If they had used the Canadian Reactors they wouldn't have such big problems. Our reactors have a ton of safeguards. My son is a Nuclear Operator and has told me all this info as well and it has been in the news as wellRegardless, it is pretty difficult to argue against the tragedies in Japan and Russia...............Just imagine the chances if there were "that many more" nuke plants
I still think the long term solution some day will be solar and or wind, and water
others are megalithic architecture, millennial reign, and Job38.that is one great rabbit trail to go down
If they had used the Canadian Reactors they wouldn't have such big problems. Our reactors have a ton of safeguards. My son is a Nuclear Operator and has told me all this info as well and it has been in the news as well
Just because "your" reactors have never suffered a dangerous failure, is no reason to assume "they wont" And there aren't all that many. Part of my point, which you ignored, is "what if" the world had many many many many many...............more of them around the world? Somewhere, some place, and earthquake, terrorism, fire, flood, whatever, "something" WILL happen.
I think they just had a problem. And like all the rest they said oh wait no. That reactor near Toronto is waaay past it's lifespan. All that needs to happen to it is a loss of power. That could happen at any moment. A tornado would do it.If they had used the Canadian Reactors they wouldn't have such big problems. Our reactors have a ton of safeguards. My son is a Nuclear Operator and has told me all this info as well and it has been in the news as well
And the Elephant in the room. Spent rod Disposal.I think they just had a problem. And like all the rest they said oh wait no. That reactor near Toronto is at past it's lifespan. All that needs to happen to it is a loss of power. That could happen at any moment. A tornado would do it.
No such thing. That stuff will be around to the ends of the earth.Spent rod Disposal.
OK I stand corrected. Containment. I think you know what I meant.No such thing. That stuff will be around to the ends of the earth.
Yes, I'm just too literate sometimes. As a former nuc I told them they were insane about the time I started to comprehend E=mc2. Then I quit.I think you know what I meant.
Never too literate. I appreciate that.Yes, I'm just too literate sometimes. As a former nuc I told them they were insane about the time I started to comprehend E=mc2. Then I quit.
i prefer cars over reactors.
Never read ithere's something funny to ponder, Chernobyl, in Russian (and Ukranian) means "Wormwood"
if you got a good amount of Bible knowledge that is one great rabbit trail to go down
Nothing is fool proof but the Can-do Reactors are the safest but more expensive and that's probably why countries take the cheaper route. Nuclear costs 3 cents a kwh, solar costs 6 cents a kwh and windmills cost 8.5 cents a kwh. Has anyone looked at a field full of windmills and said "Oh aren't they lovely"?Just because "your" reactors have never suffered a dangerous failure, is no reason to assume "they wont" And there aren't all that many. Part of my point, which you ignored, is "what if" the world had many many many many many...............more of them around the world? Somewhere, some place, and earthquake, terrorism, fire, flood, whatever, "something" WILL happen.
.......Has anyone looked at a field full of windmills and said "Oh aren't they lovely"?
They almost all do. They must be secret a though. I can't think of a single safeguard that can withstand 9000 degree temps.Our reactors have a ton of safeguards
They almost all do. They must be secret a though. I can't think of a single safeguard that can withstand 9000 degree temps.
Radiation weakens everything including concrete and steel. How can we safeguard against that?
Please fill it up.
should have had mrs clinton fill it up, i hear she gives that stuff awayPlease fill it up.
That'll be $2,000,000 ma'am.