I hope you're correct, but the fact the same site published this article(which can be read in it's entirety at the link) makes me wonder about the site:
"Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!...
Quake + tsunami = 1 minor radiation dose so far
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Physics, 14th March 2011 13:58 GMT
Analysis Japan's nuclear powerplants have performed magnificently in the face of a disaster hugely greater than they were designed to withstand, remaining entirely safe throughout and sustaining only minor damage. The unfolding Fukushima story has enormously strengthened the case for advanced nations – including Japan – to build more nuclear powerplants, in the knowledge that no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems..."
IP: Logged
11:26 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
That may well be as it was obviously a biased article(thus I made no attempt to quote it here). Can you provide counter-proof? I'm not contradicting you, I'd like to know if it's true or not true.
An article that I read recently, said that there are no private investors in nuclear power in this country. In other words, nuclear power in this country is 100% subsidized by the tax-payers. Just another instance of corporate welfare.
quote
Nov 30, 2010 The Shaw Group is increasing its bet on nuclear power, announcing a role in the proposed 2,700-megawatt South Texas project making it the largest nuclear construction project in Shaw’s history.
Toshiba, the Japanese company, and NRG Energy Inc. jointly own Nuclear Innovation North America, which is developing the South Texas plant.
The Shaw Power Group will get the initial engineering, procurement and construction contract for the two-reactor expansion proposed at South Texas. But Shaw will be more than the contractor. It will be a partner with Toshiba in the project.
As part of its new agreement with Toshiba, Shaw has agreed to invest up to $250 million in nuclear projects. Of that, $100 million will initially be a loan guarantee for NINA for South Texas. If the project wins its combined operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that loan guarantee will be converted into an equity investment in the project....
quote
The South Texas Project (STP) is operated by the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), which is owned by NRG Texas LLC (44 percent), CPS Energy (40 percent) and Austin Energy (16 percent).
NRG is a private company. Tosiba is a private company. Both have stcokholders. CPS is a muninciplally owned (San Antonio) power company.
quote
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant is located in Somervell County, Texas. The nuclear power plant is located 40 miles (65 km) southwest of Ft. Worth and about 60 miles (100 km) southwest of Dallas. It relies on nearby Squaw Creek Reservoir for cooling water. The plant has about 1,300 employees and is operated by Luminant Generation, a subsidiary of Energy Future Holdings Corporation.
On September 19, 2008, Luminant filed an application with the NRC for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) for two new reactors.[2] The reactor design selected is the US version of the 1,700 MWe Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR), developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). The project is a joint venture, with Luminant owning 88 percent and 12 percent owned by MHI.
Financing for both STNP and Commanche Peak came from private sources, with US govt backed loans--meaning the money was private but the loan was guaranteed by taxpayers only if the operators were unable to repay the loans. In addition to the above info, TEPCO had announced plans to invest in STNP, but rumors abound they are pulling out, as they may be cash strapped.
Plans for STNP expansion are currently on hold--depending how the Japan problem pans out.
quote
NEW YORK (Nikkei)--It would be a significant blow if Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501.TO) pulls out of a planned investment in a nuclear power project spearheaded by U.S. firm NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) and Toshiba Corp. (6502.TO) in the state of Texas, CEO of the U.S. utility David Crane told the Nikkei in an interview published on Friday.
Tepco, which is battling a major accident at its earthquake-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, said in May 2010 it would spend up to $250 million Y(20 billion) to acquire a stake in the project to build units 3 and 4 at the South Texas Project nuclear plant if the U.S. government provides loan guarantees. The Japanese utility already has a technological tie-up with NRG Energy.
Crane said NRG has not yet talked with Tepco about what the Japanese utility plans to do regarding the investment. He also said if Tepco decides to end its involvement, his firm may seek investment from other Japanese companies such, as financial institutions and trading houses.
The expansion plans at the Texas plant aim to get approval for construction and operation in 2011, begin construction in the summer of 2012 and bring the two new reactors onstream in 2016 and 2017.
Crane said the Fukushima accident will delay the project by at least three to six months.
Mesteña Uranium, L.L.C. and Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI) are producing uranium; another company, COGEMA Mining, has a mine in reclamation; and a fourth company, South Texas Mining Venture, expects to be producing uranium by the end of this year.
Mesteña officials reported that the Alta Mesa project produced more than 1 million pounds of yellowcake, a refined uranium ore, in 2006. URI processes uranium at Kingsville Dome in Kleberg County and mines uranium at its Vasquez property in Duval County. URI reported that the two mines combined produced 260,000 pounds of yellowcake in 2006. There are plans to recommence mining and processing at a Rosita facility in northern Duval County this year.
South Texas Mining Venture has submitted an area permit application with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for ISL mining at its La Palangana site in Duval County. Officials there expect to have all necessary permits by the fourth quarter of 2008, with production beginning by the end of the year. FN
IP: Logged
06:55 AM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Most answers lie in the middle of both extremes. This article is one extreme, and California being a dead zone is the other. I don't believe either one.
Reactor 2 at Fukushima I has standing water in basement of turbine building at 1,000 mSv/hour, about 100,000 times higher than usual. For reference, The maximum permissible dose for Japanese nuclear workers was increased to 250 mSv/year, for emergency situations after the accidents. The current INES rating of the disaster is 5 but consideration is being given to raising it up to 6 on the 7 point scale. The only 7 in history was Chernobyl. Some outlying (minority) analysts suggest upgrading it to a 7, thought that is not likely to happen.
Plutonium found in soil samples outside of plant. Though plutonium already exists in Japanese soils at the levels found, isotope analysis suggests that the source is probably from melted fuel in the nearby reactors. Workers still struggling to drain extremely contaminated water from basements, tunnels, and trenches around and under the reactors.
I heard on the radio this morning that the Japanese reported 2 of 5 samples' isotope ratios seemed to indicate the source was the reactors nearby. I suspect that all of Japan has some radiological contamination from their nuclear power industry plus the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Forensics will determine source pretty accurately I bet.
IP: Logged
01:21 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
U.S. reactor expert says it appears that the radioactive core in the Unit 2 reactor has melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to a concrete floor.
A full meltdown is when the rods melt through all containment, if they have melted through the containment vessel then it is a full meltdown. Chernobyl had a full meltdown. The only difference is the graphite burned and the smoke carried the radioactive dust in to the atmosphere, but other things can cause the dust to get into the atmosphere. If it does then this will be chernobyl style. They need to stop lying.
Funny because it has been said here, and all over the news, that the containment vessel couldn't be breached in this type of reactor.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 03-29-2011).]
Originally posted by dennis_6: ...Funny because it has been said here, and all over the news, that the containment vessel couldn't be breached in this type of reactor.
Ummm.... What?! I don't remember reading that anywhere. I understood that that was always a possibility, if enough things went wrong.
Maybe I was just reading different sources. Edit - ...or choosing to not believe the ones that seemed to be outright silly.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:45 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Ummm.... What?! I don't remember reading that anywhere. I understood that that was always a possibility, if enough things went wrong.
Maybe I was just reading different sources. Edit - ...or choosing to not believe the ones that seemed to be outright silly.
I was not referring to you, but all you have to do is look back through this thread and find where it was stated the containment vessels would not be breached, because a lack of a graphite reactor. Google will turn up a lot of the same also. I said they could and may be breached the entire time. My sources ranged from there isn't any radiation leak to cali would be a dead zone, and I picked out the truth, which pretty much lied in the middle. Days of independent research on the subject from reactor construction to conversion or radiation dosage units.
Sorry it was the other thread where phonedawgz and I were having a spat about the possibility of a future containment breach. I thought it could happen, he didn't. I hope it really hasn't but looks that way.
Pure physics here. If you're pumping in thousands of gallons of water per day, the water is either turning to steam or draining out of the core. Either way, I'm assuming that's a lot of irradiated water escaping into the ground water, ocean and/or atmosphere?? My favorite quote was getting tankers to haul off the water. And do what with it...dump it in the middle of the ocean? As far as it not becoming another Chernobyl, so far, the experts aren't doing so well.
IP: Logged
09:11 PM
Mar 30th, 2011
Raydar Member
Posts: 40728 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
Didn't think you were. I was just stating that I never believed that a core breach and total meltdown weren't possible.
Personally, I think I'd be getting the hell out of Dodge. I don't have much faith that they're going to stop this. And I don't think the people who "know" are being at all above board with their information. I hope it doesn't end up costing more lives, needlessly.
Didn't think you were. I was just stating that I never believed that a core breach and total meltdown weren't possible.
Personally, I think I'd be getting the hell out of Dodge. I don't have much faith that they're going to stop this. And I don't think the people who "know" are being at all above board with their information. I hope it doesn't end up costing more lives, needlessly.
Worst case scenario (not that much further along this disaster track) is that a few more hundred square miles is made permanently uninhabitable, farmable, forestable, or useable for humans. Maybe some additional cases of leukemia and thyroid cancer, moreso with children, and maybe new testing for fish to discard those that are contaminated (most of the protein in the Japanese diet is from fish, BTW). It won't be the first time, it won't be the last time, and probably won't even be that uncommon as more uranium fission plants are brought on line in the future.
Tokyo, Mar. 31: The level of radioactive iodine-131 found in seawater near the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, has soared to its highest reading yet at a concentration of 4,385 times the legal limit.
Pressure is mounting on authorities in Japan to expand the 20-kilometer evacuation zone around the stricken six-reactor facility, located about 240 kilometers northeast of Tokyo, following the continuous leaking of radiation since the March 11 magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami knocked out the plant's critical cooling systems, China's Xinhua news agency reports.
Beleaguered plant owner and operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said that the previous readings showed concentration levels at 1,250 times the legal maximum on Friday, 1,850 times the limit on Saturday and 3,355 times the limit on Tuesday.
Deputy Director-General of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency Hidehiko Nishiyama conceded Thursday that radioactive materials have and continue to be freely leaking into the sea.
Tepco said early Saturday that it had detected a radiation reading of 200 millisieverts per hour in a pool of water in the No. 1 reactor's turbine building on March 18 and failed to notify workers, but later denied that a radiation level that high was found.
"If we had warned them, we may have been able to avoid having workers (at the No. 3 reactor) exposed to radiation," a Tepco official said.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the government had not been informed about the high radiation reading at the No. 1 plant and he will order Tepco to thoroughly report information. "If (Tepco) doesn't report various information with speed and accuracy, the government can't give proper instructions," Edano said. "It will only trigger distrust from the public and from the workers at the site."
My comment: It sure seems to take a lot of effort to get TEPCO to concede or admit anything, it's almost like dealing with the Russians back in the Chernobyl days...
IP: Logged
11:29 AM
PFF
System Bot
Raydar Member
Posts: 40728 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
... My comment: It sure seems to take a lot of effort to get TEPCO to concede or admit anything, it's almost like dealing with the Russians back in the Chernobyl days...
I've been thinking that a lot, lately.
But since the Japanese government is so enmeshed in Japanese industry, it makes me wonder if they might not be trying to cover one-another's arses, while releasing enough info to make it look like they're really doing something while, in reality, they're running around in circles. (Not to make light of the situation of the people who are in the plant, attempting to poke their fingers in the dike that is crumbling before their eyes.)
But since the Japanese government is so enmeshed in Japanese industry, it makes me wonder if they might not be trying to cover one-another's arses, while releasing enough info to make it look like they're really doing something while, in reality, they're running around in circles. (Not to make light of the situation of the people who are in the plant, attempting to poke their fingers in the dike that is crumbling before their eyes.)
It's also kind of reminiscent of how BP dealt with trying to stop last year's Gulf coast disaster. Maybe the Japanese engineers can try a junk shot and throw garbage at it?
IP: Logged
06:41 PM
Raydar Member
Posts: 40728 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
Entomb? Cement pumps flown in to nuke plant Same company that helped seal in Chernobyl is sending equipment.
TOKYO — Some of the world's largest cement pumps were en route to Japan's stricken nuclear plant on Thursday, initially to help douse areas with water but eventually for cement work — including the possibility of entombing the site as was done in Chernobyl.
Operated via remote control, one of the truck-mounted pumps was already at the Fukushima Dai-ichi site and being used to spray water. Four more will be flown in from Germany and the United States, according to the German-manufacturer Putzmeister. The biggest of the five has an arm that extends well over 200 feet.
"Initially, they will probably pump water," Putzmeister stated. "Later they will be used for any necessary concreting work."
A construction company in Augusta, Ga., was among those redirecting the pumps to Japan. Its owner said he believes building a concrete sarcophagus will follow.
"Our understanding is they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete," Jerry Ashmore told the Augusta Chronicle.
He did not expect the pump to return. "It will be too hot to come back," Ashmore said.
The sad face is because, even with my growing cynicism, I was hoping they could get this under control. Of course, the scrappage of the reactors was a given, the moment they poured seawater on them. Just hoped they could have effected an "orderly" (orderly?) cold shutdown.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-31-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:36 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Entomb? Cement pumps flown in to nuke plant Same company that helped seal in Chernobyl is sending equipment.
TOKYO — Some of the world's largest cement pumps were en route to Japan's stricken nuclear plant on Thursday, initially to help douse areas with water but eventually for cement work — including the possibility of entombing the site as was done in Chernobyl.
Operated via remote control, one of the truck-mounted pumps was already at the Fukushima Dai-ichi site and being used to spray water. Four more will be flown in from Germany and the United States, according to the German-manufacturer Putzmeister. The biggest of the five has an arm that extends well over 200 feet.
"Initially, they will probably pump water," Putzmeister stated. "Later they will be used for any necessary concreting work."
A construction company in Augusta, Ga., was among those redirecting the pumps to Japan. Its owner said he believes building a concrete sarcophagus will follow.
"Our understanding is they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete," Jerry Ashmore told the Augusta Chronicle.
He did not expect the pump to return. "It will be too hot to come back," Ashmore said.
The sad face is because, even with my growing cynicism, I was hoping they could get this under control. Of course, the scrappage of the reactors was a given, the moment they poured seawater on them. Just hoped they could have effected an "orderly" (orderly?) cold shutdown.
They better pour the concrete from the bottom as I suspect that's where the irradiated water is leaking out of! And, yes that was sarcasm.
IP: Logged
07:51 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
NPR ran a story this morning about farmers and dairies who have been banned from selling their produce and milk. The report didn't indicate who was going to pay for hauling off and disposing of the farmer's goods and who was going to replace the farmer's lost income. Seems to me that TEPCO should be buying all the produce at market prices for as many years as it takes for the contamination to go away. It's not the farmers' fault that their products have been rendered worthless. The story appeared to be a followup to this story:
But the brunt of this crisis is most evident out in the countryside. A few miles from the grocery store, Keiji Nagashima tends a spinach farm that he inherited from his father. He's been growing spinach for 25 years in Ibaraki. This region is a major source of produce for Tokyo, which is just a couple of hours away by truck.
Nagashima is standing outside a row of six long greenhouses. In January, he planted 30,000 spinach plants in each one. His farm wasn't tested, so he doesn't even know if the plants are contaminated with radiation. But the government said all spinach from Ibaraki prefecture needs to be destroyed.
"I think what we will end up doing is let the spinach die, and then after that we'll bury it," he says, adding that he's unsure if he'll get paid for it. "Personally, they haven't told me anything. I can't have a life without the spinach."
