Where's g? He had that quote in his signature about one man changing the world.

Vacationing.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I'm sorry, but I don't think dumping any waste into the ocean is a good idea. No idea what the ramifications would be in the future. Underground is best, but not on a fault line! [-X

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan

Our reprocessing it to ensure a supply for hundreds of years would be even better.

Agreed. Where is a good place to read up on that?

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan

The Great Nuclear Power Debate. Your library should have it.

to nuke proponents in the US:

Yucca Mountain, where the US government wants to dump YOUR nuclear waste, is a hundred miles from here in MY backyard.

no thanks. and don't think this fight is over.

so you like nuke plants in, that's fine with me, build all the ones you want, build them on every street corner if you're that much taken by them. that fact that you don't want to accept the true operating costs and hazards due to waste products and want to put anyone else but yourselves at risk is also understandable, but it is also fundamentally dishonest.

Nevada does not want your nuclear wastes. keep it yourselves.

helluva complex way to boil water.

Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from Las Vegas. That is hardly backyard enough for it to be any threat. It's also a bit rich for someone living in a city like Las Vegas to be complaining about a nuclear storage facility when you're in the middle of the Nevada desert, get bombarded daily by extremely concentrated solar radiation as well as inhaling the radioactive isotopes released by all the motor vehicles.

The fight hasn't begun. Fear mongerers have been promoting mass hysteria for half a century. Now we're fighting back.

Politics make the construction costs very high because of all the red tape and politically correct crap that power companies are put through. Once it is built, operating them is far cheaper than any other power plant.

The most radioactive isotopes produced are allowed to decay in the few hours after the fuel is removed from the reactor. The rest is more stable stuff that is stored until some administration realises that there are hundreds of years worth of energy locked up in the stuff and allows the fuel to be reprocessed and reused. If nuclear fission was given the proper freedom is deserves, there wouldn't be a waste problem. The fission products would be reused and we wouldn't have any Yucca Mountain.

I would have no problem with living near a properly run storage facility. Of course, I don't so that statement is admittedly somewhat empty. But I wouldn't mind because I know that I should be far more concerned with radioactive radon gas in my home or radioactive potassium in my blood stream or the exhaust fumes from my car than with anything Yucca Mountain could throw at me.

However, it is the most efficient way of doing it.

What radioactive isotopes are released in car exhaust? Not sarcasm, serious question. Also, how does Vegas get bombarded by a higher concentrate of solar radiation?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

After you reprocess radioactive waste, you get usable fuel, but surely there must still be some waste material. What's left and how much would there be?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

I'll admit, I was once caught up in the mass hysteria of the Nuclear Plants of [)(o)(o)/\/\...until I started to realize, by reading here and there, that it wasn't so bad.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were highly publicized (I have a game on me Commodore 64 called Chernobyl!), and mass media has a way of hitting the most people with junk information. Hollywood has had its fair share of atrocities when it comes to dealing with nuclear power, also.

At our house in VT, my mother and father and I have been discussing ways to cut power costs for our house, to save money. We've been thinking of a combination of solar and wind to help out.

I think it would be wonderful if we could reprocess the spent fuel rods and use them again. Which brings me to an important question: Is that what North Korea is doing? So they can run their power plants longer? I've been awefully wary of what Mr. Bush has been touting ever since he decided we needed to fight the Iraqis. Not trying to start a political debate, tho.

Is that a possibility for the N. Koreans? Mass media has been making a big deal about them building weapons with the spent rods. Hmmm...

Spent fuel consists of three components. Uranium that was unused in the initial reaction. Plutonium that was formed by neutron absorption. And radioactive fission products. The uranium and plutonium are comparatively stable, at least when compared to the other stuff, and are used again. The fission products consist of some stuff that decays in the initial cooldown period and other more stable nuclides that could be used for other purposes like in RTGs or in various medical technologies.

Thanks!

Hmm... seems to be pretty tidy to me. Reprocessing is a good idea.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

It is. Tell that to Jimmy Carter, though.

The reason that we don't reprocess fuel is entirely political. Only about 1% of the fissionable uranium in a fuel pellet is used during its time in the reactor, and a good amount of fissionable plutonium is there also. Almost all of the nuclear waste has vast amounts of fuel in it to be reprocessed.



