San Onofre Power Plant
San Onofre is still shut down because of leaks and faulty equipment and pipes.
Some one here in this forum layed it on real thick that there are upteen "insurance agencies" that cover nuclear plants and clean up too.
Hello, where are all these agencies now, I don't see one of them out there at San Onofre checking up and finding out what went wrong and damage they need to cover. If nuclear power is safe and is a great science then why can't "anyone" come clean with the issues at San Onofre right now?
We get mixed information about if it leaked or not. And people are still scratching their heads trying to figure out the problems. Either they can't figure it out and therefore it is not safe to operate such plants, or they are hiding and trying to stall until the media just goes away and they can start operating again.
Lies lies lies.
Nuke Insurance
Okay so you have pointed out the type of insurance, and it is obvious it is useless.
Perhaps you should sell some insurance yourself you sound like a real slick salesman for the nuke industry.
The bottom line is Fukushima is not getting cleaned up in the way it should be. Rather it's horrors are getting "covered up" by pro nuke folk like yourself.
Big corporations should pay for this. Since they use all the energy anyway.
Poor Reading Comprension
Like so many anti-nukes; the above poster has poor reading comprehension.
As has been presented here, there are many agencies that deal with nuclear liability insurance.
Evidently the above poster doesn't know the function of liability insurance.
Let me explain it with a simple example. You have liability insurance on your car because the State requires it. That insurance covers people that you may injure.
However, if a mechanic makes a defective repair on your car during regular service; that is not an issue for State Farm, Allstate, Progressive, or whatever liability insurer that you have. The defective repair is matter to be worked out between you and your mechanic.
Another demonstration of the defective reasoning of the typical anti-nuke.
and yet ANOTHER demonstration
and yet ANOTHER demonstration of the defective reasoning of the typical shill pro nuke. You really are a head case. Is there any thread you don't stalk?
Your posts are so predictable they are boring. I can now pretty much write the script of your responses to anyone who remotely questions or poses concerns about nuclear power.
For those of us seeking truth, not your dysfunctional one sided arguments, you do no service in providing "balance" to the discussion, only rabid intolerance and name calling.
A real intellectual, you are.
Devoid of factual content
I note that the above post is totally devoid of factual content in discussing the San Onofre issue.
Once again, the anti-nukes squeal like stuck pigs when their LIES and fear-mongering are illuminated with the light of truth and science.
All I see is another anti-nuke that is unhappy that his / her attempts at fear-mongering and lying were thwarted by the truth.
Yet the self-serving hypocrites contend that they are "seeking truth" when nothing could be farther from their parochial political agenda.
Their ideal of "balance" is balancing the scientific truth with their unscientific, unsupported fear mongering. That's what they "think" is "balance".
"Yet the self-serving
"Yet the self-serving hypocrites contend that they are "seeking truth" when nothing could be farther from their parochial political agenda.
Their ideal of "balance" is balancing the scientific truth with their unscientific, unsupported fear mongering. That's what they "think" is "balance"."
Something is wrong with you. Your responses are getting more weird with each day.
Your projections, and presumption of people's motives, is not normal. You are very very paranoid. You treat everyone as evil if they come to this forum with questions or post links, and you completely over react, fly off the handle, attack, insult. I'm not sure what your issues are, but I suddenly feel sorry for you (I'm not saying that to insult, but to convey genuine empathy). I will no longer engage with you, but I will offer prayer that you find some peace.
HURRAY!!!
I will no longer engage with you, but I will offer prayer that you find some peace.
===============
HURRAY!!! Another anti-nuke throwing in the towel. Truth and science win!!!
Save your prayers; I don't believe in a deity.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously,
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, I literally laughed out loud!
The stuck pig squealing is you, dude! Complete with your dramatic BOLDING of letters!! You crack me up! sooooeeeeeey!
Also seriously, why did you say that guy is a liar? I read and reread his post. I don't get it. Must be that your ego was hurt. Why are we liars if we call you out for your emotional name calling? From what I see, you call everyone hypocrites, liars, fear mongers, and lots of other names. There's a great course you could benefit from "how to win friends and INFLUENCE PEOPLE"
you don't win arguments with emotional outbursts. Sheesh. Take a pill.
