Nuclear Plant in So. Utah

[rkillpack]

Did you know?

The University of Utah is extremely active in the testing and research of nuclear energy. So much in fact that there is a test reactor here in SLC. It contains a small number of rods and hasn't yet needed to undergo an "outage", (time spent for refueling and major repairs). Yeah imagine that, for the last 30+ years we have been living the nuclear age in Utah.

 

[Medsker]

I just have to wonder what it will take for people to realize that it is not dangerous and will actually save lives and money. I guess that is what happens when you have a skewed media and an uninformed and mostly uneducated public. Of course it doesn't help when the informed, educated ones are trying to stop it for "made-up" reasons.

medsker

 

[waynehartwig]

I just have to wonder what it will take for people to realize that it is not dangerous and will actually save lives and money. I guess that is what happens when you have a skewed media and an uninformed and mostly uneducated public. Of course it doesn't help when the informed, educated ones are trying to stop it for "made-up" reasons.

medsker

That's just it. The media has made the people of this country ignorant. The people think that anything they see on TV is the complete truth. How many times have you seen the media spout out lies just to be the first to air a story and then hidden in their next news cast they correct it.

 

[Medsker]

That's just it. The media has made the people of this country ignorant. The people think that anything they see on TV is the complete truth. How many times have you seen the media spout out lies just to be the first to air a story and then hidden in their next news cast they correct it.

I know everything I see on TV, read in the paper or see on the internet is true...why else would it be there

 

[my4thjeep]

Sacramento Utility (SMUD) built a nuclear plant outside of town. Nice one too! Since they had so much land around it, they turned their water storage into a lake to swim and boat in. Then put some picnic tables in and called it a park. Well, the park then goers got the plant shut down after about 2 years. Can't be safe to swim in that water! That cost SMUD billions of dollars. Not only did they eat the cost of the plant, but then they have to pay to clean up all the unspent rods.

I was, and still am, all for nuclear power. Like others said, it's cheap, very efficient, clean, quiet, low maintenance, etc. Our electric bills in Sacramento were very low. To cool (74*) a 2800 sqft house in the 100* summer heat cost me less than it does to cool my 1800 sqft house here in our 80* summer heat. My house here also has 6" walls, newer, and etc!

Rancho Seco: It was a great project that lowered power costs in Nor Cal... When I was a scout we had camping trips and jamborees at the lake all the time...

 

[Samuraiman]

Ya we all got to die sometime. I guess if it's from nuclear power so be it. I am sure that about 95% of the southern folk would dissagree with anything nuclear even if it is suppose to be safe. In the time I have lived in St. George I have watched whole families lose brothers sisters moms dads etc.. One of those being my wifes mother and about 20 or more people from her grad class die from CANCER. Not to mention her father, her sister on the brink and cousin's and other family member. Some families which have lost mothers and fathers just in the prime of there lives, with several young children. All from supposedly safe nuclear tests in the Nevada desert back in the day. For any downwinder which includes thousands of people in St George and surrounding areas including Rockville, Springdale and other areas. These people that have been affected in the past wouldn't trust anyone or anything having to do with nuclear. Especially if the government had anything to do with it. That is just my two cents, not saying it is a good or a bad idea, but it kinda like a horse that kicks you everytime you walk behind it. Why take the chance shoot the horse or walk around the front of it.

 

[scoutabout]

Yeah, that would appear to be a hurdle.

It's kinda like the boy who cried wolf. The govt told everyone that the tests were safe (OBVIOUSLY they weren't). Now, why should anyone believe that modern reactor designs are safe when the DOE says so.

 

[jakez]

Burning fossil fuels pollutes the air, nuclear power creates radioactive material, windmills won't work because they disrupt the wind energy to other locations, and solar power doesn't work because we're removing the energy that would have gone into the ground. So we need to create energy. That should be easy enough. I wonder if the environmentalist groups consult with any real engineers.