As Glom said, 100 miles away is hardly your backyard. There are several nuclear and coal plants withing 100 miles of me but I'm not glowing yet. Mohave and Reid Gardner coal power plants are significantly closer to you and you will receive many times the radiation dosage you would get due to Yucca Mountain from them.

One of the reasons why Yucca Mountain costs three times what a manned Mars mission would is because it is safe. Many billions of dollars and years of effort have gone into selecting and preparing the site. I would not feel at all unsafe living near Yucca Mountain.

I don't really understand your point. We didn't choose Yucca Mountain to endanger people who live in Nevada, we chose it because it was the safest place to deposit nuclear waste. It is a mountain. The waste stored there will not harm you, nor will it leak into the groundwater. There are nuclear waste sites in nearly every state in the US, and we are not afraid of them. There is nothing to fear from a properly built storage site. It's like being afraid of weapons arsenals at nearby military bases - there could be a problem, but most likely there would not be.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that you would receive far more radiation from a luminous watch, television, radon gas, limestone, or even your own bloodstream than from nuclear waste buried in a mountain which is over 100 miles away from you. I'd like to ask what you're really afraid of. Ionizing radiation is made up of three things - alpha radiation, which can be stopped by paper, beta radiation, which is stopped by metal, and gamma radiation, which can be stopped by several meters of lead or concrete. Clearly Yucca Mountain has far more protection than that.

That's OK. But don't put yourself in a position against nuclear power because you are upset that a mountain in your state was chosen to store nuclear waste. Neither one is going to hurt you and nuclear power can help you. You oppose nuclear power not for any reasons actually having to do with it, but entirely because of an irrational fear and NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) syndrome. Politics again, which is the reason why nuclear power is not widespread in the first place.

Plus, nuclear fission is far more efficient at boiling water than any chemical forms of heating, as Glom pointed out. Actually, it's not as frivolous as Wirraway made it seem - power is currently produced by making steam, and to make steam, one must boil water - and one gram of uranium has the heating power of 20 million tons of coal. Just think of the pollution from that much coal. Nuclear power does heat water - very efficiently. And that's not all it does. I have a friend who had a brain tumor, and had it treated with radiation. Without radiation, he may not have survived. When used properly, as it is in the US and UK, nuclear power and even radiation are two incredibly powerful and beneficial tools.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

we get a lot of solar radiation cuz' the sun shines a lot here, its what we're famous for. since this fact concerns at least one poster, my advice is to use sun block (when it rains, you might want to come out of it). apart from that brilliant observation....

like I said, if you're in love with nuke radiation, that's ok by me, build as many as you want, wherever you want, any design you want. its your decision. just accept the full costs with the benefits instead of doing the moral equivalent of polluting the river downstream. there are actually laws preventing that, even in this country.

100 miles or 10 miles, its our backyard. its our state. you're using the worst kind of justification for pollution possible -- "as long as it doesn't bother me and kinda sorta doesn't bother you". right? Nevada was chosen because it has minimal political clout. Surely you're not so naive to think that safety alone was the dominant consideration. is anyone you know of actually begging to become the country's nuke dumping ground? are you?

Nevada and its residents are fully capable of deciding what kind of energy sources and the associated environmental/health costs are acceptable -- coal fired plants OK. Lake Mead and the power plant there -- OK.

for us to bear the costs associated with YOUR nuke use isn't acceptable. this is not "irrational fear", this is a decision of the residents here. UNLESS you're going to lecture us on what's best for us, and what we should or should not be afraid of.

the question you'll never get around to addressing is, why not keep nuke waste yourselves? you're not afraid of something, are you?

tell me why you don't want nuke waste in your backyard.

I'm listening.

I still want to know what radioactive isotopes are coming out of my car.

And I am wondering why the sunlight in Vegas is more harmful than the sunlight in say, L.A.?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

What does this have to do with Yucca Mountain? I agree with Glom. I wouldn't be afraid at all of a safe nuclear waste storage site such as Yucca Mountain. It's not as if they're actually dumping high-level waste in your backyard. It's being buried deep inside a mountain which is over 100 miles away from you.





