"I went to nuclear school for the Navy and you are putting out pure unadulterated B.S."
I was wiser than that. I said -- Thanks, but no thanks and I went to a different school. It's good thing I did too. You guys glow in the dark. Of course, that's where you all worked, in the bowels of the ship in all that near 100 degree F hell hole. No wonder no top-siders sat at the same chow-hall table, you hellboys smelled.
"Moving on to the Fukishima reactor, they had a poor design,....
That "poor design" is the same design of several nuclear plants in the United States like one at Montecello, MN. Thanks for making my point for me. You also need not explain away Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Hanford Nuclear Site. These are the more obvious "safest" energy producing plants. No one can ever reside at Chernobyl and Fukishima again. Not at least safely for several hundred years. The cancer rates at Three-Mile Island and Hanford is unprecedented, but is one big cover-up of legal mumbo-jumbo. The area surrounding all other nuclear sites have much higher cancer rates than areas outside 75 miles away. Nuclear Power plants release radiation hiccups all the time. Tell me would you breathe the steam coming out of those cooling towers?
"... those working closest to the source of the radiation and to radioactive particulate receive a lower dose than being outside."
Studies show consistently that people within 50-75 miles of a nuclear power plant have higher cancer rates than the rest of the population. Thanks again for making my point for me.
"Cancer rates five times higher near power station"
"The link between nuclear power stations and cancer rates"
"Breast Cancer Rates Skyrocket Near Nuclear Power Plants"
And it appears your statement about "working closest to the source of the radiation and to radioactive particulate receive a lower dose" statement is erroneous as well. The Navy did a fine job of brain-washing all those hellboy 'Nukes'.
"Nuclear Workers May Face Higher Cancer Risk"
Nuclear plants need considerable amounts of electricity to maintain safe operations around both the reactor and spent fuel pool. Most of the time, the power comes from another electric generating station nearby. Shutting down a nuclear power plant doesn't get rid of the hundreds and thousands of tons of spent fuel. Why? There is the lack of a national repository for spent fuel – meaning it must be stored on site – as well as the lack of a coherent nationwide policy. The Yucca Mountain repository is already well over capacity. The industry's collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year. Experts say some of the pools in the United States contain 4-times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle. The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear reactors, situated on 65 sites in 31 states. There are another 15 permanently shut reactors that also house spent fuel. The Maine Yankee nuclear power plant hasn’t produced a single watt of energy in more than two decades, but it cost U.S. taxpayers about $35 million this year.
Before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, private companies in the U.S. were responsible for their own clean-up and storage of spent nuclear fuel, quickly running out of storage space. However, those private companies were not sufficiently equipped to store their waste long-term, as some kinds of nuclear waste have a half-life (meaning the amount of time they remain radioactive) of up to 17 million years. Congress decided that going forward the burden of responsibility would lie with the United States government, putting the massive cost of cleanup on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers. Can you say -CORPORATE WELFARE?.
Storing spent fuel at an operating plant with staff and technology on hand can cost $300,000 a year (it's probably much more). Obviously, this price tag doesn't go away after the plant is decommissioned. In fact, the taxpayer pays about 1/2-billion dollars a yr. to the utilities for their simply keeping the fuel because there’s no place for it to go.
"I think it’s discouraging that we continue to release radioactivity to the environment because after more than 40 years we still have not developed a successful plan for going forward."
-- Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Precourt Institute for Energy
Taxpayers pay $6 billion every year to address that problem, a huge cost that we will incur for many decades into the future. The projected total cost of clean-up after the Manhattan Project is well over $300 billion. That’s more than the original cost of the weapons programs and the actual total will be even higher. That’s just the defense waste. Continuously having to pay for the nuclear waste storage at a decommissioned nuclear power plant year-after-year isn't exactly the definition of being decommissioned. Nuclear Energy as it stands today is a dirty energy. As I have shown, Nuclear energy is the very definition of corporate welfare. It simply is not profitable on its own.
