Gas explosion at Conn. plant kills at least 5

Quote:Mayor Sebastian Giuliano says at least 12 people are known injured from Sunday's blast at the Kleen Energy Systems plant as workers purged natural gas lines. The plant is under construction.

If foul play (terrorism) wasn't involved, is the plant design safe? This is the first of these plants to be ready for production, it certainly seems as though the proper saftey measures weren't built in.

Sounds like they were working with the gas. That is always dangerous. It is also the reason I am fearful of new nuke plants.

Having said that, I used to live just a few short miles from that plant. I would definately heard and felt the blast. It is too bad that so many appear to have died. I don't think I knew anyone involved but it certainly is possible. I used to work for the electric company out there but since it was still being built there probably wouldn't be anyone but construction workers.

How many died at the US's worst "nukular" accident, Three Mile Island? Did someone say 0?

(02-07-2010 06:48 PM)Paul M Wrote:  How many died at the US's worst "nukular" accident, Three Mile Island? Did someone say 0?

On the day of the accident? Maybe not. How many died later from the effects of the accident?

I asked a question and then answered it myself. You have another question, how about you give us the answer.

(02-07-2010 07:19 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I asked a question and then answered it myself. You have another question, how about you give us the answer.

Because the "official" answer is the same as as your answer. THe unofficial answer is many more but unknown. I found a number but it comes from what might be a biased source(he says at least 333 from cancer using a mathematical equation) and it is also noted that pregnancies ending in miscarriages was up considerably shortly after the accident. Of course, since it is difficult if not impossible to really determine, so the official stance is "0" and nuclear reactors are safe.

So you could find 0. That's all you had to say, 0.

But after finding 0, you still want to believe something else. Not a surprise, you always go where the evidence doesn't lead.

For the last few years I've been hearing about how the windmills in Northern California were killing eagles, condors, and everything else that ventured next to them. Just last week I read an article that the windmills near Palm Springs are killing bats by the bazillions. If we keep builing those things we won't have to worry about planes hitting birds because there won't be any left.

Well let's be fair, this was a non-active plant, it was still under construction and probably not secured properly.

(02-07-2010 07:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Because the "official" answer is the same as as your answer. THe unofficial answer is many more but unknown. I found a number but it comes from what might be a biased source(he says at least 333 from cancer using a mathematical equation) and it is also noted that pregnancies ending in miscarriages was up considerably shortly after the accident. Of course, since it is difficult if not impossible to really determine, so the official stance is "0" and nuclear reactors are safe.

No deaths linked directly to the accident... the WORST in US history. Pregnancies ending in miscarriages are certainly not good, but I'm sure SOME attorney tried to link them and failed. No, not proof it wasn't, but obviously not proof it was... and I believe the government has established that a "miscarriage" doesn't end a life... so while it is unfortunate, it is nothing to place "responsibility" upon. A mathematical formula is worse than perhaps "biased"... It is meaningless. For all we know, the miscarriages were caused by stress related to the news reports of the accidents... more below on that.

The official stance is zero because according to any reasonable/legal definition the number is zero. If you choose to disbelieve it, fine... but nobody has manipulated the number. It's not difficult/impossible to determine because by the legal definition, nobody died... and this is the worst accident EVER in the US. In a similar vein, we don't know how many mothers miscarried as a result of the stress of the explosion or by inhaling smoke fumes or whatever. All we know is what the evidence shows... and the evidence shows zero. I'm in Houston... we get chemical/gas/electric explosions/accidents pretty regularly (about 1 a year)... most with a death or more... Don't recall one single Nuclear event.

In other words... you are against something that the only reasonable, accepted, scientific method of calculating risk says is more safe than its alternatives, and you IMPLY that the data is misleading somehow and the actual number is higher.... so we are to believe that the NUKE lobby is somehow stronger, more evil than the Gas or oil lobbies who wouldn't manipulate data... and that some mathemetician's "educated guess" on something not legally classified as a "loss" is not only more accurate, but wouldn't equally apply to other disasters.

Bottom line... you're against something because you don't choose to believe it is safe... not because you have any proof it is not safe... yet the current alternatives are all clearly more dangerous. While I support alternatives, why would you NOT be in favor of safer/cleaner technology that already exists until we figure out how to make these other things work?

FTR, we take nuclear reactors into war zones every day (our ships)... something DESIGNED to be hit by bombs... how's our record there?

BTW, though the OFFICIAL position is that the Saints won, a mathematician friend of mine says that he has a formula showing the Colts actually did and the score is misleading.

I wouldn't feel unsafe living near a newer nuclear plant. I wouldn't feel safe living near an old one. It's not uncommon for nuclear operators to seek extension after extension to keep using old reactors because of economic issues. That doesn't mean these older reactors are unsafe, but they are definitely more risky than newer ones. Nuclear power is a good option from an emissions standpoint, but their high fixed costs and tight regulation make them unattractive from an investment standpoint.

One interesting factoid about Three Mile Island is that, during congressional hearings on the matter, someone took a Geiger counter into the hearing room and recorded a higher reading there than was recorded at any point off premises at any time during the TMI emergency. That granite can contain a lot of radioactive matter.

Maybe that's what's impacting congressional sanity.

Three Mile Island was a nuclear incident, not a nuclear accident. I don't think many people make that distinction. America has a very good nuclear record, and modern reactor designs are very safe.

(02-07-2010 11:20 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  I wouldn't feel unsafe living near a newer nuclear plant. I wouldn't feel safe living near an old one. It's not uncommon for nuclear operators to seek extension after extension to keep using old reactors because of economic issues. That doesn't mean these older reactors are unsafe, but they are definitely more risky than newer ones. Nuclear power is a good option from an emissions standpoint, but their high fixed costs and tight regulation make them unattractive from an investment standpoint.

Fair enough comment... but at least to this point, there is little evidence to suggest that an old Nuclear plant is more dangerous that an old oil refinery or old tanker.

I point out that part of the reason we HAVE old refineries is the incredible regulatory expense associated with building a new one. Good idea with bad consequences.

There are about 30-70 deaths on average in coal mining each year in the US, down from 140 in the 1970s and 1000 in the early 1900s. About 1000 miners die from black lung disease every year. Over 30 years, you'd have about 31,000 deaths attributed directly to coal, not to mention the pollution effects on the general population. Modern nuclear plants (designed by sane people, not the Chernobyl design) fail in such a way that they shut down and stop producing power. They will not become glowing behemoths on the horizon, going up in a mushroom cloud. Coal alone accounts for nearly 100 times what you say might be related to TMI. Gas explosions are common enough that they probably eclipse the TMI numbers as well. Nuclear plants are not like handling gas. Nuclear material doesn't just explode if there's a leak in a pipe.

Frankly, it's surprising that the "nuclear lobby" isn't more successful. If most people are still afraid of nuclear power, then someone isn't doing their marketing yob.

(02-10-2010 04:41 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Frankly, it's surprising that the "nuclear lobby" isn't more successful. If most people are still afraid of nuclear power, then someone isn't doing their marketing yob.

Part of the problem is that there is no "nuclear lobby". There are Energy Companies, which may own some nuclear power plants, but usually own more coal, natural gas plants, etc. The Nuclear Industry is dead ... ceded to foreign companies on the heels of Jimmy Carter's administration. Regulation, etc. makes nuclear a less attractive option for them, but they can't really go out and run commercials about how bad coal and gas plants are.