That's why it's news when it happens once in a while.
In some cases, nuclear plants reduce the amount of radioactivity in their immediate surrounding environment. I'm thinking of a particular plant that's downstream from a medical facility. Once radioactive material has been sent through a patient, the rules for its storage and release change, and so the treated human waste released into the river is hotter than the usual river water. The nuke plant has to clean up the water before it can be used in normal cooling and power generation to coincide with the standards for released water from the plant. I can't name names because the medical facility got mad and made threats when the nuke station began to point this out to their antinuke critics.
Off Topic » in reply to Nuclear reactors don't release radioactive material in normal operation.
Thank you.
The whole thread (74 posts)
- I was always a skeptic of Global Warming
- got snow?
- Why yes, we do.
- It is in the 80's in SoCal today. (n/t)
- No wonder, you're smack dab right in the middle of the Rocky Mountain foothills
- re: Bruce Peninsula also has a nuclear power station, but then
- A pleasant reply, in which I do not use the word MORON (aside from the title)
- re: A pleasant reply,
- If the atmospheric density has decreased there is a very easy way to measure it.
- You did not address my points why should we take you seriously?, (n/t)
- I'm skeptical...
- re: A pleasant reply,
- Nuclear reactors don't release radioactive material in normal operation.
- A pleasant reply, in which I do not use the word MORON (aside from the title)
- Actually, it's a bit unusual.
- re: Bruce Peninsula also has a nuclear power station, but then
- re:Same in the Alps! (n/t)
- got snow?
