MitsuStyle - The Real McCain

MitsuStyle (http://www.mitsustyle.com/forums/index.php)

- Video Forum (http://www.mitsustyle.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - The Real McCain (http://www.mitsustyle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19923)

Re: The Real McCain

Nuclear power is the way to go, clean and easy and great source of energy. besides the spent fuel rods or whatever their called that they bury underground. Ive also heard they give off hydrogen? or something which is beneficial for our atmosphere? Not sure exactly if thats true. As far as the voting decision goes, still undecided.

Re: The Real McCain

Tom you need to read up on modern nuclear power, it's waaaay safer than it used to be, there have been huge advances. And dirty? Not compared to all the coal and oil we burn, and not into the atmosphere.

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowboy (Post 246643)

As clean as Nuclear power may seem, there is the worst kind of waste. Radioactive waste that is given off by cooling the rods. This has to go somewhere. Which is the main problem with nuclear power plants. Not to mencion another chernobyl incedent, but what about terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant, which are simply not guarded enough.
Wind and solor are much better, safer and cleaner sources of energy and can power the US with the right research and advances.

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX (Post 246632)

His views on nuclear power really scare me as if they stored all of that nuclear waste in the yucca mountain and a terrorist were to target that, the whole US would be fucked. Nuclear power is very dirty and creates waste that can cause great harm to human beings. I watched two videos on Chernobyl and almost cried because i thought about what i would feel if it were my son that came out with deformaties, (see. Chernobyl 20 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzu1eegKWM&feature=user
and Chernobyl 20 years later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh3QaWKbSg) With McCains views on Nuclear power its hitting a little close to home.

Do you know anything about nuclear power? It's time for some education. Chernobyl was a nuclear accident brought on by human negligence and error. It caused a steam explosion (what blew the reactor dome apart) and a complete meltdown of the reactor, the only one ever in the history of nuclear power. There has not been any other accident even remotely close to the severity of Chernobyl.

Quote:

A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath most of these being cleanup personnel. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.

Three Mile Island is the worst accident to happen in the US, and in reality it is not bad.

Quote:

Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor. This is the worst commercial nuclear accident in the United States. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources), with exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv) to approximately 2 million people. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict at most one long-term cancer fatality.

Do you really think a Cherobyl-like accident will happen in the US or anywhere ever again? That was over 20 years ago, and to think how much technology has advanced since then really should bring a piece of mind as to how much better and safer nuclear energy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lear_accidents

Now, about terrorists getting ahold of spent nuclear fuel. Two things they could do: Build a dirty bomb (a conventional bomb that spreads radioactive material when it detonates) or build a nuclear weapon (requires reprocessing spent fuel). A dirty bomb... Possible, yes, but doubtful. Given the safeguards put in place around the world on nuclear energy it is extremely unlikely that enough radioactive material will ever get in the wrong hands. Massive amounts of spent plutonium fuel would need to be reprocessed into a usable state for a nuclear weapon.

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

Quote:

It is thought that during the 1960s the UK Ministry of Defence evaluated dirty bombs, deciding that a far better effect was achievable by simply using more high explosive in place of the radioactive material.

An interesting tidbit... In 2002, the United States Department of Energy took possession of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles from the United States Department of Defense, and as of early 2003 was considering converting several nuclear power plants in the US from enriched uranium fuel to MOX fuel (mixed oxide, a mixture of radioactive materials) as a means of disposing of plutonium stocks. How that would be a bad way of reducing nuclear weapon proliferation is beyond me.

A good read about nuclear energy safety: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

So, Tom, is the sky falling? :)

Re: The Real McCain

I'm not endorsing nuclear power in any way, but I feel I should point out that any group or state that cannot produce it's own nuclear waste is not likely to be able to actually process the stuff to make a legitimate nuclear bomb. Dirty bombs are also not a big threat. They don't have much more of an impact than a traditional explosive. It's really just a method of psychological warfare.

I do have concerns about waste disposal/storage. When we have the option of safer and more renewable stuff it's not the best choice, but at least the "terrorist" scenario is not a huge threat with it.

