes inspired by Fukushima.

Southern Company and Vogtle Units 3 and 4 will have to comply with new NRC regulations; just like all the other operating nuclear power plants.

There's no reason to hold up the construction / operating license in order to get some "assurance" from Southern Company that they will conform to the new rules. They'll conform, just like all other licensed operators.

Makes you wonder if Jaczko has his head on straight.

More Childhood Leukemia

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-02-11 11:41.

_______________________________

"French Scientists: Childhood Leukemia Spikes Near Nuclear Reactors"

http://www.truth-out.org/french-scientists-childhood-leukemia-spikes-nea...

JUNK SCIENCE!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-02-11 20:23.

Here's the quote from the above that is the dead giveaway that this is "junk science:
[i]
The researchers note that they found no mechanistic proof of cause and effect, but could find no other environmental factor that could produce the excess cancers.
[/i]
The researchers couldn't find anything to prove that the nuclear power plants were at fault, so in the absence of any proof; they merely assumed it was the nuclear power plants.

First, a study of so few years means bad statistics. The fact that they studied data from only a handful of years could well account for a 2.2% increase.

There are also many, many, other sources of radiation and carcinogens in people's lives. If you can't find the cause, why would you just assume that it is the nuclear power plant, unless you are biased against nuclear power; which is probably the explanation here.

Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

which shows the percentage of the average person's radiation exposure due to nuclear power plants ( "nuclear fuel cycle" ) to be <0.03%.

So when the researchers in France could not explain the cancers via a mechanistic proof; they assumed that the cause was something that provided <0.03% of the average person's radiation exposure.

As long as they were just assuming when they didn't have any proof; why not assume that the cause of the cancers was due to the medical use of X-rays; at least that accounts for 11% of the average radiation exposure.

NOPE - we have again a bunch of gullible simpletons that fell "hook, line, and sinker" for an obvious piece of propaganda.

Approved 4-1

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-02-09 13:01.

Dissent vote nrc chairman jackzo wow wow wow...a bit of honesty from the chairman. I really commend jackzo for taking this sensible stance .

http://www.ajc.com/business/plant-vogtle-nuclear-expansion-1340522.html

Commissioners voted 4-1 to approve the project. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who has supported the project throughout the process, dissented, saying he was concerned that the reactors would not meet certain safety requirements put in place since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi accident.

" Significant safety enhancements have already been recommended as a result of learning the lessons from Fukushima, and there is still more work ahead of us. Knowing this, I cannot support issuing these licenses as if Fukushima never happened," Jaczko said.

Great opportunity if you

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-02-09 11:43.

Great opportunity if you happen to be a doctor who treats cancer patients and are looking to relocate to an area where you can grow your practice

Ain't those downwinders in Georgia and South Carolina lucky..........................

Cancer is NOT more prevalent near nuclear power plants.

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-02-09 14:14.

Numerous studies over the years have shown that cancer is not more prevalent near nuclear power plants.

Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-facilities

No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities

A National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 20, 1991, showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power plants, nine Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and one commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the startup of the facilities were compared with cancer rates in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities (control counties).

Cancer in Nuclear Workers...

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-02-11 11:48.

___________________________________

"New radiobiology science shows even more cause for concern. Numerous studies of nuclear workers over the last six years—including one authored by 51 radiation scientists that looked at more than 400,000 nuclear workers in 15 countries—found higher incidences of cancer at significantly lower exposure rates than what Japan is allowing.

This finding is important because it challenges the application of the highly questionable data from the Japanese atom bomb survivors that authorities use to set radiation exposure limits."

Read more: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/10/nuclear-damage-control/#ixzz1m6HMNwno

Cancer from nuclear power

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-02-09 13:57.

Cancer from nuclear power plants? Any proof of that or are you just making bold statements with no backing?

Evidently just bold statements...

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-02-09 17:18.

Cancer from nuclear power plants? Any proof of that or are you just making bold statements with no backing?
==========================

Evidently just bold statements; all the proof has been to the contrary, that nuclear power plants do NOT contribute to cancer.

After all, the dose due to nuclear power is 3000 times lower than the background dose due to Mother Nature:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

Note the dose due to nuclear power ("nuclear fuel cycle" in table) is <0.03% of the average person's annual radiation dose.

The single largest contribution to the average person's radiation exposure is due to Mother Nature

More Nuclear Spin from Mr. Banana....

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-02-11 11:51.

_______________________

Humans have adapted to radiation from Mother Nature.

Conversely, Human DNA is destroyed by manmade radiation from Nuclear Power Plants.

WRONG! WRONG!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-02-11 20:35.

This is one of the STUPIDEST arguments that the anti-nukes make; that mankind has "adapted" to natural radiation.

It shows a manifest misunderstanding that although there are many radionuclides, some made by Mother Nature and some made by mankind; there are only 3 types of radiation; alpha, beta, and gamma.

Alpha radiation is alpha particles which are the same as the Helium-4 nucleus.
Beta radiation is electrons.
Gamma radiation is photons.

There are NOT "natural" electrons and "man-made" electrons.
There are NOT "natural" photons and "man-made" photons.

A 1.0 MeV photon is a 1.0 MeV photon is a 1.0 MeV photon.

Suppose a chemist were to formulate a compound that is the same as the toxin in death-cap mushrooms. The formulated compound is IDENTICAL to the naturally produced toxin.

Would the brainless anti-nuke chowderheads say "Oh, the stuff from the death-cap mushroom is 'natural' so it won't hurt us; but that stuff made by the chemist is really, really, bad."

NO dimwits; Mother Nature makes things that are every bit as deadly as the stuff humans can make; and we don't adapt to them. Likewise, Mother Nature's radiation is every bit as potent as the radiation made by mankind.

The childish, ignorant, and downright stupid anti-nukes had better learn that if they are ever to be taken seriously by intelligent people.

If you're an example...

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 20:03.

of the type of thinking the nuclear industry is relying on, no wonder why it's in such a mess.

According to the EPA (you do know who the EPA is, don't you?)

"Our bodies are well adapted to some degree of exposure; humans evolved in the presence of radiation and have well developed mechanisms for repairing cell damage from it."

AND

"The human body is born with potassium-40 in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. We evolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have well-developed repair mechanisms to respond to its effects."

http://www.epa.gov/radtown/basic.html

You missed the point.

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 22:33.

The other poster is correct - you missed the point.

It's not whether or not we're adapted to radiation or not - we are.

The anti-nuclear movement claims that the adaptive response can tell the difference between damage done by natural or man-made radiation; which it clearly can't. Therefore for equivalent dose, man-made radiation is no more dangerous than natural radiation.

More stupidity from the anti-nukes.

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-02-12 21:03.

Yes - our bodies have the ability to repair DNA damage due to radiation.

However, you dumb moron; you completely missed the point.

The poster above said that we have adapted to "natural" radiation; but man-made radiation was dangerous.

We do have a DNA repair mechanism; but it works just as well on "man-made" radiation as it does on "natural" radiation.

The DNA repair mechanism does NOT discriminate on the basis of whether the radiation source was "natural" or "man made".

So just as "natural" radiation is just as dangerous as "man-made" radiation; the repair mechanism works just as well on "man-made" radiation damage as it does on "natural" radiation.

Do you understand NOW?

A long time in coming..

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-02-09 08:02.

President Obama announced the loan guarantees for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 about 2 years ago:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan_guarantees_offered_for_new_Vog...

However, the Vogtle units will be Westinghouse AP1000 units, and the NRC is set to give final design certification approval on the AP1000:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/business/energy-environment/nrc-clears...

http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chu-statement-ap1000-reactor-design...