Should we still be testing nuclear bombs?

[Benny Holiday]

This is also interesting, if they start blasting off Nukes, the OZONE LAYER
Forget your underarm sprays and banned chemicals...nukes will accelerate the process.

Yeah, and the biggest deficit in the Ozone Layer hovers right above good ol' Australia. No wonder I can't go out in the sunshine for more than ten minutes without getting burned to a crisp.

Plenty of nuclear tests down here in the 50's too, in South Australia at an infamous site called Maralinga. Plenty of Australian servicemen who provided labour and support for the tests ended up with all manner of hideous maladies in the decades that followed.

 

[jake_fink]

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings.

Missing: 700 tons of ammonium nitrate.

Yeah, and the biggest deficit in the Ozone Layer hovers right above good ol' Australia.

Not the poles?*

(*I mean the arctic and/or antarctica, not Poland, duh.)

 

[Hannigan Reilly]

Hey, what kind of shingles are on that house across the street?

 

[Benny Holiday]

Jake, I've read that

the thinnest part of the Ozone Layer is quite extensive, and stretches from the south pole up to the lower part of Australia. I'm no expert on it though. I can tell you that when I was a kid, I used to stay out in the sun and swim and play all day, and I'd get browner and browner. Since the 90's, though, the incidence of melanomas have gone through the roof here, and no one can sunbake like they used to.

(Although some people do try, and reap the sad results).

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings.

A fella could have a pretty good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff.

Err, I mean Vegas.

 

[geo]

So what's better, one huge nuke or lots of small nukes spread over a large area?

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Hell, what's wrong with going back to good ol' napalm? It killed about as many people in Japan in WWII as did the nuclear bombs.

Although that might not be great for gas prices.

 

[scotrace]

I don't know about bombs

But we should most certainly be building new nuclear power plants.

 

[geo]

Good ol' napalm's out of date. Fuel Air Explosives are in now, and they have the same effect as a small nuke, without the radiation.

The article doesn't give much technical details, but it looks like it was a FAE, not a nuke that was detonated in the test.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

But we should most certainly be building new nuclear power plants.

Here's why I disagree:

1) We can't even find a safe storage solution form the waste of those plants in existence.

2) Contamination is rampant with existing plants.

3) They make great terrorist targets with the ability to inflict maximum damage.

4) Every plant has its Homer Simpsons. Not much room for human error.

5) We've seen corporate corruption in action. Cutting corners is too deadly.

 

[jake_fink]

1) We can't even find a safe storage solution form the waste of those plants in existence.

2) Contamination is rampant with existing plants.

3) They make great terrorist targets with the ability to inflict maximum damage.

4) Every plant has its Homer Simpsons. Not much room for human error.

5) We've seen corporate corruption in action. Cutting corners is too deadly.

6) They are enormously expensive to maintain and become moreso the older they get.

 

[LizzieMaine]

7. The facilities have a built-in obsolesence and the inevitable decommissioning is a very expensive, complicated process. We've seen it happen here in Maine.

 

[scotrace]

And there is the problem

Look around your house at the number of widgets that consume electricity. That number has increased dramatically in the past 20 years in your home, and 99% of homes across the United States. The demand for electricity continues to grow.
Yet, very, very few new electric generating facilities are being built. Deregulation of the industry has caused havoc with the electric grid, which was laid out as a local and regional, not national, grid anyway.
The French are eating our lunch when it comes to safe, reliable, clean (read: no coal) electricity production, and it's mainly due to nuclear power.
Nuclear may not be the solution (and I don't know if it is), but it shouldn't be off the table of possibilities.
The nuclear plants in the USA that are operating are doing so cleanly, efficiently, and safely.
The next time you're sitting in the dark due to demand for electricity exceeding supply, think about how that very problem affects national security.
There must be new power plants built. There is no choice.
Each method of producing electricity has its detractors. Wind Power harms the beauty of a landscape, is detrimental to wildlife habitat and kills a lot of birds. Water turbines change the nature of wetlands, and have their own environmental concerns. Coal produces smoke. Natural gas is expensive and non-renewable. Nuclear is a political hot potato and... well. It's Nuclear.

So what's the solution? Saying "no" to every proposal only makes matters worse. And that is where we are now.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

Good ol' napalm's out of date. Fuel Air Explosives are in now, and they have the same effect as a small nuke, without the radiation.

The article doesn't give much technical details, but it looks like it was a FAE, not a nuke that was detonated in the test.

Hm, well if it's in fashion now, I'm all for it. lol

I am an advocate of nuclear energy as well. I see it as a lesser of several evils. In spite of the objections raised here, frankly, all of our current large-scale energy production kills people (via cancer and lung disease and heart disease and all that fun stuff), costs too much, and is unfortunately necessary for maintaining our modern lifestyle. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island nothwithstanding, nuclear energy is cleaner and safer.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

The nuclear plants in the USA that are operating are doing so cleanly, efficiently, and safely.

There is an overabundance of evidence documenting the opposite. I'm sure a simple google search will offer up some reading material.

The next time you're sitting in the dark due to demand for electricity exceeding supply, think about how that very problem affects national security.

I would ask myself why more people didn't conserve, which I ask myself now.

There must be new power plants built. There is no choice. Each method of producing electricity has its detractors. Wind Power harms the beauty of a landscape, is detrimental to wildlife habitat and kills a lot of birds. Water turbines change the nature of wetlands, and have their own environmental concerns. Coal produces smoke. Natural gas is expensive and non-renewable. Nuclear is a political hot potato and... well. It's Nuclear.

So what's the solution? Saying "no" to every proposal only makes matters worse. And that is where we are now.

I agree it's a matter of picking a lesser evil, but to me, nuclear should be off the table of options.

 

[scotrace]

I don't have to google it. This is what I do for a living.

I stand by my observations.

 

[jake_fink]

Re: Energy production:

Just a thought

scotrace, too true about the number of things that suck energy, even when we aren't using them. Heck, I used to work on a manual typewriter, now my computer is on all day. So... conservation?

Just another thought.


Edited to say I think Hydro is the lesser of three evils (hydro, coal, nuclear). Wind production still has a way to go before it becomes a truly viable alternative.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I don't have to google it. This is what I do for a living.

I stand by my observations.

You operate a nuclear power plant? Sorry, but I am truly confused.

Here are just a few links out of too many to post:

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/6767

http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/indian_point/the_facts/1137

http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/steinbergjulaug98.htm

 

[geo]

Forget energy, this thread is about bombs!

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Forget energy, this thread is about bombs!

Scotrace brought up nuclear energy which was a natural progression of the discussion.

Bombs are energy, by the way.