Radiation Leak at 3 Mile Island

great cornholio

Are you threatening me??
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Posts
792
Total Time
3200
Awesome...especially since I've been in and out of MDT about 10 times the past few weeks...and was on a long overnight there that day. I've always thought it was kinda funny how they light up the cooling towers and that bridge on the other side of the airport with flood lights...they must have some extra power they don't need.
 

wms

billSquared
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Posts
2,052
Total Time
10500
That's not flood lights.
 

CX880

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Posts
2,861
Total Time
1898
Aks for hazard pay. U've probably gotten more radiation from being up at 37000 all this time than the few days you were near 3 mile island.
 
Last edited:

spudskier

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Posts
565
Total Time
<enuf
Since when does a CR2 get up to F370 on a regular basis!?
 

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
Total Time
12000+
there is a former allegheny guy (he may be on this board) who is now at US Air that knows a lot about that incident. I think his brother welded the shield around the reactor (#2) that had the melt down.

if he is on this board he can chime in and tell you all about it.
 
Last edited:

BLUE-ICE-MAN

I will kick you in the...
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Posts
33
Total Time
6000+
....yeah, windmills and solar panels are destroying the natural landscape, but NUCLEAR is the way to go! So clean... So efficient... So "neon" green....

I'd rather have a windmill in my back yard, than a NUCLEAR reactor in the same state!
 

Propsync

Everybody to the limit!
Joined
Mar 29, 2004
Posts
722
Total Time
5000?
What are the odds SNL will do another 'Pepsi Syndrome'?
 

LowlyPropCapt

PBR For Life, and Beyond!
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Posts
1,256
Total Time
8000+
....yeah, windmills and solar panels are destroying the natural landscape, but NUCLEAR is the way to go! So clean... So efficient... So "neon" green....

I'd rather have a windmill in my back yard, than a NUCLEAR reactor in the same state!
I have a nuclear reactor in close to my house and it doesn't bother me in the least. I would rather that than a coal fired power plant. Ask the folks in Kingston TN how well that has worked out for them.
 

Dubya

Part time genius
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Posts
1,370
Total Time
1
Being exposed to Mesa (sucks) is much worse.
 

ekuflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Posts
166
Total Time
enough
....yeah, windmills and solar panels are destroying the natural landscape, but NUCLEAR is the way to go! So clean... So efficient... So "neon" green....

I'd rather have a windmill in my back yard, than a NUCLEAR reactor in the same state!

Do you have any idea how many windmills it would take to replace a reactor?
Put this in perspective: the output of ONE average size coal mine would need 70 square miles of solar panels to replace the steam energy it can produce.
 

crj567

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Posts
2,052
....yeah, windmills and solar panels are destroying the natural landscape, but NUCLEAR is the way to go! So clean... So efficient... So "neon" green....

I'd rather have a windmill in my back yard, than a NUCLEAR reactor in the same state!
Well don't ever visit France, then.... Even those puss!es get about 80% of their power from nuclear-and they don't have to spend half their freaking GDP to some freak-ass ragheads to power their country.

-Not bad for a bunch of do-good wussbags.
 

airplane wizard

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Posts
792
Total Time
some
....yeah, windmills and solar panels are destroying the natural landscape, but NUCLEAR is the way to go! So clean... So efficient... So "neon" green....

I'd rather have a windmill in my back yard, than a NUCLEAR reactor in the same state!
Everyone complains about high energy prices, but no one wants a reactor or any other type of power plant anywhere near them.
 

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
Total Time
12000+
Coal Propaganda
there is no/zero/nada/zipo way to burn coal "clean" no matter what some old coal money West Virginian on TV tells you.

C+O2=CO2 (in simple form - see below for expanded form). Every 23g of coal (C) combusted yields 44g of CO2.

It is pure science, if there was a "clean" way to burn coal we (the US) would have figured it out years ago.

Expanded and balanced shows how for every one coal we get almost 2 times the co2, as shown above with the 23 to 44 relationship (2g lost for thermo inefficiencies)

2C10H2 + 2102 --> 2H20 + 20CO2

the small print on "clean coal". when that old coal money WV get on TV and tells you coal is cleaner than ever he/she isn't exactly fibbing but like airline management isn't telling you the whole tale. Yes coal is cleaner than in the past, however this is because of increased effencies in turbine technolgy which convert the combusted coals' steam into energy. This results in more energy output (less mechanical loss) per gram of coal combusted.

It does not however change physical science in the fact that when you combust coal the byproduct is and will always be carbon gas.
 
Last edited:
Top