Wow. The explosion was felt 15 miles away.

The article said "two dead" so it's not exactly "mass casualties" but apparently reports are still coming in.

Yet Nuke plants are the ones that are too dangerous?

They've updated the article already and changed the headline from "mass casualties" to "2 dead." Casualties includes injured, and they're still looking even in people's homes near the plant.

The plant's general manager, Gordon Holk, confirmed the blast caused casualties, but wasn't sure how many. Fire and police officials in Middletown said there were "mass casualties," but no other details were immediately available.

I hope the numbers stay low, but there were (reportedly) 300 people in the building that was destroyed. What a horrible accident.

@TAOWARRIOR: Nuke plants are more feared/dangerous because of the insidious nature of accidents. If a gas powered plant blows up, it doesn't leak radioactive materials that can poison an area for centuries and cause horrendous diseases. It also doesn't require some way to dispose of radioactive waste. Burning natural gas results in less toxic byproducts. And....people can deal with the over-and-done nature of an explosion much more easily than a meltdown or radiation leak. It's pretty simple.

"It's pretty simple."

#4 | Posted by unklegwar at 2010-02-07 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag: pretty simple minded

Know nukes.
They're safer than fossils.

"poison an area for centuries"

Riight ... Nobody lives in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Now, Chernobyl, OTOH, was a fuckup. But it was a stupid reactor design. As for waste:

Riight ... Nobody lives in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Those were small bombs detonated as airbursts, and you're just talking about two of them. The uranium jacketed 3-stage weapons produce much more fallout, and there are cobalt-jacketed weapons designed for the sole purpose of contaminating an area with highly radioactive fallout.

Now, this has nothing to do with nuclear power plants. Nuclear weapons are an abomination, but nuclear power makes sense. You just have to do it right (unlike the Russians).

"Description/Abstract The 14-MeV neutrons from a controlled DT fusion plasma can potentially be used to produce neutron source multiplication and energy multiplication through fission in a heavy-element blanket surrounding the fusion plasma. Concepts which involve the use of fusion-produced neutrons to ultimately produce fission are generically classed as fusion-fission hybrids. The conceptual purposes of hybrids can be many and varied: to relax the fusion plasma confinement conditions to allow further development of fusion power; to breed fissile material for fission reactors; as a subcritical fission lattice which is more energetic than the pure fusion concept; and the ultimate reduction of radioactive heavy element waste to fission product. The concept of a hybrid is based on an analysis of the neutronic behavior of the blanket. The status of studies of the neutronics analyses of proposed hybrids was reviewed. These results were used to determine the need for further development of hybrid technology. (auth)"

Title Review of fusion-fission (hybrid) concepts
Creator/Author Leonard, B.R. Jr.
Publication Date 1973 Dec 01

Fast forward to 2009:

Zombie I can't speak for zat but I suspect he was not talking about the weapon part but the scary radiation UNK was talking about.

You know the Navy has been running nuclear ships for 60 years with a total of 5 accidents not one resulting in the death of any crew members. all but one were leaks of radioactive coolant into the ocean. It has been 18 years since the last one and on at least 2 of the occasions the ammount of radiation was well below danger levels 1 was above and the other two could never be located to be checked after the fact. Until the one 18 years ago there had not been one for 30 years.

Meanwhile old disel subs used to have spills all of the time which one is more dangerous to humans and the enviornment?

radioactive materials that can poison an area for centuries

#4 | Posted by unklegwar

You mean like where we dropped the 2 bombs in Japan? No one will be able to live there for a thousand years.

Now for nasty it's hard to beat coal.

#9 | Posted by Zatoichi

There is a place in western ND where they burned coal to get the material to make yellow cake.

I suspect he was not talking about the weapon part but the scary radiation UNK was talking about.

Probably, but he brought up the atomic bombings so I felt like jumping on that.

You know the Navy has been running nuclear ships for 60 years with a total of 5 accidents not one resulting in the death of any crew members.

I wish you could say the same for the Russians.

Meanwhile old disel subs used to have spills all of the time which one is more dangerous to humans and the enviornment?

Like I said above, nuclear power is quite safe if it is done properly. Until we have a viable system for waste disposal, I don't think we'll be "doing it properly," though. Most waste is kept on-site at the power plants. That will work for now, but not forever. If fusion power ever becomes practical, the design Zat linked to would be a lifesaver.

Zat,

Cool research on the fusion-fission hybrid I want to read it all but the kid is bugging me for computer time so I will have to get to it later. Give me a hint though so I don't have to wait does it increase power output or just deal with the waste?

Not to worry, the greenies will put up a windmill and everything will be OK.

I wish you could say the same for the Russians.

Yes but we are talking about us using it not the Russians.

Most waste is kept on-site at the power plants. That will work for now, but not forever

Ok valid point but the fact is we will find a use for the waste eventualy and be glad we have it handy. In the meantime reprocessing can yield some useful products and reduce the total ammount of waste. Not really a major issue.

"does it increase power output or just deal with the waste?"

Both. You burn the waste down to simpler elements.

Let's go to war in the Middle East, it's so much easier.

Thanks zat I kicked a kid off the other computer and am reading it on that one now. It didn't say what kind of power output there would be but any is better than burying the stuff. Getting ready to read the .gov article now maybe that will give more details.