Coal OK? Coal OK? If you think coal is OK, then I don't know what the heck you're worried about. Pollution from coal plants is proven to kill over 50 people a day. It is one of the primary causes of acid rain. You receive more radiation from coal plants than from nuclear plants. Coal mining kills thousands of miners either from injury in mines or from lung cancer.

Nuclear power plants are also far easiser to operate than coal plants. Coal plants require thousands of trainloads of coal a year to operate. A nuclear power plant only requires a few truckloads of fresh fuel per year. To get this coal, coal plants also must constantly run mining operations to get coal, in which many miners die. The volume of waste produced is actually more than the orginal fuel. And this waste has to go somewhere, too. Coal plants are so dirty that it makes nuclear waste seem clean by comparison. Would you rather have a coal plant releasing pollutants which are proven to cause cancer and other respiratory dieseases, are proven to cause acid rain, and kill many miners each year, or a nuclear plant whose only waste is nuclear waste which can be safely stored at the bottom of swimming pools?

I don't understand how you are opposed to both radiation and nuclear plants at the same time. If I wanted to stay safe from radiation, I would replace all coal plants with nuclear ones. Nuclear plants provide almost no radiation exposure to people whatsoever.

Wirraway, before you go on, view the file here. It is a breakdown of your radiation exposure sources. As you can see, the amount of radiation you would receive from wearing a luminous wristwatch is seven times what you would get from living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor. You don't live within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, but you do live within 50 miles of two coal plants, each of which provide three times the radiation dosage that a nuclear plant would. Watching TV provides about 100 times the radiation that living near a nuclear plant would, and living in a stone, brick, or concrete buliding is a factor of 7 more. But you have to understand that none of these doses are serious. The .01 mrem you would receive if you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, which you do not, is simply not important.


Get this through your head: Yucca Mountain was not chosen because "everyone else was too scared." There were several sites under consideration and Yucca Mountain was chosen because it provides the safest environment for storing nuclear waste. If Yucca Mountain was in New York, than the waste would be deposited there. It's not as if there's some conspiracy against Nevada.





If you were you would have addressed our points.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

I just wanted to say that I used to live in Oak Ridge, TN, where they did a lot of the work for the first nuclear bombs our country built alongw with building plenty more after that.

I lived not 15 miles from the X-10 and Y-12 plants where not only did they used to build nuclear weapons, but they are currently disassembling existing ones.

Yet, I'm not glowing, and you have to be in a real dark room to notice the water glowing.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

I have read before that if one were to live only one mile away from a nuclear plant they would still receive more radiation each year from the food they eat. I have been a supporter of nuclear power for years. It is safer, cleaner, and tons more efficient than coal. What's more is coal will not last forever. Neither will Uranium but it will last much longer than coal and will definitely last long enough for fusion to become a viable alternative. We need more funding in fusion research and we need more nuclear plants.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Which type of fission reactor is the most efficient and the least likely to malfunction?

To me it looks like the CANDU reactor is a good candidate, but I really don't know much on the subject.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

One thing that some people seem to miss (especially those who think that all radiation is equal and equally bad) is the relationship between radiation level and half-life.

Half-lives range from submicroseconds to outrageous multiples of the age of the universe. The short lived, highly active isotopes quickly decay to either stable or long lived elements. Radioactive gold is used for nuclear radiation therapy because it has a half life of around two days, so it quickly becomes non-radioactive. Also, it decays to a stable isotope of platinum. Since platinum is chemically inert, the spent pellet can be left in place.

Long lived isotopes such as U238 (4.7 billion years) or Pb204 (140 million billion years) have such low levels of radiocativity, that the radiation hazzard is also relatively low.

