If New York is facing an energy shortage...

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Jun 24, 2001, 12:58:55 AM6/24/01
to
... then it's time to start up Shoreham!

Philip Kirschner

unread,
Jun 24, 2001, 11:24:25 AM6/24/01
to
Shoreham is not a ready to use plant. It will take two years to prepare to
fire up the reactor. Its a bad design also with a terrible evacuation plan.
That is why it was placed in mothballs to begin with.

"Joseph Hertzlinger" <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9h3s2f$8o1$2...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...

Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Jun 24, 2001, 5:38:30 PM6/24/01
to
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:24:25 GMT, Philip Kirschner
<phi...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Shoreham is not a ready to use plant. It will take two years to
>prepare to fire up the reactor.

We can obtain energy until it is ready by putting environmentalists
(the people responsible for the problem) on treadmills.

>Its a bad design also with a terrible evacuation plan. That is why it
>was placed in mothballs to begin with.

Is radioactivity that dangerous? We don't see three-eyed mutants
walking around Hiroshima. People in the Rocky Mountains ("where the
scenery's attractive and the air is radioactive" --- Tom Lehrer) have
relatively low cancer mortality rates. Besides, in the long run the
waste is less radioactive than the original uranium.

--
I'm a Libertarian, a mathematician, and a science-fiction fan. What is
the meaning of this strange phrase "common sense"? I don't think I've
ever encountered it.

Philip Kirschner

unread,
Jun 24, 2001, 8:07:54 PM6/24/01
to
No, but we see very high rates of blood cancers and extreme birth
defects. Its not a hot zone, but sure close to it. Shoreham would take a few
years to ready. Besides all the radioactive rods are gone.

"Joseph Hertzlinger" <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:9h5mkm$vip$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

Bob

unread,
Jun 25, 2001, 10:00:49 AM6/25/01
to
> We can obtain energy until it is ready by putting environmentalists
> (the people responsible for the problem) on treadmills.

The problem in California is not on the generation end. It is that energy
utilities, who got out of the generating business, had to buy from
generating companies. When the costs went up for buying power (as they
naturally do from time to time), they weren't allowed by state law to pass
the cost on to consumers. Now some of them are facing bankruptcy and they
were forced to cut power supply. Further electricity generation may have no
effect if utilities are not allowed to pass costs on to consumers, as they
are in other industries.

> Is radioactivity that dangerous? We don't see three-eyed mutants
> walking around Hiroshima. People in the Rocky Mountains ("where the
> scenery's attractive and the air is radioactive" --- Tom Lehrer) have
> relatively low cancer mortality rates. Besides, in the long run the
> waste is less radioactive than the original uranium.

High level gamma radiation is quite dangerous. Soils are still contaminated
in Hiroshima. Besides the radioactive waste, nuclear plants produce less
pollution than fossil fuel plants.


Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Jun 26, 2001, 9:01:54 PM6/26/01
to
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:07:54 GMT, Philip Kirschner
<phi...@optonline.net> wrote:

> No, but we see very high rates of blood cancers and extreme birth
>defects. Its not a hot zone, but sure close to it.

Where do we see these "very high rates of blood cancers and extreme
birth defects"? Near Shoreham? Or near real radioactive areas?

>Shoreham would take a few years to ready. Besides all the radioactive
>rods are gone.

In that case, we must start today instead of waiting until tomorrow.

>"Joseph Hertzlinger" <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:9h5mkm$vip$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

>> Is radioactivity that dangerous? We don't see three-eyed mutants

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages