MEMO to the fear-mongering anti-nuke brigade:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    Australia is not situated on a Ring of fire, let alone an earthquake zone, so crawl back into the 1980 cupboard that you live in.

    Necleaphobics, should understand that Australia Oz does not rest upon unstable fault lines. Where there may be inherent dangers in harnessing nuclear power, these dangers can be controlled, given the right environment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 12:35 AM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidAustralia is not situated on a Ring of fire, let alone an earthquake zone, so crawl back into the 1980 cupboard that you live in.

    I love folks that say stupid things on the internet...

    You had better retract that statement twinkle toes because you are very wrong...

    Go research that fact yourself!

    According to Seismologist Dr Kevin McCue of Central Queensland University in Rockhampton, the Australian continent is hit by a magnitude 6 earthquake every five to six years and currently, one is overdue, " so we're just waiting to see what will happen in Victoria ", and he thinks that it is just luck we haven't had an earthquakes under Melbourne and Sydney.

    Some of the fault lines around Melbourne are:
    Selwyn's Fault and the parallel Tyabb Fault - Mornington Peninsula.
    Beaumaris Monocline transected by the perpendicular Melbourne Warp under the south-eastern suburbs.
    Multiple fault lines running from Gippsland to the eastern aspect of Westernport Bay.
    Rowsley Fault - north-west of Geelong running northwards to Bacchus Marsh.
    Barrabool Fault - running west from Geelong to Colac
    Bellarine Peninsula fault, parallel to Selwyn's Fault.
    Torquay Fault - running along coastline.

    Just to name a few!

    As you were saying twinkle toes????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 1:21 AM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie said

    Necleaphobics



    icon_question.gificon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 1:25 AM GMT
    HeartRobb said
    True_Blue_Aussie said

    Necleaphobics



    icon_question.gificon_eek.gif
    Its a new drink.. TBA is on the sauce again.
  • offshore

    Posts: 1294

    Mar 19, 2011 1:34 AM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidAustralia is not situated on a Ring of fire, let alone an earthquake zone, so crawl back into the 1980 cupboard that you live in.

    Necleaphobics, should understand that Australia Oz does not rest upon unstable fault lines. Where there may be inherent dangers in harnessing nuclear power, these dangers can be controlled, given the right environment.


    Talk to the victims of the Newcastle earthquake mate.

    Also, dangers of atomic energy power station does not ONLY come from geological instabilities.

    Read up on the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl. Human error/ design/ euipment faults can all lead to disasters.

    Would YOU like to have a nuclear power station build within a short stroll of your house?

    At one stage I beleived using nuclear energy could actually reduce carbon emission from coal generators. But recently I have started to think we are playing with a fire we don't know how to extinguish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 1:35 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    HeartRobb said
    True_Blue_Aussie said

    Necleaphobics



    icon_question.gificon_eek.gif
    Its a new drink.. TBA is on the sauce again.


    6.9 on the Richter scale in Meckering Western Australia in 1968 was Australia's largest - Newcastle on the east coast 5.6...Australia is hardly stable...

    as for Necleaphobics? - Is True_Blue Aussie a long lost cousin of George Bush????

    Or is this a description of a person who breaks out in a cold sweat at the sight of a neck??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 2:53 AM GMT
    ozmuscle2 said
    TropicalMark said
    HeartRobb said
    True_Blue_Aussie said

    Necleaphobics



    icon_question.gificon_eek.gif
    Its a new drink.. TBA is on the sauce again.


    6.9 on the Richter scale in Meckering Western Australia in 1968 was Australia's largest - Newcastle on the east coast 5.6...Australia is hardly stable...

    as for Necleaphobics? - Is True_Blue Aussie a long lost cousin of George Bush????

    Or is this a description of a person who breaks out in a cold sweat at the sight of a neck??


    I am sure TBA is going to 'refudiate' all this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 3:46 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSurprisingly, there are no anti-nuke types here on RJ.

    I pointed out to the liberal hens on here...


    Blah blah blah. Invent any narrative you want. Since when is not responding to you considered a scientific poll?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 4:53 AM GMT
    Oh True_Blue! Over here! *waves hanky and strikes Bugs Bunny pose*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Newcastle_earthquake

    "The 1989 Newcastle earthquake was a Richter magnitude 5.6 earthquake that occurred in Newcastle, New South Wales on 28 December 1989, at 10:27 am.[1] It was one of Australia's most serious natural disasters, killing 13 people and injuring more than 160. The damage bill has been estimated at A$4 billion (including an insured loss of about $1 billion).[1] The Newcastle earthquake was the first Australian earthquake in recorded history to claim human lives.[2][3]

    The effects were felt over an area of around 200,000 square kilometres (77,220 sq mi) in the state of New South Wales, with isolated reports of movement in areas up to 800 kilometres (497 mi) from Newcastle.[1] Damage to buildings and facilities was reported over an area of 9,000 km2 (3,475 sq mi)."


    -Doug
  • SFGeoNinja

    Posts: 510

    Mar 19, 2011 5:07 AM GMT
    How about the 7.0 quake that just hit Christchurch, NZ? Is that close enough for ya?
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-202_162-10004744.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2011 5:08 AM GMT
    Notice how the liar hasn't touched this thread since she got caught?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 2:43 AM GMT
    Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

    Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

    As James Delingpole of London's daily Telegraph Notes: In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accident basis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 2:50 AM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidNuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

    Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

    As James Delingpole of London's daily Telegraph Notes: In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accident basis.


    WIN

    and heres a good counterpoint to people thinking that nuclear energy is the most dangerous:

    [url]http://gizmodo.com/#!5783535/what-is-the-worst-kind-of-power-plant-disaster-hint-its-not-nuclear[/url]

    people mainly fear nuclear energy because they dont understand it well and react emotionally rather than rationally. here in florida i over heard a guy talking about taking radiation pills. i wanted to shout.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 3:08 AM GMT
    Nuclear energy is the future of the human race. Advances in technology will likely continue reducing the threat posed by catastrophic failure.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 3:39 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSurprisingly, there are no anti-nuke types here on RJ.

    I pointed out to the liberal hens on here that we had 1 accident with an offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico last year and Obama shut down offshore drilling because, "it's not safe" (despite that fact that there were thousands of offshore rigs operating for decades without any similar accidents.

    We've got nuclear power plants situated on the coast of California in earthquake fault zones and Obama hasn't shut down a single nuclear plant because "it's not safe" and the liberal hens on here are perfectly OK with that.

    So I conclude that we have no anti-nuke folks here on RJ.



    OMG with all the stable solid ground in the US, they built them on the fault ling in CA, OMFG, and Still after what has happend in Japan, Obama is silent on this, and not talking about what he is going to do to fix it; OMFG; maybe he is still watching basketball?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 3:49 AM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie said
    southbeach1500 saidSurprisingly, there are no anti-nuke types here on RJ.

    I pointed out to the liberal hens on here that we had 1 accident with an offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico last year and Obama shut down offshore drilling because, "it's not safe" (despite that fact that there were thousands of offshore rigs operating for decades without any similar accidents.

    We've got nuclear power plants situated on the coast of California in earthquake fault zones and Obama hasn't shut down a single nuclear plant because "it's not safe" and the liberal hens on here are perfectly OK with that.

    So I conclude that we have no anti-nuke folks here on RJ.



    OMG with all the stable solid ground in the US, they built them on the fault ling in CA, OMFG, and Still after what has happend in Japan, Obama is silent on this, and not talking about what he is going to do to fix it; OMFG; maybe he is still watching basketball?

    Perhaps because in a like situation you would do this, you're projecting it on the US Pres.
    People often judge others by how they judge themselves, which is not always a good thing, depending on the the judging.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 3:52 AM GMT
    ..and from a christian perspective, Christ said to love others as you love yourself, but what if you don't love you very well? Well..there was not much said about that because we're supposed, I think, to figure that out for ourselves.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 3:54 AM GMT
    oliver1989 said
    True_Blue_Aussie saidNuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

    Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

    As James Delingpole of London's daily Telegraph Notes: In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accident basis.


    WIN

    and heres a good counterpoint to people thinking that nuclear energy is the most dangerous:

    [url]http://gizmodo.com/#!5783535/what-is-the-worst-kind-of-power-plant-disaster-hint-its-not-nuclear[/url]

    people mainly fear nuclear energy because they dont understand it well and react emotionally rather than rationally. here in florida i over heard a guy talking about taking radiation pills. i wanted to shout.

    Why do you feed the obviously insane troll here? (the OP)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 3:55 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    I pointed out to the liberal hens on here that we had 1 accident with an offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico last year and Obama shut down offshore drilling because, "it's not safe" (despite that fact that there were thousands of offshore rigs operating for decades without any similar accidents.

    Never thought that I would be a Liberal hen, but I suppose we all have to take the labels others may want to put on us. I would not mind seeing how it is that a plant a mile from one fault and three from another apparently has no plan in place in case of an earthquake (if the assertions in the article are correct.) It really does not affect me enough to go searching whether or not there are exaggerations in the article as any fall out or disaster should not affect me where I am situated. Were I near the plant I would be asking a few questions (like how the hell they got a licence in the first place.)

    I don't know that I would want them shut down, but I think a very close examination of the risks of continuing operation of this plant might be in order to determine how safe it is to continue operating it given the risks... Yeah, I am aware that I am using Huffington, but as stated above, I really don't care enough to continue a search. Besides, as a good hen, I figure my job is to inform you that the sky is falling...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/california-nuclear-emergency-response_n_836751.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 4:00 AM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie said
    southbeach1500 saidSurprisingly, there are no anti-nuke types here on RJ.

    I pointed out to the liberal hens on here that we had 1 accident with an offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico last year and Obama shut down offshore drilling because, "it's not safe" (despite that fact that there were thousands of offshore rigs operating for decades without any similar accidents.

    We've got nuclear power plants situated on the coast of California in earthquake fault zones and Obama hasn't shut down a single nuclear plant because "it's not safe" and the liberal hens on here are perfectly OK with that.

    So I conclude that we have no anti-nuke folks here on RJ.



    OMG with all the stable solid ground in the US, they built them on the fault ling in CA, OMFG, and Still after what has happend in Japan, Obama is silent on this, and not talking about what he is going to do to fix it; OMFG; maybe he is still watching basketball?


    Editors note

    ling=line

    The last nuclear reactor was built in the USA was in 1977!!

    What could Obama do about that????

    The cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors is huge - around $UK1 billion pounds - let alone how the waste is stored safely.... http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2011 4:11 AM GMT
    I was actually for nuclear power after living in France, where eclectricity bills are low thanks to them...

    But seeing Japan happen today reminded me theres just some fires you shouldnt play with... no matter how safe... accidents can and will happen, and someone will be affected, no matter how small the odds

    But then again, we're human, we step into cars every day and dont think about the risk of that either, and the risk there is incredibly high...

    So yeah, Im divided about the issue amongst my ponderings
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2011 10:03 AM GMT
    We sell millions of tonnes of coal to China but our Government is going to impose a carbon tax on us. We sell uranium to support the nuclear industries of many countries while our government condemns nuclear power; Go figure.