You don't understand why he's a liar
He's a liar because he claims the lack of insurance adjusters going over San Onofre is evidence of the lack of liability insurance that was previously claimed.
I am pointing out that if Joe's mechanic did a poor preventive maintenance repair job on Joe's car, and his State Farm insurance representative was not involved in resolving this transaction that didn't involve an accident; then that is no evidence that Joe doesn't have liability insurance.
Comprehend now, or is more spoon-feeding in order???
OH BROTHER!!!
I call people liars when they are LIARS
I know the anti-nukes don't like it when their lies are exposed.
The anti-nukes have been all too effective with their lies and fear-mongering. The public doesn't know who to believe, so they believe the worst case which is that of the fear mongers. It's rather disgusting to a scientist.
You are not a liar because of calling someone out. You are a liar when you misrepresent facts.
I label people what they are. If they don't know elementary science that a grade school student should know; then they are an idiot.
I see idiot anti-nukes on this forum all the time; and I know that they are idiots because they keep proving themselves to be idiots because they don't know the very basics of good science.
I like to say they "Think with their politics, instead of their brains".
That's what makes them idiots. They can't stand the fact that the pro-nuke side is presenting the more compelling case scientifically; so they have to whine and cry like children that they are being bullied instead of mounting a cogent counter-argument.
Price Anderson act Limits nuc plant owners liabilty
http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps54-bi.pdf
Power reactor licensees are required to have the maximum level of primary insurance available from private sources ( currently $300 million) and to contribute up to $95.8 million per unit to a secondary insurance pool, payable in annual installments of $15 million or less, and subject to adjustments for inflation at five-year intervals. The combined primary and secondary insurance coverage now totals over $10 billion.
The NRC codifies the conditions for indemnity agreements, liability limits, and fees for the different classes of licensees in 10 CFR Part 140. Power reactors rated below 100 Mwe, for example, have lower primary insurance requirements than larger reactors, while the financial protection required for non-profit educational reactors is a function of their maximum power and the neighboring population. The Department of Energy also establishes indemnity agreements with its nuclear contractors. The liability limit for DOE facilities is $10 billion subject to adjustments for inflation.
In the event of a nuclear incident involving damages in excess of the limits established in the Act, Congress could take further actions, including the appropriation of funds.
http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps54-bi.pdf
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Indemnity+clause
Note:"Tepco is now saddled with what some experts estimate could be close to ¥10 trillion ($120.6 billion) in costs for cleanup, compensation and decontamination."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230417710457730752142282591...
You want to talk about truth and facts these are them...limiting liability is the only way nuc power plants can even exist ..it's just the simple truth .
Yes.
Yes - we had one anti-nuke here a while back that was complaining about someone discharging heavy water. It was pointed out that heavy water is not radioactive. The anti-nuke in a very condescending manner said that heavy water contained tritium, and hadn't we ever heard of tritium.
There are 3 isotopes of hydrogen; ordinary light hydrogen or "protium", H-1. The second is deuterium, H-2 or D-2. Both of these are stable, and not radioactive. The 3rd isotope is tritium, H-3 or T-3, and this one is radioactive.
Heavy water is D2O - the oxide of deuterium. Since deuterium is not radioactive, neither is heavy water. Heavy water doesn't contain tritium. The anti-nuke either didn't know which isotopes were radioactive, or which hydrogen isotope made heavy water.
It seems like 99% of the time that the anti-nukes are complaining about some terrible harm to the environment; it's all just due to their lack of understanding and knowledge.
But nuclear power plants in
But nuclear power plants in the USA are leaking Tritium, it is well documented on the web for anyone to check.
Do you agree that these power plants contain Tritium and are both releasing and leaking this radioactive Tritium into the environment?
POOR READING COMPREHENSION, as per usual
Evidently you missed the whole point of the previous post.
The post is NOT about whether nuclear power plants release small amounts of radioactive material. The whole post is how dimwitted, stupid, and ignorant the anti-nukes are.