Perhaps TEPCO should--or their stockholders--buy the contaminated produce, but is there any real indication, that any real means existed to prevent this from happening in an earthquake/tsunami scenario? Hindsight is always 20/20. At what point, does there become a distinction between man's (industry's) liability versus the results of a natural disaster? There is a lot we don't yet know, and it is still up in the air, regarding what could have reasonably been done to prevent all this, and there is simply no way to foresee every single possible calamity. If a SE US dam breaks from record snowmelt/rainfall, is it TVA's fault for not building a higher stronger dam--or is it simply the result of natural events or what is sometimes referred to as an "Act of God"?
Judgement witheld for now. (edited for the most spelling errors ever in a single post)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-01-2011).]
QUICK! Bury it all under a pile of concrete! All your troubles will magically disappear. But if there is a problem, you'll NEVER be able to get under it to clean it up. My personal opinion? I think they've got a problem.
Perhaps TEPCO should--or their stockholders--buy the contaminated produce, but is there any real indication, that any real means existed to prevent this from happening in an earthquake/tsunami scenario? Hindsight is always 20/20. At what point, does there become a distinction between man's (industry's) liability versus the results of a natural disaster? There is a lot we don't yet know, and it is still up in the air, regarding what could have reasonably been done to prevent all this, and there is simply no way to foresee every single possible calamity. If a SE US dam breaks from record snowmelt/rainfall, is it TVA's fault for not building a higher stronger dam--or is it simply the result of natural events or what is sometimes referred to as an "Act of God"?
Judgement witheld for now. (edited for the most spelling errors ever in a single post)
The reactors withstood the quake and tsunami just fine. It was the backup generators, diesel, that failed, triggering this disaster. After seeing what happened in Asia a few years ago it would seem common sense to mount the generators such to protect them better, even up on a pole. In a facility like this with so much physical infrastructure those generators probably represented less than 1% of everything there.
To me, the real issue is that with uranium fission nuclear power everything has to work perfectly to avoid a widespread disaster that will cost tens of billions of dollars in direct remediation as well as tens of billions of dollars in indirect costs such as paying these farmers and paying homeowners for their property loss. There is no other form of energy production that has the capability of an outcome like this one is having. What's the evacuation radius for a geothermal plant? How many hundreds of square miles can a worst-case windmill failure render permanently uninhabitable overnight? If a solar panel falls down in a forest do 30,000 farmers lose their family farms forever? How many decades does it take to partly clean up after a catastrophic natural gas fuel cell power plant failure? And in the end, after the useful life of any, no, every other technology the materials in it can be recycled of or disposed of in a regular landfill. Nothing has to be stored in facilities designed to outlast the pyramids by two hundred and fourty five thousand years and prove 100% perfect in keeping out terrorists and idiots. 100% perfect, because the consequences of 99% perfect are completely unacceptable as we see in Japan today.
Understood, but there is the fact that Japan itself wanted Nuke power generation, and got it. Built, inspected, operated and maintained according to various Japanese and International standards. To now say, that the basic concept of fission reactors is flawed, and because of the inherent risks it's thus the fault of the operator (TEPCO)-- is a bit of a stretch at this point. This is different than Chernobyl, as there were obvious problems and defeciencies in both the design and the operating procedure they carried out that day (a test). It's different from BP's GOM spill, as there were obvious problems in procedures in that disaster as well, and in both Chernobyl and BP, there was obviously assignable blame and liability. We don't know that there is in the case of TEPCO-- yet.
quote
Seems to me that TEPCO should be buying all the produce at market prices for as many years as it takes for the contamination to go away.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:05 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
QUICK! Bury it all under a pile of concrete! All your troubles will magically disappear. But if there is a problem, you'll NEVER be able to get under it to clean it up. My personal opinion? I think they've got a problem.
They do NOT jump into a danger zone. They 'jump' into a higher level radioactive zone to preform their quick work and receive a SAFE dose of radiation. No they do not run in and run out.