The danger lies in the middle ground. Isotopes that are hot enough to be dangerous and long lived enough to be dangerous for some time. Strontium 90 (30 years) and cobalt 60 (5 years) are in this category.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

what part of the statement "Nevada does not want your nuclear wastes" is unclear?

on what political theory do you question the right of Nevadans to choose coal or hydro-electric or natural gas or nukes or presume to lecture the people of this state on what is best for them? yes, I know, you have the votes to enforce your will, but you do not have the moral high ground. this much at least you should admit: your main concern isn't what level of radiation Nevadans are exposed to so much as it is that its not your population that's being exposed.

the comparison between coal-fired power plants and nukes is way off point. oil and gas use has been an accepted benefit and cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution with the befits universal and the costs spread out nearly as much and over time. as far as I know, there isn't one designated locale that has the dubious honor of bearing the entire waste from this kind of power generation.

let's get another thing clear. there's no "conspiracy" against Nevada. conspiracies are disposed of elsewhere on this board. and I'm well aware of the time honored method of smearing legitimate opposition by the use of such undeserved labels. Nevada is the designated dumping ground because YOU do not want to deal with your own nuclear waste, and because this state cannot swing the votes in congress to make you deal with your own problem. NIMBYism at its worst.

there are some politically naive statements, but stating that if Yucca Mountain were located in New York, that state would be the designated dump takes the grand prize. that statement presumes that the people of New York might actually want a nuclear waste dump, an utterly preposterous assumption. New York and the surrounding states are far too powerful (and good for them) to allow anything of the sort.

as for whether anyone is "scared" of nuke wastes, maybe they ought to be, but the point is, nobody is knocking down the doors of the federal regulators to install a waste dump in their state, are they?

why aren't you?

Hmm, let's look at this from a logical standpoint. Nevada has a population of around 2 million people and it works out around 18.2 people per square mile.

The state of New York has 402 people per square mile with a total population of almost 19 million people and NY City has 25,925 people per square mile!

Nevada covers 110,567 square miles while NY only covers 54,475 square miles. And if you only count the square miles of land (i.e. no lakes or rivers) then NV still has 109,806 sq miles while NY is down to 48,708 sq miles.

Nevada is an ideal place for a nuclear waste dump because it's empty and has favorable terrain: little water and mountains. New York is one of the centers of our economy, and a nuclear waste dump would not have a favorable effect there (despite the low risks).

There are two major kinds of people who are opposed to Yucca mountain. The misinformed/uninformed public and the politicans who care more about their careers than doing the right thing. You have smaller groups who ignore the evidence and are still opposed because it's nukylar as well.

The best part is the "Not in Nevada" attitude that many Nevadaians (?) take. That's a big problem with this COUNTRY. For many things we're just 50 states squabbling about petty things. It's time people woke up and realized that we're a country. We're supposed to be the UNITED States of America, it's about time we started acting like it.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

It is simply not true that the only proven deaths from nuclear power are from the Chernobyl plant.
The Tokaimura (Japan 1999) accident also caused deaths.

These sites have examples of nuclear accidents (both power plants and weapons related):
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~comms...nob/rep02.html The World.
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#process USA only.

There's no point in debating the weapon programs or the badly designed Eastern European/Russian reactors in this thread, but accidents even happpen in Western European/American reactors and they will happen again. This is not a perfect world. In these times where most of the world is fighting terrorism nuclear powerplants would be a major target. Such an act would be a much larger catastrophe than an terrorist attack on a coal plant. My point is that the potential danger of nuclear power plants and their waste are larger than the dangers from conventional power plants. I still support the use of nuclear power in space and properly designed and managed powerplants, but they are unfortunately not easy to find. I also think that some of you neglect that some waste products are chemically poisonous though they have low radioactivity.

And why should we build a lot of new powerplants (not just to replace old reactors) when we get more and more of our energy from solar, wind and wave energy?

That much is perfectly clear. What is unclear is the reason. You have repeatedly refused to address BigJim's points or explain exactly what it is the cause of your dislike for the repository. Without clarification, you come across as someone taken in by public hysteria.

You're not going to weasle your way out of the facts that way. It is fact that coal power plants cause far more negative effects than nuclear. You can choose coal over nuclear if you want, but that doesn't change the fact you're choosing an inferior method of power generation.

If you're going to get upset with us comparing you to a conspiracistm, you'd do well not to act like one. This is a blatant straw man. You are putting arguments in our keyboards to make your position look stronger.

Huygenian eyepieces were once considered the finest design in the world. Now, they are considered Christmas trash. Just because it was the best way back then, doesn't mean it's the best way now.

