Fresno Famous

Nuclear Power is amazing and

Nuclear Power is amazing and SAFE. Homer Simpson works at a power plant and even he can't mess things up. There, proof. Springfield's been fine for 20 years. Cant wait til we got our very own backyard Chernobyl. Its gonna be saweeeet!

"clean" source of energy?

How can you look at Nuclear Power as clean when the waste has to be contained and buried out of sight and mind for tens of thousands of years. Which takes a huge amount of fossil fuel to achieve I might add. And hope that a natural disaster or terrorists don't disrupt it for that long? Pretty short sighted I think. Not the type of legacy anyone wants to leave future generations I hope. Now if we're able to figure a way to render the waste harmless much sooner, well then we would be onto something, wouldn't we?

Nucular Power

If they put reactors in spaceships and submarines it can't be all that bad. But, I heard Al Gore say in front of a Senate panel the other day, that every country that has a burgeoning atomic weapons program, (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.) first had to have a civilian nuclear reactor to get it all started. That's where they develop all the background knowledge, expertise and enriched uranium to make the atomic bombs and nuclear warheads.

Then there is still the problem with the storage of the nuclear waste.

Other than that I'm all for it.

stooges of nuclear power attempt to build nukes in

other peoples' backyards, funny but if its so clean, build it in LA or SF where its needed, why don't you?

NUCLEAR POWER NOW!
Submitted by Famous Guest on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 23:40.

fear mongering nuclear power haters our holding us back from a clean, truely reliable source of energy. Europe, japan, and now even the middle east is getting on board with nuclear power.

Famous Guest, go back home to your fancy mansion in SF & stay there, leave some of that tainted money there
.
.
......................
welcome to the future

the vast majority of folks here in Fresno do not want to glow in

the DARK!!!!!

you must be a paid stooge of the nuke industry
go back to SF, build it there, see if your neighbors will let you

nuclear power fresno
new
Submitted by Famous Guest on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 23:25.

The vast majority of folks around the city of fresno WANT nuclear power!! ITs a hand full of stupid liberals that are preventing it from happening.

famous guest basks in anonymity, paid by nuke industry

try solar, green, bio, instead of glow-in-the-dark nuke
nuke needs water genius, we don't have it
nukes vent radioactive gasses, we're in a valley
where are the gasses going to go genius?
build it in SF Bay by your neighborhood
.
.
......................
welcome to the future

Wow, why aren't we building

Wow, why aren't we building these on barges too?

oh wise ones

yep, that's right. us fear mongering liberal haters are stopping nuclear power in the valley. because, you know, the valley is controlled by liberals.

oh wait, that's right, the valley is a conservative stronghold. if nuclear power was worth it, the progressives in the valley wouldn't have enough power to stop it.

NUCLEAR POWER NOW!

fear mongering nuclear power haters our holding us back from a clean, truely reliable source of energy. Europe, japan, and now even the middle east is getting on board with nuclear power. Obama the holy one has even given his blessing in allowing nuclear power in Dubai!

nuclear power fresno

The vast majority of folks around the city of fresno WANT nuclear power!! ITs a hand full of stupid liberals that are preventing it from happening. Lonnie Hancock , liberal california senator made sure it would fail. You can thank Hancock and her cronies when we are paying 5.00 bucks for gas again!! When we cant afford to heat or cool our homes!

Radioactive waste has a half-life of millions of years,...

so, who's gonna store it, protect humans from contamination, mutations, poisoning, 2 heads?
the faster the decay, the more radioactive it is in giving out alpha radiation &/or beta radiation &/or sometimes gamma radiation
Radioactive waste

Physics
The radioactivity of all nuclear waste diminishes with time. All radioisotopes contained in the waste have a half-life - the time it takes for any radionuclide to lose half of its radioactivity and eventually all radioactive waste decays into non-radioactive elements. Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes will remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for hundreds of millennia.[3] Some elements, such as Iodine-131, have a short half-life (around 8 days in this case) and thus they will cease to be a problem much more quickly than other, longer-lived, decay products but their activity is much greater initially. The two tables show some of the major radioisotopes, their half-lives, and their radiation yield as a proportion of the yield of fission of Uranium-235.

The faster a radioisotope decays, the more radioactive it will be. The energy and the type of the ionizing radiation emitted by a pure radioactive substance are important factors in deciding how dangerous it will be.
...
Management of waste
See also: High-level radioactive waste management

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).[14] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management in order to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[15] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[16]
...
Long term management of waste
See also: Economics of new nuclear power plants#Waste disposal

The timeframe in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[24] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[25] Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[26] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[27] and cost evaluations[28] are concerned. Long term behaviour of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
.
.
......................
welcome to the future

good thing there is no such thing as "nucular", except in Texas

former Prez Bush notwithstanding, there is no foreseeable "fix" for nuclear-powered energy, because of the unavoidable risks posed by radioactive waste, its long half-life of most elements formed during the process, that need to be stored for millions of years

High Country News
Radioactive waste from Hanford is seeping toward the Columbia

Feature story - From the September 01, 1997 issue of High Country News by Karen Dorn Steele
RICHLAND, Wash. - Casey Ruud and John Brodeur have always stood out in Hanford's take-no-risks nuclear culture.