Re: The Real McCain

I'm curious as to who the first to pay-ban Tom will be :)

Re: The Real McCain

I love how you say it was human error and that it will never happen again. 20 years ago was NOT a long time ago by any means. Human errors happen every day, Computer errors happen every day. Saying something will never happen when it comes to something that could kill millions is an aweful assumption. What happens when your wrong? Im sure glad your not running for president.
And yes i do know what happened in Chernobyl. And the fact that the area surrounding Chernobyl is still uninhabitable should scare the living shit out of you when it comes to having 20+ Possible Chernobyl sites on US soil.
The controversy surrounding Yucca Mountain is that if a terrorist were to bomb Yucca mountain with all of that Nuclear waste it would float up into the jet stream and be spread beyond control over the US.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in579696.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

You tell me matt, is the sky falling?

Re: The Real McCain

Risks must be taken in order for our society to SURVIVE and continue growing as we know it. Airplanes, cars, trains, and boats crash everyday killing hundreds; does that mean we should all lock ourselves in the basement and refuse progression?

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracka (Post 246659)

I'm curious as to who the first to pay-ban Tom will be :)

What i dont understand is how people that are planning on voting McCain dont see the simularities between Bush and Him. And if you actually think bush is a good president, next time im in town your getting a swift slap upside the head.

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracka (Post 246661)

What im saying is there are alternate forms of energy that must be explored that can easily power our society with no harmful effects to our envoirnment or people.

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX (Post 246663)

He may not be the greatest president ever, but at least he isn't John Kerry!

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX (Post 246665)

What im saying is there are alternate forms of energy that must be explored that can easily power our society with no harmful effects to our envoirnment or people.

Do you have any idea how many huge solar/wind fields it would take to create the same amount of power as one nuclear plant?

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracka (Post 246667)

Do you have any idea how many huge solar/wind fields it would take to create the same amount of power as one nuclear plant?

Currently yes you are correct it would take a lot. but with the advancement of technology, more Green solutions such as wind and solor are going to become a great contender to Nuclear energy.
Please read this and it will clue you in.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/682/7930
http://www.naturestudy.org/pdf/Solar...rWindPower.pdf
"The estimated recoverable energy from solar energy is about 1,000 times the present human global energy consumption of 10TW per year. Ten weeks of solar energy is roughly equivalent to the energy stored in all known reserves of coal, oil and natural gas on earth. Solor energy is absorbed at Earths surface at an average rate of 120,000 TW, which is 10,000 times the global demand for energy"
This was quoted from the PDF link. It was produced in 2001. Imagine how much more efficient energy production is now. Without the need to decommission nuclear plants and create the radioactive waste. As well as its much more cost efficient.

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX (Post 246668)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ent_in_history
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120101509.html

Why are we talking about Bush?

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracka (Post 246666)

He may not be the greatest president ever, but at least he isn't John Kerry!

and speaking of john kerry, The original videos actually remind me a lot of what the republicans did when he was labled as a flip flopper. Maybe the dems should start passing out flip flops at the McCain speeches. LOL

Re: The Real McCain

Yes there are other energy options that we should pursue as well. The cleaner and more efficiently we can create energy, the better. But we need more power RIGHT NOW. And in my opinion, the best option out there RIGHT NOW, is nuclear fission plants. Nuclear plants give off no emissions. The only waste they produce are spent fuel rods, which are enclosed in a thick lead capsule called a cask, welded, then placed into a concrete casing. These things are tough as shit, and you can stand right next to them and receive squat for radiation. Now bury those things deep under ground in the middle of nowhere on federal land. Is this ideal, of course not. But NOTHING is. There's a give and take on everything. And right now, today, I think it is the best option there is. My company has a brand new design that is approved and already ordered by 2 US plants that I know of, and quite a few over in China.

Re: The Real McCain

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX (Post 246668)

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/pro...ent_in_history

Wait a second... Did you just link to Rolling Stone? You just threw all of your credibility out the window.

I have a tin foil hat waiting for you when you return to Minnesota.

Re: The Real McCain

Actually i just did a search on google for worst president in history and if you notice at least the first 20 links all have GWB in the article.

The waste is not only in the rods but the plant itself. If you read the PDF Article as well as common fact, you will know that the nuclear power plants are only good for 30 years. then they must be decommissioned and cannot be reused, they are sealed and everything that was used in the plant is considered waste.
Wind and Solar can be a energy source for RIGHT NOW. And is actually used here in southern california by our main power company. If you read the pdf article you would realise that solar power is more effeciant and cost effective then nuclear, with no effect to us or the environment. And provides Much more power then the US actually uses.