Oil burning is criminal as oil can be used to make all sorts of nice things.

You're not being victimised. Yucca is simply the best place for it. We're not out to get Nevadans.

We do want to deal with our own waste. We want to reprocess and recycle. It is the anti-nukyular lobby that put a stop to that and has caused the nuclear waste problem.

Is it so hard to accept that maybe Yucca was accepted because, just maybe, it was considered the best location for the safe effective disposal of waste?

Why? Many people fear it because of nothing more than ignorant hysteria. If dealt with properly, it would pose no threat and be useful for many thousands of years.

Nevada is a desert. Hence, it is a safe location for the burying of nuclear waste. Nobody is out to get you. It was just seen as the best place.

Me personally, there is enough trouble trying to find the land for an extra runway at Heathrow. We haven't got the space around London for a nuclear disposal facility.

As for other Americans, it is simply a case that their state wouldn't offer the same benefits as a nuclear disposal site as Nevada.

January
2-1993: Leak at Kozloduy nuclear power plant, release of radioactive steam (Bulgaria)
3-1961: Explosion in reactor Idaho Falls (USA); three people killed
4-1965: 6.5 kg plutonium sludge released from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
5-1976: Two workers killed by radioactive carbon dioxide at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
6-1981: Accident at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)
7-1974: Explosion at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1975: Release of radioactivity from Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)
9-1993: Radioactive release from leaking fuel rods at Perry nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1987: Nuclear transport accident in the UK
12-1960: Technicians trying to restart a reactor at Savannah River reprocessing plant almost send it out of control (USA)
17-1966: A B-52 plane crashes in Spain causing plutonium contamination
18-1989: Eight workers are contaminated at Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
19-1992: Radioactive leak, reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
20-1993: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident (France)
21-1969: Technical failure at Swiss experimental nuclear reactor causes release of radioactive water
22-1992: Technical failure in shut-down system at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
23- 1978: Radioactive helium released from Colorado reactor (USA)
26-1988: Dangerous temperature rise in a nuclear reactor on board a British submarine
27-1992: Leak causes a shut-down at Darlington nuclear power plant (Canada)
28-1990: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
31 -1996: Leakage of radiation due to human error and technical failure at Dimitrovgrad nuclear research centre (Russia)

February
1-1982: Release of 100 cubic metres of radioactive water from Salem nuclear power plant (USA)
2-1993: Breakdown of cooling system for two hours at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1992: Failure of cooling pumps at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
5-1986: "Amber alert" (indicating an emergency in one building and a threat to the rest of the plant)" at Sellafield reprocessing plant, UK
6-1974: Explosion and radiation leak at Leningrad nuclear power plant, three people killed (Russia)
8-1991: Release of radioactivity from Fukui nuclear power plant (Japan)
9-1991: Rupture of steam generator pipe causes release of radioactivity at Mihama nuclear power plant (Japan)
10-1992: Technical failure in pump system at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
11-1986: Release of 13 tonnes of radioactive carbon dioxide from Transfynydd nuclear power plant (UK)
16-1973: Container filled with Cobalt-60 lost in the North Sea
17-1984: Accident at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
18-1988: Report of core melt in the nuclear reactor of the Soviet Ice-Breaker "Rossiya"
19-1986: Three workers suffer contamination at the Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
21-1976: Accident at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
23-1981: Accidental explosion of a Pershing-II missile in Germany
25-1983: Failure of automatic shut-down at Salem nuclear power plant (USA)
26-1988: Increased levels of radioactivity at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)

March
2-1994: Breakdown of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
6-1985: Emergency cooling system out of order at the Grohnde nuclear power plant (Germany)
8-1972: Radioactive water has to be pumped out of the Indian Point nuclear power plant (USA)
12-1981: Tornado washes nuclear waste from Moruroa into the lagoon (Pacific)
15-1989: Technical failure of fuel roads at Pickering nuclear power plant (Canada)
17-1984: Emergency cooling system at San Onofere nuclear power plant fails (USA)
18-1987: Fire and release of radioactivity at Australian nuclear research facility
22-1975: Fire in reactor at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant (USA)
24-1992: Incident with radiation leakage, shut-down of reactor at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Refuelling accident at Wuergassen nuclear power plant (Germany)
28-1979: Partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant (USA)
29-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)

