Talk:Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant

United States: New Hampshire Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	New Hampshire portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wattage

Why not say 1.27 Gigawatts, instead of 1,270 Megawatts? - MSTCrow 19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually just done that way. It makes sense when you're expecting to see 600 MWe plants as well. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading comparison

Someone keeps deleting information about the actual environmental impacts of the Seabrook plant, but leaving in a misleading comparison to a coal-fired plant, which was never planned for Seabrook nor ever existed. One might as well compare it to a gas-fired power plant, or conservation measures. But such comparisons still say *nothing* about the actual impacts of the plant. I have added information about the seawater temperature and processing impacts, but they immediately get deleted. They, however, are true impacts, not misleading comparisons. I think this section/entry should be locked and sent to an arbitrator. Hmarcuse 07:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have GOT to be kidding. You gave NO source for the "processing impacts," you know why? Because it's a COMPLETE fabrication. I can't even find something saying that when I try. No reliable source anywhere says that nuclear power contributes more to climate change than fossil units, what you posted about chlorfluorocarbons with enrichment is simply false science. I don't know if you read it somewhere or just made it up yourself, either way it's a simple fabrication. And like I said, it shouldn't even go here if it's not in Uranium enrichment. Go ahead and ask for an arbitrator, see if I care, you're a troll. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

As someone who lived in the 10 mile radius for 20+ years I find it amazing so much of an article about Seabrook Station is given to the opposition of the plant.

The clam shell alliance was so important it gets the second paragraph in the open?

Almost the entire "History" is dedicated to opposition of the plant? One sentence dedicated to that actual 40+ years of the actual plant?

I sit in amazement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It became very clear this POV shift happened with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power_Plant&oldid=475923316. I have reverted it back to "last known good". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]