We have this chowder-head anti-nuke that doesn't know what heavy water is. This idiot thought that heavy water had tritium in it which it doesn't. How did this anti-nuke get through high school chemistry if he / she doesn't know that heavy water contains non-radioactive deuterium instead of tritium. If the moron didn't take high school chemistry; then why attempt to argue with a person with a doctor's degree and who was a university professor.
Nuclear power plants release very tiny amounts of radioactive material. From the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Look at the entry labeled "nuclear fuel cycle". That represents the amount of radiation exposure the average person gets because of the tiny releases from nuclear power plants; which they are legally licensed to release. The amount is <0.03% of your background exposure.
From that, the dimwitted anti-nukes raise a big hew and cry about "leaking" power plants. I hope you are not so stupid as to join them.
You say "Nuclear power plants
You say "Nuclear power plants release very tiny amounts of radioactive material. "
Are Chernobyl and Fukushima Nuclear power plants?
Did Chernobyl and Fukushima 'release very tiny' amounts of radioactive material?
Of course not
Of course not.
However, neither is a US nuclear power plant. Chernobyl and Fukushima BOTH had deficiencies that would not let them be licensed in the USA.
Chernobyl was unstable and over-moderated. The operators were conducting an ill-planned experiment on the plant. We don't do that in the USA.
Fukushima had the fuel tanks for the backup generators located at dockside where they could be wiped out in a tsunami. In the USA, the tanks have to be buried. The backup generators were in a non-watertight basement, below grade which could be flooded by a tsunami. In the USA, the generators have to be in water-tight vaults.
If a Russian airliner with a whole bunch of faults relative to a Boeing airliner crashes because of those faults; do we ground all Boeing airliners that don't have the faults that caused the crash?? Of course not.
Oh; but that's exactly the "thinking" ( if you can call it that ) of the boneheaded anti-nukes. Those idiots would ground every Boeing airliner even if they were flawless.
Stupid is, as anti-nukes do.
But equipment deficiencies
But equipment deficiencies and human errors occur in the USA too:
Report of The President's Commission On The Accident at Three Mile Island
October 30th 1979
Page 2
Preface:
"THE ACCIDENT
At 4:00 a.m. on March 28, 1979, a serious accident occurred at the Three
Mile Island 2 nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania.
The accident was initiated by mechanical malfunctions in the plant and
made much worse by a combination of human errors in responding to it."
and TMI was VERY LOW in consequences.
Yes - there was a mechanical malfunction and the operators made some bad decisions.
However, the design of the plant saved the day. The containment building bottled up 100% of the radioactivity. The only releases were intentional releases that were within what the plant was legally allowed to release. Portions of the containment were vented to the outside to lower the doses to plant personnel that needed to enter the area.
As described in the following ruling in the lawsuit filed by neighbors of TMI; the venting included noble gases or inert gases. Although radioactive, because you can't ingest them because they are inert; one gets very low radiation exposures due to inert gases. The amount of biologically active radioactive material released was only 15 Curies of Iodine-131.
The neighbors sued TMI's owners. However, the weight of scientific evidence was that the neighbors were not harmed by the very small releases and Chief Judge Sylvia Rambo DISMISSED the lawsuit without trial:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.
and TMI was VERY LOW in consequences.
Yes - there was a mechanical malfunction and the operators made some bad decisions.
However, the design of the plant saved the day. The containment building bottled up 100% of the radioactivity. The only releases were intentional releases that were within what the plant was legally allowed to release. Portions of the containment were vented to the outside to lower the doses to plant personnel that needed to enter the area.
As described in the following ruling in the lawsuit filed by neighbors of TMI; the venting included noble gases or inert gases. Although radioactive, because you can't ingest them because they are inert; one gets very low radiation exposures due to inert gases. The amount of biologically active radioactive material released was only 15 Curies of Iodine-131.
The neighbors sued TMI's owners. However, the weight of scientific evidence was that the neighbors were not harmed by the very small releases and Chief Judge Sylvia Rambo DISMISSED the lawsuit without trial:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.
"Radioactive tritium leaks
"Radioactive tritium leaks found at 48 US nuke sites"
From MSNBC / AP:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43475479/ns/us_news-environment/t/radioactiv...