Why don’t we do both? In the early ‘70s, I was building a new house and I was told that nuclear electricity was coming. Then we had ‘3 mile island’! ‘Oh, my God! We’re doomed!’ Bull! There was not a SINGLE death, but ‘whoa is me!’ AND we had a president [Jimmy Carter!] who was a nuclear engineer, no less! Geesh!
Now that gasoline prices have gone through the roof, it’s time for us to develop alternate energy sources and technology for transportation, housing AND industry!
Dick O, Ossian, IN

Yes, 3 Mile Island actually proved that nuclear power was safe; the plant shut itself down the way it was supposed to, and no one was injured. I remember afterwards the bumper sticker that read: "More people were killed in Ted Kennedy's car than at 3 MIle Island!"

I don't remember the amount of radioactivity being lost at Three Mile Island since this is ancient history but it seems to me as best as I can recollect that the amount was equivalent to what is used/emitted/absorbed during a basic chest X-ray.

This is the NRC's summary of TMI:

http://www...-isle.html

They estimated that members of the public received a total of about 1 millirem (mr) due to the accident, to put that in perspective, the legal limit for public exposure is 100 mr in one year or 2 mr in any one hour. The limit for workers in a plant is 5000 mr in one year (most people don't approach that limit). I can routinely get about 5 mr in a couple of hours within the radiological controlled areas of a plant, which I probably do a dozen times per year. Some people routinely get several 100 mr per year, depending on their job.

Personally, I don't have a problem nuclear energy sites. Like anything else, a problem can occur but with current technology, etc. and numerous safeguards I think it's a safe trade off.

One thing I do have an issue with is if there is a problem and a coverup occurs. This is what I believed happened in the Karen Silkwood case, which was partially documented in a movie.

In the Silkwood case there was leakage due to faulty welds on casings that enclosed plutonium rods and the company was apparently trying to hush this up. There was a lot more to it than what the movie was able to present and the company that owned the facility itself was bought out a few years ago.
I live right down the road from this facility and after the Silkwood death the press was really on this issue but some serious questions remain unanswered to this day.

The facility went through several name changes after the Silkwood thing and has been closed for a number of years with a skeleton crew of security, etc. left in place.
The facility sits on a hill about a 1/2 mile from the Cimarron River and it was reported on the local news here a year or so ago that a small town down the river and about 30 miles away detected radiation in their ground water. It was also reported at that time that there was a small? spill of some sort before the Silkwood incident, both of which occurred well over 30 years ago.

Details are still pretty sparse but at this point there appears to be no human/plant/animal life affected. No one is catching any 3-eyed fish out of the river at this point.

One thing I do have an issue with is if there is a problem and a coverup occurs. This is what I believed happened in the Karen Silkwood case, which was partially documented in a movie. 

As long as there's money involved...people will cover it up. Look at the shuttle disaster in 85. Engineers working for the booster rocket company told management YEARS before the accident that those seals needed to be redesigned. There were memo's and letters...it was all hushed up...NASA didn't hear a word about this problem from the engineering company. Then the disaster and the investigation found all these memo's and engineers willing to talk.

The cover ups will happen...it's just what will be the result of the cover ups that scare the h*ll out of me. I do NOT trust this whole industry. Cover-up after cover-up after cover-up....3-mile island or much much worse can happen again. And when it does...we'll find out AFTER people are killed or massive amounts of radiation are leaked that there was a cover-up.

Nuclear Power has two problems. Ignorance and Fear.

But this thread is about off-shore drilling....

Every country in the world with offshore resources is drilling them up. Norway, Holland, and Britain are extremely environmentally sensitive countries, yet all three are producing oil & gas from the North Sea.

Americans are paranoid about oil spills and have tried to shift the offshore production to other countries. Most of the world is covered with water, and most remaining resources are underwater. It's time we got with it. Those extremely vocal hypocrites in Santa Barbara, who drive big cars, need a reality check.