I did find it interesting that the US does not reprocess the waste I thought we did, could have sworn I read about a reprocessing center in Charleston or some such several years ago. I guess some fearmongers killed the project. Don't know and don't feel like doing the research as to the why just shows how stupid Americans are about nuclear power.

Oh and heck yeah why use science when we can kill a bunch of people. Kill all the a-rabs and take all their oil!!! Drill baby drill!

"You mean like where we dropped the 2 bombs in Japan? No one will be able to live there for a thousand years"

Can you taste the stupid when you post shit like that?

Tao,

Fission only goes on while there are enough neutrons flying around to break nuclei apart. The fusion neutron source allows the waste to fission into even less complex nuclei.

The 1973 article was to point out how long this idea has been around.

I see that now pretty useless article to a layman. It took me a while because I had to stop and give a basic tutorial to my 8 year old on fusion and fission when she read over my shoulder. I am sure I did not give a great explanation but not bad. My dad was a nuclear engineer so I have a pretty good background but was never a physicist or nuclear engineer myself so my explanation was pretty basic (plus she is only 8) however she got the basics and understood a lot better than many mouth breathers on here did what the potential benefits were.

Dont worry the President of Hatti will send help and money.....

One of my uncles was a nuclear physicist for the Navy in a top secret job. He died of cancer at the age of 42.

The real problem with nuclear power is not the safety problem with modern plants, it's the waste products and lack of safe disposal facilities. I believe we will someday solve that problem, but for now, we can't.

Also, if there is a major problem like Chernobyl, tens of thousands could be killed or poisoned. We came a hell of a lot closer to a meltdown at Three Mile Island then the nuclear industry ever admitted.

The gas plant explosion in Conn. was really no worse then a bus crash as far as fatalities and injuries. The environmental contamination is nothing like a radiation leak would cause.

Let's keep things in perspective here.

Ring as a greenie you really need to re-think your position a bit. Nuclear power is the only real alternative on the horizion that can power this country. Solar and wind are great but they just do not have the production capabilities to power the whole country. Not only that but there are no emisions to speak of.

My dad worked on nuclear subs in the power plant for 20 years. He died at 64 because of ALS in no way related to his power plant exposure. In fact without nuclear magnetic resonance they would never have diagnosed him or me and we both would have lived our lives thinking we were going crazy with what was wrong with us.

Do not be afraid of the unknown learn more about it and embrace the research for the future.

Yet Nuke plants are the ones that are too dangerous?

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-02-07 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, the people who live around here will most likely be able to return to their homes later the same day.

Can't say that about those who lived near Chernobyl.

NO...I'm not against nuclear power. I'm against the republicans who say we regulate that industry too much and want to let the nuke-power companies regulate the maintenance on their pants. I don't trust them to do the right thing. I have nothing against nuke-power. I DO have something against nuke-power plants with shoddy maintenance.

Commonsense,

Thats just common sense there. I never said unregulated nuclear industry. Actualy IMHO it should probably be run by the government could be a branch of the Navy since they have the most experiance and a good track record. (that from a small government not quite libertarian.)

"Not to worry, the greenies will put up a windmill and everything will be OK."
#15 | Posted by fwthom

Ummmm...the name says it all: "Kleen Energy Systems"

May 23, 2006
"Kleen Energy Systems LLC has proposed building a power plant in Middletown. Normally, the plant would use natural gas, but it could also burn low sulfur oil when natural gas is unavailable or uneconomic."

"An Act Concerning Energy Independence", establishes initiatives for new generating facilities and conservation programs"

Ring as a greenie you really need to re-think your position a bit. Nuclear power is the only real alternative on the horizion that can power this country.

Tao, as a military sucker you really need to rethink your position a lot. We don't need more polluting power plants of any type, especially nuclear. We need to cut down on the ones we have, learn to conserve, and start mandating alternative power sources and more efficient appliances and vehicles.

In the case of pollution, we need to shut down existing power plants, especially nuclear, before they get too old.

You are never to old the learn new tricks too. The right wing advocates of waste and indifference are as old and appetizing as a nuked McDonald's Filet o' Fish.

Commonsense,

Thats just common sense there. I never said unregulated nuclear industry. Actualy IMHO it should probably be run by the government could be a branch of the Navy since they have the most experiance and a good track record. (that from a small government not quite libertarian.)

#27 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-02-07 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I never said unregulated nuclear industry."

I realize that. I was only elaborating on my nuke stance, I never meant to imply you said that.

Ok valid point but the fact is we will find a use for the waste eventualy and be glad we have it handy. In the meantime reprocessing can yield some useful products and reduce the total ammount of waste. Not really a major issue.

#16 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2010-02-07 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are already many industrial uses for nuclear waste. The problem is that the U.S. government, by law, is the sole buyer of nuclear waste from domestic power plants.

Meanwhile, industry has to import the same materials from France and Japan.

Who ever came up with such a fucked-up waste stream?

Why, Jimmy Carter, of course!

We don't need more polluting power plants of any type, especially nuclear. We need to cut down on the ones we have, learn to conserve, and start mandating alternative power sources and more efficient appliances and vehicles.

Actually you do since the current domestic fleet of Nuke Plants provide part of the base loading for the US. Solar and Wind aren't going to do it and implementing all the necessary efficiencies will require billion upon billions of dollars.

In the case of pollution, we need to shut down existing power plants, especially nuclear, before they get too old.

Define too old?