YES we know what a safe lifetime dose of radiation is.
The whole idea of a jumper is they work in a higher radioactive area for a short period of time and receive their 'lifetime' allowable SAFE dose of workplace radioactive exposure in a short period of time.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 04-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:23 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The reactors withstood the quake and tsunami just fine. It was the backup generators, diesel, that failed, triggering this disaster. After seeing what happened in Asia a few years ago it would seem common sense to mount the generators such to protect them better, even up on a pole. In a facility like this with so much physical infrastructure those generators probably represented less than 1% of everything there.
To me, the real issue is that with uranium fission nuclear power everything has to work perfectly to avoid a widespread disaster that will cost tens of billions of dollars in direct remediation as well as tens of billions of dollars in indirect costs such as paying these farmers and paying homeowners for their property loss. There is no other form of energy production that has the capability of an outcome like this one is having. What's the evacuation radius for a geothermal plant? How many hundreds of square miles can a worst-case windmill failure render permanently uninhabitable overnight? If a solar panel falls down in a forest do 30,000 farmers lose their family farms forever? How many decades does it take to partly clean up after a catastrophic natural gas fuel cell power plant failure? And in the end, after the useful life of any, no, every other technology the materials in it can be recycled of or disposed of in a regular landfill. Nothing has to be stored in facilities designed to outlast the pyramids by two hundred and fourty five thousand years and prove 100% perfect in keeping out terrorists and idiots. 100% perfect, because the consequences of 99% perfect are completely unacceptable as we see in Japan today.
Totally incorrect.
If you believe global warming then every fossil fuel plant emits byproducts that CAN NOT be cleaned up. Burning coal raises radioactivity in the atmosphere by releasing radioactive particles that were trapped in the coal. More people die from other power sources. That fact however is ignored because of alarmists.
In 2010, 48 people died in coal mine deaths in the US alone. In ONE year!
How many people have died because of this accident - 0.
How many are expected to die - 0
How many died at Three Mile Island - 0
IP: Logged
05:40 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9473 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The Tsunami itself killed 8,000 with 12,000 still missing. The death toll due to the Tsunami is likely to increase as the Japanese continue to dig out.
How many people have actually died due to the nuclear disaster?
IP: Logged
05:44 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
A full meltdown is when the rods melt through all containment, if they have melted through the containment vessel then it is a full meltdown. Chernobyl had a full meltdown. The only difference is the graphite burned and the smoke carried the radioactive dust in to the atmosphere, but other things can cause the dust to get into the atmosphere. If it does then this will be chernobyl style. They need to stop lying.
Funny because it has been said here, and all over the news, that the containment vessel couldn't be breached in this type of reactor.
Chernobyl didn't have a "full melt down". It had an explosion and fire of the core and graphite components. Chernobyl did not have containment. Burning graphite combined with radioactive particles caused a highly radioactive plume. This is nothing even remotely close to that. Chernobyl was a crime when it was built.
Anyone who said containment could not be breached was clearly mistaken. Containment is intended to contain the radioactive particles. Clearly containment can be breached.
Clearly you people have no idea what is going on. Clearly you have no intentions of actually understanding what is going on. Clearly all you want to do is pump up this into the largest possible accident you can. It's extremely frustrating trying to again and again and again try to put the actual facts straight.
So if you are successful at damning nuclear power and then burn up more coal instead thus killing the world will you be happy? I'd much rather work with the REAL facts.
IP: Logged
06:07 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9473 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The problem is that we named a source of safe and clean energy after the worlds most powerful weapon. It would not have been much worse to call it an AIDS reactor. Anyone want to have a AIDS power plant in their back yard?
Sure, and again, they can use my lake for cooling, tho I doubt it is large enough. I don't care if they call it a Typhoid plant--a rose by any other name is still profitable, and I still like the idea of all those atoms and electrons just working away back behind my house.