Lets dril and beef up oil transport safety and security; that's where most of the spills occur.

I think that offshore wind farms should be explored before we expand and gear up for deep drilling. England is trying this on a test production scale now.

I'm all for offshore wind farms to supplement the electrical supply! This post is about offshore drilling to increase OIL SUPPLY. Offshore wind farms are out of the experimental stage and Denmark, Germany and Holland have extensive installations. None of these produce a drop of oil, of course.

More drilling will ease the US oil supply and slightly reduce imports, helping the US international balance of payments. BUT IT WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF OIL!!!

Oil is priced on an international basis, and oil companies charge their refineries (a separate cost center) that price. The refined oil (gasoline, etc)then has some margins added for distribution and marketing to get to the pump price.

Our resident science fiction writer/comedian, Shakespirit, advocates a Latin American style dictatorial control to lower the gas prices from US produced oil. This would only affect 40% of gasoline sold, and would come from a virtually NATIONALIZED oil industry controlled by the government, Soviet style. Presumably he would want to lower the the price of the other 60% by subsidizing it with tax payer's money!

Only during WW II did we have such draconian, but necessary government intervention. Even the most left-leaning democrat would not opt for this.

NO. And, especially near Santa Barbara it is not a good idea, since many might try to tap the Elk Hills Oil Reserve, nearby, with "tricky Dick" drilling. And, creating cavities under the ocean might cause more Earthquakes!

But, TRY the Sea of Cortez near Baha, since it might keep some of the natives home and any oil spills could help the local water supplies!

Windmills can and should be developed, like a Merry-Go-Round with sails, since they would be able to turn 10 megawatt generators with ease. And, they could be designed to look like a parked UFO!

FOR MANY YEARS, Major Oil Companies have been using Natural Gas from the Stockton, CA. area, and have been buying oil rights around Elk Grove, CA.

Therefore, the best place to drill nearby may be in the San Francisco Bay or the Delta Area!

So: FOLLOW THE MONEY, and Swartsnegger's Party!

Bush's latest ploy to allow more "offshore drilling" is just a ploy to stop the "Gas Pump Revolution".
So, how could new drilling near Cuba (near his lost wells) change the price of oil for at least 3 years?

Why don't he offer to "Save America", by reducing oil prices from his existing wells, like the dictator in South America!

As an Oil Exploration Geologist (more than 20 yrs) I can tell you there is a lot of misinformation in circulation that has been made available by industry and conservative sources. First of all there is no proof that any significant amount of oil exists beneath the offshore Atlantic coast. When oil companies report potential reserves the numbers reflect an extremely optimistic position (less than 10 percent probability of success). This optimism is designed to entice investors to take the risk. In addition, the reserve estimates include natural gas as an oil equivalent. In many cases only a few percent of the "oil" reserves is actually oil. This holds true for ANWR as well as the Atlantic. So, will offshore drilling make a difference? Not as much as a zit on an elephant's butt. However, drilling will make a few CEOs and service companies like Haliburtin very wealthy. You may not know that several major discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico that are currently in the process of coming on line - reserves that dwarf all other offshore potential - are not stabilizing the price at all. But the industry is careful not to make this known. The fact is that the world is on a decline of reserves while demand is increasing and that will not be changed. Bio-fuels are a capitalist answer to the problem - the process drives up food prices and puts more carbon into the atmosphere than fossil fuel. The only option in the equation is conservation: better cars, communities designed for people, public transportation, etc. Sorry America, but it cannot be avoided any longer.

Thank you for speaking as a professional and outlining the BIG PICTURE. It's now generally accepted that the world is finding less oil each year than it is consuming, so gradually emptying the "cupboard".

Many people are either into the conspiracy theory or expecting a quick magic elixer in terms of alternate sources of energy. You are right, conservation and stepped up searches for alternative sources is essential.

Thanks again!

_