April
1-1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant (France)
3-1960: Melting of fuel elements cause a release of radioactivity at the Test Reactor at Waltz Mills (USA)
6-1993: Explosion at the Tomsk-7 nuclear complex (Russia)
7-1992: Failure of automatic shut-down system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
13-1979: Fire in the generator of the Baersbeck nuclear power plant (Sweden)
15-1983: Incident at Turkey Point nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1992: Technical failure of reactor shut-down system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
17-1970: Incident involving a vehicle at a French nuclear test site in the South Pacific causes a plutonium spillage into the ocean.
18-1992: Technical failure during refuelling at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
19-1984: Technical failure at Sequoyah nuclear power plant causes spillage of radioactive coolant water. (USA)
25-1990: Flooding of building due to increase of coolant level at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
26-1986: Explosion of reactor 4 at Chernobyl nuclear power plant; the worst civilian nuclear accident to date.
28-1988: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex (France)
30-1992: Breakdown of cooling system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)

May
4-1986: Release of radiation from Hamm-Uentrop nuclear power plant (Germany)
6-1989: Fire of pump equipment at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
7-1992: Failure of emergency system at Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
9-1992: Technical failure of cooling system at Hatch nuclear power plant (USA)
10-1965: Release of eight cubic metres of cooling water from Savannah River reprocessing plant (USA)
11-1969: Fire at Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant causes plutonium to spontaneously ignite. (USA)
12-1984: Uncontrolled power surge at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
13-1992: Tube leak causes a radioactive release of 12 Curies of radioactivity from Tarapur nuclear power station (India)
16-1992: Reactor shut-down at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
23-1958: Accident and release of radioactivity at the Chalk River experimental reactor (Canada)
24-1968: Incident on board of Soviet nuclear submarine "K- 27", 5 crew members killed by radiation release
26-1990: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant (France)

June
1-1991: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant (France)
2-1992: Total failure of centralised control system at the Smolensk nuclear power plant (Russia)
4-1989: Fire in the cables of the cooling pumps at the Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
8-1992: Failure of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
9-1985: Malfunction in the cooling system at Davis Blesse nuclear power plant (USA)
11-1989: Spent fuel element dropped in the storage pool and damaged at Kruemmel nuclear power plant (Germany)
18-1978: Release of two tons of radioactive steam from Brunsbuettel nuclear power plant (Germany)
20-1985 Collision of two trucks carrying nuclear bombs in Scotland (UK)
23-1986: Twelve people receive `slight' plutonium contamination while inspecting a store room at Tokaimura nuclear complex (Japan)
24-1992: Technical failure of control system at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
30-1983: Total loss of coolant at Embalse nuclear power plant (Argentina)

July
1-1983: Technical failure causes release of Iodine-131 from Phillipsburg nuclear power plant (Germany)
3-1981: Fire at North Anna nuclear power plant (USA)
4-1961: Incident on board of Soviet nuclear submarine "K- 19", radiation release kills 9 crew members
9-1991: Flaw in cooling system at Wurgassen nuclear power plant (Russia)
10-1991: Leakage of radiation at Bilibino nuclear power plant (Russia)
12-1993: Failure of control system at Susquehanna nuclear power plant (USA)
18-1991: Steam leakage causes reactor shut-down at Paks nuclear power plant (Hungary)
20-1992: Leakage of radiation due to breakdown of cooling system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
22-1992: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant (France)
24-1989: Refuelling accident at Isar nuclear power plant (Germany)
31-1993: Refuelling machine malfunctions at the Wylfa nuclear power plant (UK)

