'Normal' society, but hear more from the 'tails'??

[Ten Bears]

IT, your idea of a fish passage is not the same as mine. Get real.
GRINNER, I apologizefor my misconception of cleanup. Now I see that this is just another welfare industry. http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=206328
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/104250_hanford15.shtml
How about the salmon returning through a radioactive river?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/homepage.nsf/0/30e9044857edb7f588256cfd007dc80f?OpenDocume nt
Yep, I'm sorry for thinking that the plant should be deactivated. Can you tell me again how hydro power is a welfare program, and wrong?

EDITTED ADDITION:

FYI, I guess I found those voices that would be leading me to believe that Hanford was to be dismantled. Please refer to:
http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2003-05-08/local/142773.shtml
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The contract calls for removing contaminated soil from the river shore, completing the demolition of three old reactor complexes and cleaning up much of the 300 Area.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-09-2003 11:08: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Are you talking about the Nuclear plant up there, or the varous military/Gov't reactors at Hanford? You said the plant was being dissassembled, which is completley wrong.

Are they doing clean up at Hanford? Duhh... They have been doing it for years, and they will do it for years. But if you can have a peaceful sleep, thinking that something is being cleaned up, then you are crazy. Are you now trying to tell me that the three reactors being dissasembled are the ONLY 3 reactors up there, other than the Columbia Generation plant? You will be living downwind from a Nuclear facility for at LEAST the next 40 years, and I would guess there will always be Nuke activity there.

But I am anxious to hear you tell me that the three reactors you referenced are the only other reactors up there....

And are you trying to tell me that the Nuke POWER plant should be de-activated?

 

[Ten Bears]

GRINNER, I have no idea how many reactors are at Hanford. YES, I AM OPPOSED to Nuke power.

NUKE power is not safe, and is not clean. If I'm lucky to grow so old, I'll live down wind of Hanford for 40 more years, but odds are time will catch up to me before that, and they'll bury my glowing old bones.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ten,

Hydro electric is much better than nuclear, but there are some kooks out there that are opposed to it as well!

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

So..... Ten......

You got me confused here.....

At first you said...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I also have peaceful sleep knowing that the local nuclear plant, Hanford, (we were downwind from) is being disassembled (can you say cleanup?).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then I point out that you will have a Nuke plant at Hanford for the next 40 years, and then you state"
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> GRINNER, I have no idea how many reactors are at Hanford. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't seem to be making sense

Have you talked to a Shrink about the voices in your head that you seem to listen to????

And just what do you base your "NUKE power is not safe, and is not clean " comments on???

 

[dgibson]

It's on the internet, so it must be true.

 

[Ten Bears]

GRINNER, you tell me how "safe" Nuke power is. While your at it you can tell me how long the radioactive waste produced in the process is considered hazardous. I sleep better knowing that some of the defective reactors are being dismantled. You said yourself that it will be a perpetual cleanup.

Have you been out in the pasture consulting with the cows and burning your bowl? If so I c a n t y p e m o r e s l o w l y .

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Why on earth are you asking me to tell you how safe Nuclear power is???? Can you please find a post from me claiming Nuclear Power is Safe or is not Safe? I have made zero comments as the safety of Nuclear Power.

I have cleared up the erroneous information you posted about the "plant" being dissassembled, and cleaned up.

It is you who made the statements that Nuke power is not safe nor clean. I look forward to your references on that one. And I am sure you have references and facts, before you would be making any more claims, as I would guess you are probably tired of making wild-arsed statements, with no facts.

Even if you have to cite the voices in your head, at least let us know that is where you get your facts....

 

[Ten Bears]

GRINNER, what is your choice of electrical power generation, if the dams are removed?

 

[JoseCuervo]

What's the matter Ten? Can't you cite your references? I know how much you think it is important for references, but you still haven't got any.... hmmm....

And my electricity? Why I think I'll stay with cheap, affordable, safe power from the good people at Idaho Power. And Idaho Power doesn't get a significant amount of their electricty from the 4 Lower Snake River dams, so no effect to my lavish lifestyle...

 

[BigHornyRam]

Elkgunner,

You said:

"And my electricity? Why I think I'll stay with cheap, affordable, safe power from the good people at Idaho Power. And Idaho Power doesn't get a significant amount of their electricty from the 4 Lower Snake River dams, so no effect to my lavish lifestyle"

Doesn't the dams that Idaho power gets a significant amount of their power from, block a large amount of salmon habitat? Looks to me that you are just another salmon killer as well! Shame on you!

Paul

 

[Ten Bears]

GRINNER, why is it you feel free to makeclaims and accusations without references, but you seemto think I need to reference everything? Is it because I question your "authority"? Does that make you uncomfortable?