 

[rkillpack]

.02

I work in the disposal side of the bygone era of Nuclear Energy. We are currently disposing materials that have been stored in drainage ditches, open fields, and any other wrong place you can think of. The reasoning was that it really didn't matter. In the 30s and 40s when Atomic Energy was being introduced the full affects were either not fully know or revealed (you choose). Since we trusted the government up until Nixon there wasn't reason to doubt what they said.
That said we might realize that with the emerging energy needs of the US we need to make more with less. Nuclear Power does this. Since there is a big push to move into the reprocessing of fuel rods there is a possibility of cutting the waste generated at least by half. Thank Carter and I think Truman for not being able to do this before. The EU has been doing this for years, where are their problems?
I personally agree with Nuclear Power and unfortunately its by-products. With the move to reprocess places like Yucca will take 4X if not longer to fill up than originally planned. People will not chose to live on a Rad Waste Disposal area so it will inherently be safer.
Really what we need to do is take care of those that were negatively affected by the mistakes of the past and make the future as free from mistakes as we humans can.

 

[Houndoc]

Sacramento Utility (SMUD) built a nuclear plant outside of town. Nice one too! Since they had so much land around it, they turned their water storage into a lake to swim and boat in. Then put some picnic tables in and called it a park. Well, the park then goers got the plant shut down after about 2 years. Can't be safe to swim in that water! That cost SMUD billions of dollars. Not only did they eat the cost of the plant, but then they have to pay to clean up all the unspent rods.

I was, and still am, all for nuclear power. Like others said, it's cheap, very efficient, clean, quiet, low maintenance, etc. Our electric bills in Sacramento were very low. To cool (74*) a 2800 sqft house in the 100* summer heat cost me less than it does to cool my 1800 sqft house here in our 80* summer heat. My house here also has 6" walls, newer, and etc!

Interesting.

BTW, were do you find only 80* summers? I hit 107 at my house last July.

 

[Steve]

Sacramento Utility (SMUD) built a nuclear plant outside of town. Nice one too!...That cost SMUD billions of dollars. Not only did they eat the cost of the plant, but then they have to pay to clean up all the unspent rods.

Actually it didn't cost SMUD anything, it cost the ratepayers lots.

Ya we all got to die sometime. I guess if it's from nuclear power so be it. I am sure that about 95% of the southern folk would dissagree with anything nuclear even if it is suppose to be safe. In the time I have lived in St. George I have watched whole families lose brothers sisters moms dads etc.. One of those being my wifes mother and about 20 or more people from her grad class die from CANCER. Not to mention her father, her sister on the brink and cousin's and other family member. Some families which have lost mothers and fathers just in the prime of there lives, with several young children. All from supposedly safe nuclear tests in the Nevada desert back in the day. For any downwinder which includes thousands of people in St George and surrounding areas including Rockville, Springdale and other areas. These people that have been affected in the past wouldn't trust anyone or anything having to do with nuclear. Especially if the government had anything to do with it. That is just my two cents, not saying it is a good or a bad idea, but it kinda like a horse that kicks you everytime you walk behind it. Why take the chance shoot the horse or walk around the front of it.

Not to make light of your family's situation, but here are some statistics for you:

- 1 of every 4 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime.
- 1 of every 6 people in the U.S. will die of cancer.

Here's a question: Which one puts more radioactive material into the atmosphere, a nuclear power plant or a coal power plant? It's not the one you'd guess...

Here's another one: In what part of the country do you receive the highest annual background dose of radiation? Answer: The Four Corners area mainly due to the high altitude. Next question: What part of the country has the lowest rate of cancer? Answer: The Four Corners area.

Except for a few rare forms, it is impossible to positively diagnose the cause of a cancer.

A couple of consortiums formed by several utility companies are currently working on license applications to finally build a new nuke plant - it ain't gonna be in Utah. For many reasons, they're going to build a new one on the site of an existing one; lots less hassle that way.

I do this stuff for a living...

 

[RockMonkey]

Actually it didn't cost SMUD anything, it cost the ratepayers lots.



Not to make light of your family's situation, but here are some statistics for you:

- 1 of every 4 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime.
- 1 of every 6 people in the U.S. will die of cancer.

Here's a question: Which one puts more radioactive material into the atmosphere, a nuclear power plant or a coal power plant? It's not the one you'd guess...

Here's another one: In what part of the country do you receive the highest annual background dose of radiation? Answer: The Four Corners area mainly due to the high altitude. Next question: What part of the country has the lowest rate of cancer? Answer: The Four Corners area.

Except for a few rare forms, it is impossible to positively diagnose the cause of a cancer.