"I went to nuclear school for the Navy and you are putting out pure unadulterated B.S."
I was wiser than that. I said -- Thanks, but no thanks and I went to a different school. It's good thing I did too. You guys glow in the dark. Of course, that's where you all worked, in the bowels of the ship in all that near 100 degree F hell hole. No wonder no top-siders sat at the same chow-hall table, you hellboys smelled.
"Moving on to the Fukishima reactor, they had a poor design,....
That "poor design" is the same design of several nuclear plants in the United States like one at Montecello, MN. Thanks for making my point for me. You also need not explain away Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Hanford Nuclear Site. These are the more obvious "safest" energy producing plants. No one can ever reside at Chernobyl and Fukishima again. Not at least safely for several hundred years. The cancer rates at Three-Mile Island and Hanford is unprecedented, but is one big cover-up of legal mumbo-jumbo. The area surrounding all other nuclear sites have much higher cancer rates than areas outside 75 miles away. Nuclear Power plants release radiation hiccups all the time. Tell me would you breathe the steam coming out of those cooling towers?
"... those working closest to the source of the radiation and to radioactive particulate receive a lower dose than being outside."
Studies show consistently that people within 50-75 miles of a nuclear power plant have higher cancer rates than the rest of the population. Thanks again for making my point for me.
"Cancer rates five times higher near power station"
"The link between nuclear power stations and cancer rates"
"Breast Cancer Rates Skyrocket Near Nuclear Power Plants"
And it appears your statement about "working closest to the source of the radiation and to radioactive particulate receive a lower dose" statement is erroneous as well. The Navy did a fine job of brain-washing all those 'Nukes'.
"Nuclear Workers May Face Higher Cancer Risk"
Nuclear plants need considerable amounts of electricity to maintain safe operations around both the reactor and spent fuel pool. Most of the time, the power comes from another electric generating station nearby. Shutting down a nuclear power plant doesn't get rid of the hundreds and thousands of tons of spent fuel. Why? There is the lack of a national repository for spent fuel – meaning it must be stored on site – as well as the lack of a coherent nationwide policy. The Yucca Mountain repository is already well over capacity. The industry's collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year. Experts say some of the pools in the United States contain 4-times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle. The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear reactors, situated on 65 sites in 31 states. There are another 15 permanently shut reactors that also house spent fuel. The Maine Yankee nuclear power plant hasn’t produced a single watt of energy in more than two decades, but it cost U.S. taxpayers about $35 million this year.
Before the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, private companies in the U.S. were responsible for their own clean-up and storage of spent nuclear fuel, quickly running out of storage space. However, those private companies were not sufficiently equipped to store their waste long-term, as some kinds of nuclear waste have a half-life (meaning the amount of time they remain radioactive) of up to 17 million years. Congress decided that going forward the burden of responsibility would lie with the United States government, putting the massive cost of cleanup on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers. Can you say -CORPORATE WELFARE?.
Storing spent fuel at an operating plant with staff and technology on hand can cost $300,000 a year (it's probably much more). Obviously, this price tag doesn't go away after the plant is decommissioned. In fact, the taxpayer pays about 1/2-billion dollars a yr. to the utilities for their simply keeping the fuel because there’s no place for it to go.
"I think it’s discouraging that we continue to release radioactivity to the environment because after more than 40 years we still have not developed a successful plan for going forward."
-- Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and at the Precourt Institute for Energy
Taxpayers pay $6 billion every year to address that problem, a huge cost that we will incur for many decades into the future. The projected total cost of clean-up after the Manhattan Project is well over $300 billion. That’s more than the original cost of the weapons programs and the actual total will be even higher. That’s just the defense waste. Continuously having to pay for the nuclear waste storage at a decommissioned nuclear power plant year-after-year isn't exactly the definition of being decommissioned. Nuclear Energy as it stands today is a dirty energy. As I have shown, Nuclear energy is the very definition of corporate welfare. It simply is not profitable on its own.