Here's a referenced site for you.
<A HREF="http://www.idahopower.com/aboutus/company/facts/plants.htm" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.idahopower.com/aboutus/company/facts/plants.htm[/url]

There seems to be a whole lotta dams in that list for someone preaching "free flowing rivers".

EDITTED ADDAITION
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Today I will be addressing nuclear energy issues. Nuclear power is unsafe, unreliable, uneconomic and generates long-lived radioactive wastes for which there is no safe solution. It should be phased out as soon as possible and should not be encouraged as a future energy source.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/03272001Hearing139/Aurilio199.htm

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-16-2003 09:41: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

You are crackin' me up again... Now you are quoting some lady from PIRG????? That is the Nader group.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Good afternoon, my name is Anna Aurilio and I’m the Legislative Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG. U.S. PIRG is the national office for the State PIRGs, which are environmental, good government and consumer advocacy groups active around the country. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PIRG is the group that warns us of the choking hazzards of small rubber balls... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Most toy manufacturers do properly warn consumers about potential choking hazards in their toys, as the law requires. But a startling report -- issued this November by the nonprofit U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) -- finds that some toy manufacturers don't comply with these regulations. The PIRG survey reveals that some warning labels don't get updated, and that some stores still sell small unpackaged toys -- such as small rubber balls -- without warning labels.

To help you determine what size toy might be a choking hazard, National Safe Kids Campaign suggests that you buy a "small parts tester," available at toy, drug and hardware stores. By placing parts inside this inexpensive device, you can see whether or not they are of choking size.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here is a PIRG link, where you can study up on the dangers of Playgrounds in America.

Playgrounds and Nuke Plants in America. No body can sleep tonight...

Ten, you must not really hear voices, now it turns out that you hear Ralph Nader....

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, How are you ever going to explain to MD4m that you posted a link to Ralph Nader's group? Don't you know he was the GREEN party candidate!!

I'm really sorry, Ten, but I just can't take you seriously anymore!

Why don't you go crawl under a rock?

 

[Ten Bears]

Now there are those here that would tell me which sites I can read on the internet?

ITHACA, I quit taking you seriously a long time ago.

I don't think I'll crawl under any rocks, but maybe I'll come park my ATV on yours.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-18-2003 09:38: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

I think PIRG may have been the group that warned us all about the dangers of Chinese Food, Pizza, and Movie Theatre Popcorn.

You have to admidt that it is pretty damn funny, that you would go looking for some facts to back up your claims on Nuke power, and pull up some testimony from a birkenstock wearing, hairy legged PIRG lady.

Ten, on Nuke power, I think you might want to do a bit more reading, before you start making claims. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you don't know...

 

[Ten Bears]

GRINNER, why don't you tell us about the INEEL. That place was (is) so safe they even buried the ambulance (wasn't it crew and all?).

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Lemme' get this straight. You make a erroneous comment about the plant at Hanford being dismantled, and then make some comments on Nuke being unsafe and not clean, citing PIRG (the people that keep the world from choking on little balls

).

And then you bring up INEEL, and want me to explain that operation? First of all, where on earth did you get the idea that I was a Nuclear Physiscist? (Hell, I can't even spell Physisicst...

). Why on earth would you bring up topics, and ask me to defend your position?

But, if you are concerned about INEEL, why don't you start working with the Snake River Alliance to get the Bush administration to live up to the agreement that the DOE signed with Gov. Batt? That waste was supposed to be leaving Idaho, and it is still here.

Again, on Energy issues, you would be better served by posting less, and reading more...

 

[Ten Bears]

First, I haven't requested you to defend any of my posts, just to clarify some information.
Second, you have still not clarified why the cleanup and the current reactor removal at Hanford should not be comforting. If you would, please show me were I said the plant was shut down.
And third, why are you theatened by others who have different opinions?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Do you really want me to show you where you said the plant at Hanford was being shut down?

D'uh... Maybe it was when you posted (posted 09-08-2003 09:56) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I also have peaceful sleep knowing that the local nuclear plant, Hanford, (we were downwind from) is being disassembled <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I am guessing that is where you said the plant was shut down. (Maybe I was just guessing that they had to shut down the plant in order to disassemble it.

I'll tell you what, Ten. Let's just let this post die, as it has sunk into a series of you posting WRONG information, me correcting it, and then you asking me to defend your post.

1-Ptr tried to start an intelligent topic, and you seem to have de-railed it by posting wrong information. If you are really interested in a Thread on Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste, and the clean-up of said topics, then please go start your own thread, and I'll only jump in to correct the mis-information you post.


And as I have said before, I am not an expert on Nuclear Power nor Nuclear Reactors, and just because I point out you are wrong, and I provide the correct information, does not make me an expert. It just means I finished third grade.