A couple of consortiums formed by several utility companies are currently working on license applications to finally build a new nuke plant - it ain't gonna be in Utah. For many reasons, they're going to build a new one on the site of an existing one; lots less hassle that way.

I do this stuff for a living...

This is a very interesting post. Where did you get your facts? Can you site sources? I would be really insterested to read about background radiation exposure in certain parts of the coutry and cancer rates.

 

[Hickey]

This is a very interesting post. Where did you get your facts? Can you site sources? I would be really insterested to read about background radiation exposure in certain parts of the coutry and cancer rates.

You spelled "cite" wrong....

Man, I never thought I would catch you spelling something wrong!
Looks like you need to take this test.http://homepage.smc.edu/quizzes/cheney_joyce/citesitesight.html

 

[RockMonkey]

You spelled "cite" wrong....

Man, I never thought I would catch you spelling something wrong!
Looks like you need to take this test.http://homepage.smc.edu/quizzes/cheney_joyce/citesitesight.html

Wow, I am retarded. I'll refrain from editing my post and yours to serve as a warning to future poor spellers. I'd still like to see the data.

 

[RockMonkey]

I did take the quiz.

Answers: Cite or Site or Sight?

1. The (cite, site, sight) for the new swimming pool was once a parking lot.
Your answer: site
CORRECT!

2. When writing research papers, students are required to (cite, site, sight) their sources of information.
Your answer: cite
CORRECT!

3. As we get older, so do our bodies and the lenses of our eyes. Consequently, our (cite, site, sight) is often affected.
Your answer: sight
CORRECT!

4. One of the most famous Civil War battle (cites, sites, sights) is Gettysburg.
Your answer: sites
CORRECT!

5. The student reluctantly admitted that he had neglected to (cite, site, sight) the authors whose work he had used to do research for his term paper.
Your answer: cite
CORRECT!

6. When our dog finally returned home after a week's adventure away, she was certainly a (cite, site, sight) for sore eyes! We were thrilled that she had found her way home.
Your answer: sight
CORRECT!

You got 6 out of a possible 6 answers correct (100.00%).

 

[Hickey]

I'd still like to see the data.

Oh yeah, me too.

 

[Steve]

This is a very interesting post. Where did you get your facts? Can you site sources? I would be really insterested to read about background radiation exposure in certain parts of the coutry and cancer rates.

I've doing this for a living for over 25 years and I'm board certified in Comprehensive Health Physics (radiation protection.) I have lots of textbooks, but that won't help you much. Let me root around the web a bit and I'll post some links for you, hopefully later today.

 

[waynehartwig]

Actually it didn't cost SMUD anything, it cost the ratepayers lots.

Right... SMUD is non profit. Even with the huge loss, our power bills didn't go up nearly as much as Questar's recent rate hike! And this was a HUGE loss - billions! and over a long period of time, too. Even with the rate hikes, SMUD was a lot cheaper than UPL - almost half per KWH.

 

[Steve]

Here are a couple of links to info as previously requested.

http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/docs/9711a2Sandquist.htm

This one is a report entitled Assessing Latent Health Effects From U.S. Background Radiation. It's on the geeky side, but note this statement particulary:

The U.S. states with the highest background radiation (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) exhibit a mean lung cancer incidence rate of 4.4x10-4, which is only 14% of the inferred rate from the LNT model for high-radiation background areas. On the other hand, the U.S. states with the lowest background radiation (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) exhibit a mean lung cancer incidence rate of 7.3x10-4...

While this is specific to lung cancer, it says that the cancer rate for the part of the U.S. with the lowest background radiation is twice as high as that for the part of the U.S. with the highest background radiation.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0403.shtml

This one is a fact sheet in layman's terms about background radiation in the U.S. It also mentions the Colorado Plateau.

If you have more questions let me know and I'll see what I can find (besides the textbook I researched and wrote several years ago, which I don't believe is on the web anywhere.)

 

[Bud]

You spelled "cite" wrong....

Man, I never thought I would catch you spelling something wrong!
Looks like you need to take this test.http://homepage.smc.edu/quizzes/cheney_joyce/citesitesight.html

...WHEN REFERRING TO A WORKS CITED PAGE, THIS IS CORRECT SPELLING IN THE MLA FORMAT!