The safety auditor and the geophysicist made powerful enemies when they uncovered major safety problems a decade ago at the nation's largest plutonium bomb factory, located deep in rural southeastern Washington.

Then in 1994, at the prodding of Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, Ruud and Brodeur teamed up again, this time on Hanford's riskiest cleanup project, the high-level nuclear waste tanks that hold the deadliest discards of the arms race.

A year later, the two whistleblowers dropped a bombshell of their own: Radioactive waste from some of the biggest leaking tanks had reached groundwater that flows toward the Columbia River, 10 to 15 miles away.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/113/3592

Washington State Department of Health

The Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN
The Release of Radioactive Materials from Hanford: 1944-1972

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history/release.html

here is the official gov position
US Department of Energy

Safe handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel

Yucca Mountain is the site of America's first planned repository for spent nuclear fuel rods and solidified high-level radioactive waste. The material would be stored in tunnels deep underground. A complex of buildings would receive, package, and prepare the material for disposal underground.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/
.
.
......................
welcome to the future

Nucular

If they can work out the problems and weaknesses nuclear would be really good.

johnnyb you do not know what you are talking about

Actually the truth is Military has had many accidents with atomic energy.

1975 – Contamination
Radioactive resin contaminates the American Sturgeon-class submarine USS Guardfish after wind unexpectedly blows the powder back towards the ship. The resin is used to remove dissolved radioactive minerals and particles from the primary coolant loops of submarines. "This type of accident was fairly common"

and there have been many health problems with veterans from radiation exposure.

February 2003: Oak Ridge, Tennessee Y-12 facility. During the final testing of a new saltless uranium processing method, there was a small explosion followed by a fire. The explosion occurred in an unvented vessel containing unreacted calcium, water and depleted uranium. An exothermic reaction among these articles generated enough steam to burst the container. This small explosion breached its glovebox, allowing air to enter and ignite some loose uranium powder. Three employees were contaminated

The Russian navy has been a top world class navy it's been around since 1696. The US Navy has been around since 1775. But who cares who's the best it does not matter we all human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

There are more than 6 navy ships with nuclear reactors.
There are 12 aircraft carriers in service and 5 being built.
There are over 53 Active Subs with reactors and more are being built. The new subs are said to be able to run for 33 years without refueling, but we know that the technology systems (computer hardware and software) on board will be outdated in less than 5 years.

these reactors are made to operate for about 25 years and after that they will need to be maintained because of the years of radiation exposure has made them radioactive even after the fuel rods have been removed.

Wake up Johnny to Science Facts and Truth. And if you think that Radiation is safe then I dare you to Ingest some radioactive dust particles

clean energy

a 25 year detour to create a better solar powered electricity generator, using a combo of new & old technology

Talks Bill Gross: Great ideas for finding new energy

Bill Gross founded Idealab, an incubator of new inventions, ideas and businesses.

Bill Gross, the founder of Idealab, talks about his life as an inventor, starting with his high-school company selling solar energy plans and kits.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bill_gross_on_new_energy.html.
.
......................
welcome to the future

US Navy already has nuke reactors in San Diego

USS Ronald Reagan=2 Nuke Reactors
USS Nimitz = 2 Nuke Reactors
2 Submarines = 2 Nukes
Total = 6 nuke Reactors

The US Navy has been powering their ships for 50 years with Nukes without a single accident, and a million+ living navy veterans who lived for years with in a few hundred feet of an operating reactor, bathing in water desalinated by nuke reactors, and even submariners breathing air recycled by a nuke reactor. There has been no outbreak of health problems amoungst Navy vets, no accidents associated with the navy Nuclear Program, so why not go for the dummy free solution?

Russian is building nuke plants on barges, the plant designs are exactly like nuke reactors on naval ships and subs, but are designed to produce power and water. Doesn't California need power and water?

If the Russians whose Navy is far inferior to our Navy is able to build these off shore nuke plants, then why can't we? It would be a good way to get around the NIMBYs, and it would be a lot cheaper than traditional nuke plants because they could be mass produced and would not have to fight the environmental nuts quite as much. Russians are building theirs for about $300 million dollars.

There is your solution California! Cow Manure is never going to meet your power needs, quit being hippies and wake up to nukes!

Thats why we have no Dams for power or water.

The liberal tree huggers block them.

Yet they want electricity and to steal our areas water.

yo! wake up Fresno,

you're gonna get nuked, because you B sleeping at the wheel

the powers that B, want a nuke in your back yard, clean power they say, they got the money, you get the radioactive present, whilst they live it up in SF

the reason they don't build it in SF?
silly boys, they live in SF , heaven forbid they build a nuke there, they'd fight it tooth & nail, human chains, protests & sit-downs

plus we here, got business-friendly gov, meaning they won't do much to stop anything that they think will bring in money or give them $$$

& desperate people looking for jobs & schemers & con men looking for their next sucker, I mean investor