August
1-1983: An engineer receives a fatal radiation dose at a research reactor in Argentina
3-1983: Argentinean engineer dies from radiation dose received two days earlier
10-1985: Explosion on board a Soviet nuclear submarine
11-1988: Damage detected at Atucha nuclear power plant (Argentina)
14-1989: Instrumentation and control failure at Grand Gulf nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1991: Eight control rods show delays in emergency shut- down insertion time at Millstone Point nuclear power plant (USA)
17-1991: Automatic shut-down due to technical problems at Sendai nuclear power plant (Japan)
19-1986: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant (France)
20-1974 Incident at Beznau nuclear power plant (Switzerland)
21-1980: Accident on board Soviet nuclear submarine, believed to kill at least nine crew members
22-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
27-1990: Cable fire causes loss of control of the position of control rods at Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
30-1985: Fire in a barrel of radioactive waste at Karlsruhe nuclear complex (Germany)

September
6-1991: Incident and steam leak during refueling at Barsebeck nuclear power plant (Sweden)
9-1989: Control rod failure at Olkiluoto nuclear power plant (Finland)
12-1992: Leakage of radioactive water at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
14-1991: Leakage at Kozloduy nuclear power plant (Bulgaria)
16-1990: Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor is closed down due to technical failures (France)
22-1980: Pump failure causes accidental release of radioactive water at La Hague reprocessing plant (France)
24-1973: 35 workers at the Sellafield reprocessing plant are contaminated following a technical failure (UK)
25-1955: First Soviet underwater nuclear explosion near Novaya Zemlya (Arctic Ocean)
27-1974: Soviet nuclear-capable destroyer sinks in the Black Sea
28-1990: Cables for reactor control and protection system supply overheat at Bohunice nuclear power plant (Slovakia)
29-1957: Thousands of square miles contaminated by accident at the Chelyabinsk nuclear complex (Russia)
30-1990: Failure of reactor core cooling system at Palisades nuclear power plant (USA)

October
1-1983: Technical failure and human error cause accident at Blayas nuclear power plant(France)
2-1968: Leakage at La Hague reprocessing plant (France) 3-1952: First UK nuclear test
4-1981: Release of 300-times the normal discharge level of Iodine-131 at Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK)
5-1966: Partial core meltdown at the Fermi fast breeder reactor (USA)
8-1985: Accidental radioactive release into the sea from Hinkley Point nuclear power station (UK)
9-1991: Technical failure at Yugno-Ukrainskaya nuclear power plant (Ukraine)
10-1957: Three tonnes of uranium catch fire at the Windscale reprocessing plant (now Sellafield UK)
13-1977: Sea water runs into the cooling circuit of Hunterston nuclear power plant (UK)
17-1969: Fuel elements melt at St Laurent des Eaux nuclear power plant (France)
22-1993: Instrumentation and Control failure at Saint Alban nuclear power plant (France)
23-1989: Failure of core cooling system at Dresdan nuclear power plant (USA)
25-1991: Failure of shut-down system during refuelling at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Incident during refueling at Vogtle nuclear power plant (USA)
27-1991: Technical failure of shut-down system at Zaporozhe nuclear power plant (Ukraine)

November
1-1992: Cracks in cooling system equipment at Brunsbuttel nuclear power plant (Germany)
3-1990: Failure of core cooling equipment at Doel nuclear power plant (Belgium)
7-1967: Release of radioactivity at Grenoble nuclear power plant (France)
9-1955: Core meltdown at EBR fast breeder reactor (USA)
11-1988: Accident during refueling on board of Soviet nuclear powered ice-breaker "Lenin"
14-1989: Breakdown of fuel rod control system at Oconee nuclear power plant (USA)
16-1983: Sellafield reprocessing plant discharges highly radioactive wastes directly into the sea (UK)
24-1989: Technical failure nearly causes core meltdown at Greifswald nuclear power plant (Germany)
27-1991: Disfunction of automatic shut-down system at Bilibino nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1991: Failure of control system causes reactor shut- down at Kursk nuclear power plant (Russia)
30-1975: 1.5 million Curies released from Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)

December
4-1990: 2 workers irradiated during refuelling at Blayais nuclear power plant (France)
7-1991: Failure of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
8-1995: Fire due to leakage of sodium coolant from Monju fast breeder reactor, Japanese nuclear industry attempts to cover up full extent of accident, reactor shut-down
9-1986: Explosion at Surry nuclear power plant, four people killed (USA).
10-1991: Failure of turbo-generator causes reactor shut- down at Balakovo nuclear power plant (Russia)
11-1991: Human error causes failure of automatic reactor shut-down equipment at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
12-1952: World's first major nuclear reactor disaster, Chalk River experimental reactor (Canada)
13-1988: Four of the eight emergency installations discovered out of order at Brokdorf nuclear power plant (Germany)
17-1987: Severe incident at Biblis nuclear power plant (Germany)
20-1990: Control element discovered damaged at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
21-1991: Radiation leakage at Kolskaya nuclear power plant (Russia)
23-1988: Two control rods jammed at Blayais nuclear power plant (France)
25-1992: Radioactive water leakage at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)
28-1990: Incident and radiation leakage at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
31-1978: Fire and loss of reactor control, 8 workers irradiated at Beloyarsk nuclear power plant (Russia)

I managed to remove half the incidents as gratuitous padding.

These included:

• Any incidents involving nuclear weapons. I'm no fan either. What a waste of plutonium!
• Any references to ships running aground or planes crashing which has nothing to do with nuclear accidents.
• Any references to successful automatic shutdowns. These are occasions that demonstrate the safety of nuclear power.
• References to release of heavy water, which is stable.
• References to nuclear medicine. Try arguing against that.
• Damages to components of nuclear power stations that are unrelated to the nuclear component.
• Vague references to technical failiures when it is not stated how it relates to the nuclear component. I'm not upset nor surprised when a complex machine experience some kind of technical failiure. It is only relevant if it was caused by or causes problems with the nuclear component.
• References to space-related accidents since you yourself are a proponent of nuclear spaceflight anyway. Besides a relase of 1kg of plutonium is hardly anything to loose sleep over.

The interesting thing to note is that with all these meltdowns and loss of controls rods and release of radioactive material and all these other good things, we're hearing more about threats to our health from mobile phones, McDonals and GM foods than we are from these accidents.

France generates most of their electricity from nuclear power. How do they manage the wastes?

As Glom said, most of those accidents are unrelated to the reactor, and the ones that are show how the safety systems prevented injury.

You could compile a much larger and more meaningful list on the dangers caused by coal plants.

How many times do I have to say it? Yucca Mountain was chosen by scientists because it is the safest place in the country to store nuclear waste.

On this basis, you could say the horse and carriage is superior to the automobile.

I wholeheartedly agree. One of the hallmarks of a conspiracist is ignoring the facts, which is what you are doing. I have repeadtedly told you the facts of the situtation, which you continue to ignore and then you complain that, "You all hate Nevadans, you don't care about us."

Before I debate you any further I want you to respond to these points:

1. Yucca Mountain was chosed for nuclear wastes because it is the safest place in America to store them.

2. Nuclear plants are much safer and cleaner than coal power plants. Coal plants are proven to kill 16,000 people a year from the pollution alone, not to mention miner injuries, acid rain, the radiation release, or the waste produced. The only deaths proven to be from commercial nuclear reactors are those resulting from the improperly designed Chernobyl.

3. You have failed to address my point about radiation exposure, which I will reproduce here:

4. Yucca Mountain was chosen scientifically, NOT politically, because it is the safest place to store nucelar waste in the country.

5. The primary reason why waste has to be stored in Yucca Mountain is because the anti-nukyular activists refuse to let us reprocess the fuel (by the way, I will add that one of the former nuclear fuel reprocessing centers was in New York state).

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Assuming Yucca Mountain is safe for storage what kind of plans are being made for the transportation of waste to the facility? Not only regarding radiation but also the possibility of terrorist threat?

I am a proponent of nuclear energy but I do have serious concerns about human error. I think a lot of opponents are worried about the safety procautions failing. It appears that a nuclear disaster is far worse than, say, a coal plant blowing-up. I say appears, I do not know myself for sure.

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan

That's why nuclear plants cost so much - to prevent that from happening. An ideal worst-case scenario could cause severe damage, but the chances of one happening at an American, British or other properly designed reactor is virtually negligible. If a coal plant exploded we would have serious problems.

The waste will be solidified and stored in containers (which themselves are enough to protect people from most of their radiation). I believe the waste is transported to the site by guarded trucks and trains.

From most radiation? How dangerous is the radiation that is not blocked?

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan