|
lines
Stranger


Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 1,409
Loc: USA
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea
#14131885 - 03/16/11 03:52 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Looking at how much horror is created when a nuclear plant lets down maybe it is not such a good idea to use nuclear power. The risks outweigh the benefits.
|
Mchaggis
cawbstawmper




Registered: 05/28/09
Posts: 5,307
Loc: 'Bama Ghost Country
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: lines] 2
#14132087 - 03/16/11 04:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well its too late to turn back now.
It blows my mind how many people are unaware of the nuclear reactors around them all the time, possibly even powering the computer you're using. Check wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States_of_America
20 minutes from my house in different directions there are 3 units in a nuclear power plant, three hydroelectric dams, and two steam (coal) plants
edit: You know, we hold back so much water with those hydroelectric dams, and it sure would cause a lot of horrible, terrible things if they broke or something, maybe we shouldn't use those either.
And come to think of it, electricity causes a lot of horrible, terrible things to happen in general. Maybe hiding naked in a cave would work?
--------------------
 I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body
Edited by Mchaggis (03/16/11 04:43 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: lines] 1
#14132096 - 03/16/11 04:32 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think it's a good idea to build outdated designs on extremely active fault zones. And the Russians probably shouldn't build any. But I have no problem with the one near here, which is also old design. Some retarded politician said something about it being on a fault but that sucker hasn't done much of anything for millions of years. I'm more concerned about asteroids and global warming idiots destroying the global economy.
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: zappaisgod]
#14132125 - 03/16/11 04:39 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I've got an old outdated one I'm trying to sell on Craig's List. I'm asking $50 if anyone is interested. It hardly leaks at all.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Mchaggis
cawbstawmper




Registered: 05/28/09
Posts: 5,307
Loc: 'Bama Ghost Country
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Icelander]
#14132168 - 03/16/11 04:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
how bout you gimme ten dollars and me and jimmy john'll be over there directly to take it off your hands
--------------------
 I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body
|
iluvfungi



Registered: 06/17/09
Posts: 1,488
Loc: Oakland, CA USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Mchaggis]
#14135233 - 03/17/11 04:16 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Nuclear power is horrible. Give solar power the same amount of time we've had to develop nuclear power. Wow it's a billion times better. Even better would be to start researching quantum physic's for a energy source today. I have no doubt nuclear power is a fucking joke compared to gathering energy from the neutrino, which is not a neutron.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: iluvfungi]
#14135329 - 03/17/11 05:30 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I don't think it's a good idea to build outdated designs on extremely active fault zones. And the Russians probably shouldn't build any.
Basically my feelings as well. The concerning accidents of any import are generally completely idiotic: see the soviet disasters. With private enterprise running the show and sufficiently liable, I don't see there's a big problem with nuclear power.
People I respect feel differently and are quite concerned with the waste issue, but I honestly never understood why that was really that difficult, but maybe I don't know enough to be aware of the problems. Seems like as long as you have a decent space you can store the waste there without much need for cooling, right? Isn't the cooling requirement tied to relatively dense storage plans?
What actually happened in Japan anyways? Besides from the seemingly obvious issue of building a plant which requires structural integrity to not melt down on a fault line, the news has been typically poor. From what I've heard: the plant(s) DID loose cooling, but might not have released signifigant waste and radioactive matter. This seems strange to me as it was my understanding that that type of reactor required cooling to prevent melt downs. Is this not the case? Are automatic mechanisms sufficient to put the reactor in a safe configuration during coolling loss?
Quote:
iluvfungi said: Nuclear power is horrible. Give solar power the same amount of time we've had to develop nuclear power.
? We have. People have been harnesing the sun forever. Its not their fault it sucks ass for most applications we need power for.
Quote:
Wow it's a billion times better. Even better would be to start researching quantum physic's for a energy source today. I have no doubt nuclear power is a fucking joke compared to gathering energy from the neutrino, which is not a neutron.
Wow, fantastic.
I don't get this naive faith in science: people who don't know wtf they're talking about but yet are nevertheless SURE that if they throw money and time at something that science will pop out some practical solution. This kind of attitude seems to be pretty irresponsible and stupid. If you don't have the answer, how can you be sure others do- especially given that they say they don't?
Seems just an appeal to ignorance: "well shucks, I don't understand how any of that technology mumbo jumbo works, but they figured it out! Its amazing! Therefore, they surely can figure out how to use 'quantum physic's' and solar power to replace nuclear and coal"
|
Tien
人民英雄




Registered: 03/30/05
Posts: 2,382
Loc: Canoodia
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14135641 - 03/17/11 08:07 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Don't hate on Russians. They've had plenty of reactors running for decades (109 to be exact). Chernobyl was just a very unfortunate accident.
Besides, Russians pioneered the first civilian nuclear generating station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obninsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Russia
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Tien]
#14136109 - 03/17/11 10:41 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Define "accident"?
They knew damn well that scenario could have happened and purposefully and knowingly skimped on not only logical reactor design and safety features, but containment structures in case the known defects did cause problems.
Then, to top it all off, they decide to dick around with a reactor at its most dangerous state in the fuel's lifespan and knowingly put it into a dangerous state to test what would happen if such a thing were to happen. Oops.. guess they found out.
They had a bunch of people who didn't understand the reactor test critical features with a single point of failure that shouldn't have even been deemed acceptable in the first place. Even if the test had succeded the system would have been prone to the same damn thing occuring next time, and without complete manuals of procedures and rules for the reactor's operation, it was pretty much an eventuality that some arrogant ass promoted due to politics rather than merit would fuck things up.
That the people operating the reactor were even put in such a position is unconscionable and a damning indictment of that government.
|
Tien
人民英雄




Registered: 03/30/05
Posts: 2,382
Loc: Canoodia
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14139088 - 03/17/11 08:02 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well fine. Sure there was incompetence involved...which is not surprising because the entire soviet system was a product of incompetence.
Three Mile Island Accident, which is not on the same scale since it was only a partial melt-down didn't happen just because of technicalities either.....
"The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface. "
With that said, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are 109 reactors operating on Russian territory. There's nothing wrong with them. All I'm saying is you people talk about Russians like we're complete idiots...and that's not right. This is the nation that sent the first satellite AND man into orbit for crying out loud.
|
HeavyToilet
The Heaviest OfThem All


Registered: 08/06/03
Posts: 9,458
Loc: British Columbia
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: iluvfungi] 2
#14139234 - 03/17/11 08:22 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iluvfungi said: Nuclear power is horrible. Give solar power the same amount of time we've had to develop nuclear power. Wow it's a billion times better. Even better would be to start researching quantum physic's for a energy source today. I have no doubt nuclear power is a fucking joke compared to gathering energy from the neutrino, which is not a neutron.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not an engineer or a scientist, and have very little knowledge about the actual amounts of energy produced through nuclear methods when compared to other methods.
PS - Yeah bro, we'll just harness the power of neutrinos! What an brilliant idea! Why haven't any scientists thought about this before?! You need to be put in a position of power so that you can tell scientists and engineers how things should be done! I mean, you must know more about energy production than those thousands of individuals who have dedicated their lives to studying and researching this topic, right?
Edited by HeavyToilet (03/17/11 08:33 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Tien]
#14142110 - 03/18/11 08:35 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Tien said: Well fine. Sure there was incompetence involved...which is not surprising because the entire soviet system was a product of incompetence.
Three Mile Island Accident, which is not on the same scale since it was only a partial melt-down didn't happen just because of technicalities either.....
"The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface. "
With that said, as I mentioned in my previous post, there are 109 reactors operating on Russian territory. There's nothing wrong with them. All I'm saying is you people talk about Russians like we're complete idiots...and that's not right. This is the nation that sent the first satellite AND man into orbit for crying out loud.
Yeah, and Muslims invented algebra.
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Tien]
#14142995 - 03/18/11 12:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, I'm not hating on Russia necessarily, thought I'm definitely hating on the soviet system
I don't know enough about the russian use of nuclear power (russian federation or soviet system post-chernobyl) to have any opinion on them, but I'm sure they're not stupid or incompotent: they've been leaders in that field since it existed. The problem during the soviet years with nukes, like most things, was politics and appearance over substance and lack of competition or free press to provide suitable alternatives or reveal shortcomings.
Quote:
HeavyToilet said:
Quote:
iluvfungi said: Nuclear power is horrible. Give solar power the same amount of time we've had to develop nuclear power. Wow it's a billion times better. Even better would be to start researching quantum physic's for a energy source today. I have no doubt nuclear power is a fucking joke compared to gathering energy from the neutrino, which is not a neutron.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not an engineer or a scientist, and have very little knowledge about the actual amounts of energy produced through nuclear methods when compared to other methods.
PS - Yeah bro, we'll just harness the power of neutrinos! What an brilliant idea! Why haven't any scientists thought about this before?! You need to be put in a position of power so that you can tell scientists and engineers how things should be done! I mean, you must know more about energy production than those thousands of individuals who have dedicated their lives to studying and researching this topic, right?
neutrinos, brah
There, I just solved the world's energy problems.
|
amilibertine
It’s good to be back!



Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 3,241
Loc: Northern South Midwest
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14143902 - 03/18/11 03:44 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What about geothermal energy? Don't know how practical it is but it seems promising.
As far as nuclear power goes, I think it's here to stay until we find a suitable alternative to burning fossil fuels. Wind and solar power both seem like a joke for most places and cost more money to build than the return you get in terms of actual energy.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: amilibertine]
#14143989 - 03/18/11 04:04 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Geothermal is about the only one of the so called sustainable sources I can get behind. But I do not mean for large scale electricity production. I mean for individual houses to exploit for heat and AC. I don't really know why it hasn't caught on. Idiots buying Chevy Volts would be better advised to spend their money on heat and AC than buying vastly overpriced pieces of shit that no sane person would willingly drive.
--------------------
|
amilibertine
It’s good to be back!



Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 3,241
Loc: Northern South Midwest
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: zappaisgod]
#14144033 - 03/18/11 04:14 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Geothermal is about the only one of the so called sustainable sources I can get behind. But I do not mean for large scale electricity production. I mean for individual houses to exploit for heat and AC. I don't really know why it hasn't caught on. Idiots buying Chevy Volts would be better advised to spend their money on heat and AC than buying vastly overpriced pieces of shit that no sane person would willingly drive.
Yeah, I should have been more clear. I was referring to individual use. I've seen commercials here in Cincinnati for a company that will install geothermal generators for your house.
Although, I could see it being developed commercially someday in the future. There's a lot of energy to be had inside the Earth.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214] 1
#14144112 - 03/18/11 04:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What actually happened in Japan anyways? Besides from the seemingly obvious issue of building a plant which requires structural integrity to not melt down on a fault line, the news has been typically poor. From what I've heard: the plant(s) DID loose cooling, but might not have released signifigant waste and radioactive matter. This seems strange to me as it was my understanding that that type of reactor required cooling to prevent melt downs. Is this not the case? Are automatic mechanisms sufficient to put the reactor in a safe configuration during coolling loss?
They have several problems going at the same time with the owners of the plant trying to talk down the significance of the problems in opposition to what the experts are saying.
The good news is that the reactors are "shut down" thus there is no chance of a run away nuclear reaction occurring such as what happened at Chernobyl. The design of Japan's reactors is also different than Chernobyl, using water as a moderator rather than graphite, which is much safer.
The bad news is that the cooling system has failed. This causes a multitude or problems. Nuclear reactors run very hot and take a long time (months to years) to cool down without active cooling. If the fuel rods get too hot, which happens when they are not actively cooled, they will begin to burn. When they burn, they vaporize the enriched uranium, plutonium, and all of the radioactive waste that they contain. As the pressure increases, the vapor has to be vented into the atmosphere to keep the reactor containment vessel from rupturing. This is bad. Not as bad as Chernobyl, but real, real close.
The next bad news is with the spent nuclear fuel rods. When fuel rods are used up, they are too radioactively hot to handle safely. They must spend a few years (or more) at the bottom of a pool of water allowing the really nasty radioactive waste time to decompose into something a little safer. Unfortunately, in Japan, these pools are not being cooled and it is thought that the water has boiled away. Unlike the reactor, these pools are open to the air, not contained in a pressure vessel. If the water has boiled away, the spent fuel rods will heat up enough to burn, releasing all of their stored radioactive waste into the atmosphere without anything to stop them.
I expect the news from Japan to get a lot worse before it gets better. I don't think it will be Chernobyl bad, but unless they get the cooling systems restored quickly, it will be very close.
> Chernobyl was just a very unfortunate accident.
Chernobyl was not an accident. It was stupidity coupled with a really horrible reactor design. There is no excuse for using graphite as a moderator in a civilian nuclear reactor. There is no excuse for disabling all of the safety features in a live nuclear reactor to test a catastrophic failure scenario. What you call an unfortunate accident I call the consequences of unfathomable stupidity. If I put a loaded gun to somebodies head and pull the trigger to test the gun's safety mechanism, after I have disabled the gun's safety mechanism, is it an accident when I kill the person? I don't think so.
The US has also had several close calls beyond three mile island. There have been several close calls with experimental military nuclear reactors, such as Idaho Falls, etc. We also almost lost Detroit (not really a loss, I know), Chernobyl style, due to a problem with an experimental breeder reactor, the Fermi 1, in 1966. Ever wonder why the US is so opposed to breeder reactors? Once bitten, twice shy...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: amilibertine]
#14144672 - 03/18/11 06:25 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
amilibertine said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Geothermal is about the only one of the so called sustainable sources I can get behind. But I do not mean for large scale electricity production. I mean for individual houses to exploit for heat and AC. I don't really know why it hasn't caught on. Idiots buying Chevy Volts would be better advised to spend their money on heat and AC than buying vastly overpriced pieces of shit that no sane person would willingly drive.
Yeah, I should have been more clear. I was referring to individual use. I've seen commercials here in Cincinnati for a company that will install geothermal generators for your house.
Although, I could see it being developed commercially someday in the future. There's a lot of energy to be had inside the Earth.
There are ways to exploit any temperature difference for energy generation. I'm kind of disappointed that it is so poorly developed. That's what happens when you let stupid people drive research into crap like wind and solar.
--------------------
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: zappaisgod]
#14144738 - 03/18/11 06:34 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If you think it's so lucrative, why don't you sink some money into it? You're always talking about how much money you make employing dumb people. Just imagine how rich you could get by employing smart people.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#14144842 - 03/18/11 06:52 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you think it's so lucrative, why don't you sink some money into it? You're always talking about how much money you make employing dumb people. Just imagine how rich you could get by employing smart people.
It makes no sense to fight a corrupt system, as you will lose every time. As an example, a non-profit company built a wind farm to provide alternative energy to the island where I live. Our electricity costs nearly .50/kwh, compared to the .07 or so that most people pay. For more than two years, the donated wind farm, that would provide free electricity, has been sitting idle because the power company, owned by the local government, will not allow them to operate. Corruption at its best... I wonder who the oil companies are paying off... (our power plant runs on oil).
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14144942 - 03/18/11 07:10 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds more like the oil cartels are to blame than the wind/solar cartels.
My understanding of thermodynamics tells me that wind and solar are just more feasible than temperature-differential based energy technology for science reasons rather than anything teh gubbamint is doing.
Not that there aren't some good ones, such as Stirling Solar in Arizona. Ultimately, though, any heat-to-work system is going to be limited by Carnot efficiency, which is a theoretical maximum of 50%, less in practice, of course.
Wind and solar just have a much higher theoretical maximum efficiency since wind and photons are both kinds of work, not heat.
I think.
Photons are organized kinetic energy, whereas heat is much less organized. Or some thang.
And then exergy, something, something...
This is where my one college class level of understanding of thermodynamics begins to fail me.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#14145019 - 03/18/11 07:24 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Hrrrrmm...
This link says photovoltaics are still subject to Carnot efficiency.
Quote:
The thermodynamic limits of the Carnot efficiency are still present in a photovoltaic device but because of the large difference in temperature between the surface of the earth and the surface of the sun, the Carnot efficiency is >90%.
That's 90% of 50% total efficiency, so 45% efficiency, basically.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#14147881 - 03/19/11 10:51 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Baby_Hitler said: If you think it's so lucrative, why don't you sink some money into it? You're always talking about how much money you make employing dumb people. Just imagine how rich you could get by employing smart people.

The only money I'm going to sink into it is using it on a house I build if I think there is a market for it. My company isn't a charitable organization. It is a profit making venture for me. When have I ever talked about making money from dumb people? I don't. I fire dumb people. And lazy people and worthless junkie fucks as soon as I identify them.
--------------------
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14157085 - 03/20/11 11:24 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
{Warning this video not for people who have a hard time understanding physics}
There is actually a realistic possibility of using some of the quantum tunnelling effects outlined in this video (notably the one used in deep water photosynthesis) to extract resources. In fact even passively like genetically engineering these organisms to pack to produce 70%ish of their biomass (what they have currently for them) as oil and using it for algal bio-diesel in photobioreactors.
I believe if he in fact knows what he is talking about he's suggesting synthesizing a process like this. A process like this could revolutionize solar energy.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
iluvfungi



Registered: 06/17/09
Posts: 1,488
Loc: Oakland, CA USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14158548 - 03/21/11 09:52 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I don't think it's a good idea to build outdated designs on extremely active fault zones. And the Russians probably shouldn't build any.
Basically my feelings as well. The concerning accidents of any import are generally completely idiotic: see the soviet disasters. With private enterprise running the show and sufficiently liable, I don't see there's a big problem with nuclear power.
People I respect feel differently and are quite concerned with the waste issue, but I honestly never understood why that was really that difficult, but maybe I don't know enough to be aware of the problems. Seems like as long as you have a decent space you can store the waste there without much need for cooling, right? Isn't the cooling requirement tied to relatively dense storage plans?
What actually happened in Japan anyways? Besides from the seemingly obvious issue of building a plant which requires structural integrity to not melt down on a fault line, the news has been typically poor. From what I've heard: the plant(s) DID loose cooling, but might not have released signifigant waste and radioactive matter. This seems strange to me as it was my understanding that that type of reactor required cooling to prevent melt downs. Is this not the case? Are automatic mechanisms sufficient to put the reactor in a safe configuration during coolling loss?
Quote:
iluvfungi said: Nuclear power is horrible. Give solar power the same amount of time we've had to develop nuclear power.
? We have. People have been harnesing the sun forever. Its not their fault it sucks ass for most applications we need power for.
Quote:
Wow it's a billion times better. Even better would be to start researching quantum physic's for a energy source today. I have no doubt nuclear power is a fucking joke compared to gathering energy from the neutrino, which is not a neutron.
Wow, fantastic.
I don't get this naive faith in science: people who don't know wtf they're talking about but yet are nevertheless SURE that if they throw money and time at something that science will pop out some practical solution. This kind of attitude seems to be pretty irresponsible and stupid. If you don't have the answer, how can you be sure others do- especially given that they say they don't?
Seems just an appeal to ignorance: "well shucks, I don't understand how any of that technology mumbo jumbo works, but they figured it out! Its amazing! Therefore, they surely can figure out how to use 'quantum physic's' and solar power to replace nuclear and coal"

Well the device the aliens have is quite simple. We can build one just like it, I can even provide detailed plans on not only how to build the device, but how to extract neutrino's. I even posted it somewhere on this board so it was public to the world, if someone actually takes me seriously, instead of assuming I'm a retard when I'm a genius.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: iluvfungi]
#14158607 - 03/21/11 10:12 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sure there's lots of aliens down near the Cali border. What's idiotic about that? Who knew those grapepickers were so smart?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
HeavyToilet
The Heaviest OfThem All


Registered: 08/06/03
Posts: 9,458
Loc: British Columbia
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: iluvfungi] 1
#14158649 - 03/21/11 10:24 AM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iluvfungi said: Well the device the aliens have is quite simple. We can build one just like it, I can even provide detailed plans on not only how to build the device, but how to extract neutrino's. I even posted it somewhere on this board so it was public to the world, if someone actually takes me seriously, instead of assuming I'm a retard when I'm a genius.
Let me guess, this cutting edge technology which will revolutionize the world comes in a 5 minute Youtube video?
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: iluvfungi]
#14160219 - 03/21/11 04:33 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
iluvfungi said: I even posted it somewhere on this board so it was public to the world, if someone actually takes me seriously, instead of assuming I'm a retard when I'm a genius.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
jebustrist
Stranger

Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Poid]
#14163901 - 03/22/11 10:40 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
BTW used coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14164256 - 03/22/11 12:05 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jebustrist said: BTW used coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14164673 - 03/22/11 01:36 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What are you laughing at?
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14164676 - 03/22/11 01:37 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Your statement.
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14164718 - 03/22/11 01:44 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh in that case I find your self-assured ignorance hilarious.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14164738 - 03/22/11 01:49 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Do you have a source for your claim?
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Poid]
#14164821 - 03/22/11 02:05 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The way I phrased it might be considered a bit misleading, but sometimes you have to go for broke to get asses in seats! Enjoy the brilliant light of knowledge friends.
http://www.miskeptics.org/2011/03/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist] 1
#14164847 - 03/22/11 02:09 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jebustrist said: The way I phrased it might be considered a bit misleading, but sometimes you have to go for broke to get asses in seats! Enjoy the brilliant light of knowledge friends.
http://www.miskeptics.org/2011/03/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Your statement, even according to the source you linked, is totally wrong.

Edit: not just misleading, but wrong--completely wrong.
Edited by ChuangTzu (03/22/11 02:09 PM)
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14164866 - 03/22/11 02:11 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Not really, and it's quite irrelevant to the point anyway, which is that coal plants are far more of a risk to public health than nuclear before you even factor in their contribution to global warming,.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14164969 - 03/22/11 02:33 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty skeptical of any organization calling themselves a skeptic association.
Though coal power generation is a significant problem for health, the claim of the article's title is simply not true, not even remotely.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14164977 - 03/22/11 02:34 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Try reading the actual article and understanding its point. Hell you can even just read the original paper if you want to.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14165342 - 03/22/11 03:41 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No dude, the paper and the dangers of coal emissions and ash. Yet for some ridiculous reason the title declares that its more radioactive than nuclear waste (like depleted uranium) which is highly radioactive.
Without a question the emissions of nuclear power plants which have full containment are next to nothing. Older plants leak nuclear waste into water and other sources, but seldom if ever emit it into the atmosphere.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14166903 - 03/22/11 08:44 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jebustrist said: Not really
Yes, really. Any attempts at building credibility will be moot if you go around here making statements like that.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14168406 - 03/23/11 04:36 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> than nuclear waste (like depleted uranium) which is highly radioactive.
Depleted uranium isn't really considered a nuclear waste (it is called a byproduct in the industry), nor is it very radioactive (around 40% less than natural uranium). The proper terminology is 'depleted uranium is a weakly radioactive byproduct of uranium enrichment'.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14168628 - 03/23/11 07:26 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Baby_Hitler said: Sounds more like the oil cartels are to blame than the wind/solar cartels.
I'd be quite surprised if that were the case. What seuss describes sounds like the kind of nonsense only government can deliver. Any involvement of private enterprise is surely limited to enforcing ill-advised monopoly rights the government granted to them or other unjust special privledges. Since Seuss said the power comapny is government owned or backed, it fits with how those things usually go:
- a) government buys/starts enterprise of public concern, utility et cet, claims it can do better than private enterprise because "they're interested in profit, we're interested in serving the residents at the lowest possible cost",
- b) government does things like usual: being horribly inefficient and using their legislative and police powers to carve out special laws and exceptions for themselves that prevent competition and interference that private business would have had to accept.
- c)the operation runs into problems due to mismanagement, lack of competition, and political decisions, nepotism, et cet
- d) finally the operation is running way above what a private enterprise would, and almost insolvent despite receiving taxpayer assistance and charging above-average user fees (electric rates) on top of that. They would be insolvent if the wind farm opens up and takes a portion of their market, as they can barely make ends meet at full capacity, and so the government, afraid of controversy, grants some unelected board power to essentially write law from scratch and take the blame.
- e) Unelected board passes regulation preventing wind farm competition from opening up or making it unfeasible by insisting on special rules the government-ran operation doesn't have to follow/pay for. Incumbent government passes the buck to the board whose members they appointed. Board isn't elected, doesn't care. Residents continue to pay way above market value in user fees and taxes.
- The end
The end.
Seuss: How'd I do?
Quote:
My understanding of thermodynamics tells me that wind and solar are just more feasible than temperature-differential based energy technology for science reasons rather than anything teh gubbamint is doing.
Not that there aren't some good ones, such as Stirling Solar in Arizona. Ultimately, though, any heat-to-work system is going to be limited by Carnot efficiency, which is a theoretical maximum of 50%, less in practice, of course.
Wind and solar just have a much higher theoretical maximum efficiency since wind and photons are both kinds of work, not heat.
I think.
Carnott efficiency is just the theoretical maximum efficiency a heat engine operates at, i.e. the 100% efficient case for a given thermal input and output. It isn't a set percent utilization of the input, like 50% of the potential energy available, but rather a function of the energy actually extracted from the resevoir- everything less than that amount of work is waste.
Since solar, geothermal, wind, et cet extracts energy from systems it doesn't have to fuel/energize (i.e. rather than the turbine running off a coal boiler which needs to heat the water) I wouldn't imagine the amount of energy extracted or portion of carnot efficiency utilized is particularly important. I'd imagine the economic efficiency, cost per energy, and practical issues like available power and engineering concerns would be the limiting factors.
Quote:
jebustrist said: Not really, and it's quite irrelevant to the point anyway, which is that coal plants are far more of a risk to public health than nuclear before you even factor in their contribution to global warming,.
You said coal ash is more radioactive than waste nuclear fuel rods. Your link, despite its misleading title, meerly claims that coal plants contribute more radioactivity to the environment than do nuclear plants presently, and that they are more dangerous than the coal plants in terms of radioactive effects.
Obviously, these are two different things. Nuclear waste is notoriously nasty. The reputation is not unearned.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14168641 - 03/23/11 07:39 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Coal power plants emit more radiation than uranium plants, and coal mines are more dangerous than modern uranium mines. Fly ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste because of how the two are emitted, and stored, and shielded.
If you took equal masses of each, with no sheilding, and just metered their emissions? The nuclear waste would be the "winner" - but we don't mince up nuclear waste and shoot it into the atmosphere. We're somewhat...less discriminating...what it comes to coal plant byproducts.
Of course neither are statistically significant dose sources, unless you work in them all day
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
JohnnyConverse said: Fly ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste because of how the two are emitted, and stored, and shielded.
No. No. No. No. You know yourself that is wrong. Stop saying it.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
JohnnyConverse said: If you took equal masses of each, with no sheilding, and just metered their emissions? The nuclear waste would be the "winner" - but we don't mince up nuclear waste and shoot it into the atmosphere. We're somewhat...less discriminating...what it comes to coal plant byproducts.
But that's just it Americans do, have you never heard of armour piercing bullets/shells. They use depleted uranium (why I mentioned it) as an armour piercing agent. These DU rounds have likely caused more cancer and more birth defects than all the coal plants in the world.
also as I already said the article doesn't as I said measure any of the radiation emitted through water into the ground water or rivers. It only talks about airborne emissions from plants, which makes it an unfair comparison.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
thelivingfreekshow
Fuck You



Registered: 02/07/11
Posts: 2,043
Loc: Prifddinas, Gielinor
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14170440 - 03/23/11 02:18 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
WELL MAYBE IF MORONS DIDNT BUILD THE PLANTS ONLY A STONES THROW FROM A MAJOR FAULTLINE THIS WOULDNT HAPPEN!!! derp!!!!
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14170461 - 03/23/11 02:23 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: These DU rounds have likely caused more cancer and more birth defects than all the coal plants in the world.
What, prey tell, are you basing that on?
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14170795 - 03/23/11 03:20 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
mostly just the amounts of reports of cancer/birth defects in areas surrounding conflict zones that used DU, and the absence of such reports about coal plants. The reports of either are sketchy to quantify well, so that is why I used uncertain language to establish my claim.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14171345 - 03/23/11 04:57 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: mostly just the amounts of reports of cancer/birth defects in areas surrounding conflict zones that used DU, and the absence of such reports about coal plants. The reports of either are sketchy to quantify well, so that is why I used uncertain language to establish my claim.
There is no such absence of reports about the elevated cancer risks associated with breathing byproducts of coal combustion. There are hundreds of such reports. Couple that with the fact that coal has been used for much, much longer than DU has been used in weapons and your claim seems the opposite of likely.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Mchaggis]
#14171414 - 03/23/11 05:10 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mchaggis said: Well its too late to turn back now.
It blows my mind how many people are unaware of the nuclear reactors around them all the time, possibly even powering the computer you're using. Check wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States_of_America
20 minutes from my house in different directions there are 3 units in a nuclear power plant, three hydroelectric dams, and two steam (coal) plants
edit: You know, we hold back so much water with those hydroelectric dams, and it sure would cause a lot of horrible, terrible things if they broke or something, maybe we shouldn't use those either.
And come to think of it, electricity causes a lot of horrible, terrible things to happen in general. Maybe hiding naked in a cave would work?

POSSIBLY powering the computer I'm using? LOL definitely powering the computer I'm using. we have turkey power plant here in miami, next to the coast but how is THAT safer?
this is why my uncle came up with the company powermand. they had a really cool web site describing how the over cost of energy use has created a world wide energy crisis. the problem with nuclear energy being so unsafe is that it's SO much cheaper than coal or gas. sure it's WAY WAY WAY more expensive to build and create, but once installed it uses so little power you get your money back and everyone uses it.
the cheapest way to save energy is at the end user level, people use SO much energy it's not even funny, businesses use it on overlighting on huge hvacs on top of buildings and no way to actually use less power when peak hours aren't in service.
it's too bad since they were bought by makad that powermand.com isn't up anymore. now it's dreamwatts by makad energy.
still i guess this doesn't solve the issue of whether nuclear is installed or not. but if people used less energy when it wasn't absolutely necessary that it wouldn't be such a big deal to put more and more power plants in areas, if demographics showed that certain areas didn't require as much energy.
then again though, at peak hours i guess all the energy is necessary. but i mean honestly look at these pictures:
http://www.oklo.org/wp-content/images/p-earth-night.jpg
is that ABSOLUTELY necessary? to use that much light? i'm sure a lot of energy could be cut down if there was such a way to utilize cutting energy easily and affordably. such as what powermand does, which is installed for the end user, and you can cut of power or create overrides to use less power through the internet for 100,000 square feet buildings or larger. it's really load balancing. but it makes a HUGE difference, maybe not for a household user, but for a large business owner, that uses more power than ever necessary because they don't want to dim lights when it isn't peak hours etc. because he isn't there to do so and can't create over rides
that type of stuff is actually really expensive for a business owner. maybe not QUITE as much for a household(although you can see the difference on your bill, that's for sure, quite a few hundred in the summer when it's hotter for your ac running), it makes a big difference for the business non the less.
idk... also remember, in the u.s. the price of electricity generally is between 5 and 15 cents per kilowatt per hour, but in countries outside the u.s. it's ridiculous, up to past even 50 cents per kilowatt per hour. insane
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
|
Quote:
thelivingfreekshow said: WELL MAYBE IF MORONS DIDNT BUILD THE PLANTS ONLY A STONES THROW FROM A MAJOR FAULTLINE THIS WOULDNT HAPPEN!!! derp!!!!

so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first..........
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14171586 - 03/23/11 05:40 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No, he's right. Nuke plants should definitely not be located near San Fran or LA or other seismically violent areas. That leaves several million square miles where it is fine. By the way, it wasn't the quake that fucked the Japs, it was the tsunami.
--------------------
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14171612 - 03/23/11 05:44 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14171925 - 03/23/11 06:45 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
imachavel said: is that ABSOLUTELY necessary? to use that much light? i'm sure a lot of energy could be cut down if there was such a way to utilize cutting energy easily and affordably. such as what powermand does, which is installed for the end user, and you can cut of power or create overrides to use less power through the internet for 100,000 square feet buildings or larger. it's really load balancing. but it makes a HUGE difference, maybe not for a household user, but for a large business owner, that uses more power than ever necessary because they don't want to dim lights when it isn't peak hours etc. because he isn't there to do so and can't create over rides
That's just it, as I mentioned about why solar's value is underrepresented, load-balancing is a huge factor. Both Tomas Friedman and George Monbiot have lamented in books the lack of load balance pricing in the sale of power, because it would decrease... well everything. Imagine if a few firms ran graveyard or pre-dawn shifts instead of daytime shifts to cut the electric bill. Not only could it cut power load but it could cut traffic and transit congestion. If people had to eat the expense of running their air conditioners during peek hours directly instead of with everyone else they would probibly have organized a more efficient way to manage their power. I sure bet it'd have people tossing solar panels up like nobody's buisness.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14171941 - 03/23/11 06:48 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14172172 - 03/23/11 07:29 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
imachavel said: is that ABSOLUTELY necessary? to use that much light? i'm sure a lot of energy could be cut down if there was such a way to utilize cutting energy easily and affordably. such as what powermand does, which is installed for the end user, and you can cut of power or create overrides to use less power through the internet for 100,000 square feet buildings or larger. it's really load balancing. but it makes a HUGE difference, maybe not for a household user, but for a large business owner, that uses more power than ever necessary because they don't want to dim lights when it isn't peak hours etc. because he isn't there to do so and can't create over rides
That's just it, as I mentioned about why solar's value is underrepresented, load-balancing is a huge factor. Both Tomas Friedman and George Monbiot have lamented in books the lack of load balance pricing in the sale of power, because it would decrease... well everything. Imagine if a few firms ran graveyard or pre-dawn shifts instead of daytime shifts to cut the electric bill. Not only could it cut power load but it could cut traffic and transit congestion. If people had to eat the expense of running their air conditioners during peek hours directly instead of with everyone else they would probibly have organized a more efficient way to manage their power. I sure bet it'd have people tossing solar panels up like nobody's buisness.
and besides they'd save a shit load of money
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14172190 - 03/23/11 07:32 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
yes of course they do. but I was wrong in the sense, that if you don't mind weighing cost to safety, it is definitely safer. but not cheap by any means. I wonder how much power your long distance phone call costs, if it's from house phone to house phone and not via cell phone. obviously the amount of power your phone uses is nothing, but to transmit that call over such a long distance, you need quite a bit of power to send that signal. probably enough to run every device in your house. well... maybe, i don't know. but I figure.
I'll bet older phone companies spend quite a bit of money on energy costs.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14174110 - 03/24/11 03:56 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: mostly just the amounts of reports of cancer/birth defects in areas surrounding conflict zones that used DU, and the absence of such reports about coal plants. The reports of either are sketchy to quantify well, so that is why I used uncertain language to establish my claim.
Do you rationally understand the sheer fucking amount of D/U it would take to give someone cancer? and the type of exposure required? DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones.
If you made a coffin out of it and slept in it (OK so...maybe it's giving a few bradley crews cancer) you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
That's part of what makes it "D"
Now it's probably giving people a shitload of heavy metal poisoning and is almost certainly a teratogen, but that's another story
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14174247 - 03/24/11 05:23 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
my point was kind of that if you're inhaling big amounts of powdered DU you're not going to live to get cancer, it's like worrying about carcinoma from a forest fire, or MRSA from the lethal injection needle
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14175118 - 03/24/11 10:59 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
Define "a lot of power". I consider them to be rather efficient compared to the other losses in the system. Currently, power lines are used to transport electricity hundreds of miles in installations all over the world.
Quote:
In the example of a line with a bulk power transmission need of 6 gigawatts (GW), about 5 percent of the electricity will be lost over a distance of 1,500 kilometers when using an 800 kilovolt (kV) DC line. The losses climb to 6 percent with a 500 kV DC link and about 7 percent with conventional 800 kV AC lines.
http://www.abb.com/cawp/db0003db002698/62a91b7a9983836ec12571f10040e2cf.aspx
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14175253 - 03/24/11 11:26 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
They consume enough power that many groups all over the world are working to design more efficient delivery systems, your uninformed opinion on the matter is really of no consequence.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: jebustrist]
#14175283 - 03/24/11 11:34 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jebustrist said: They consume enough power that many groups all over the world are working to design more efficient delivery systems, your uninformed opinion on the matter is really of no consequence.
No shit, increasing efficiency is always a good thing and is always a goal. But the fact still remains, cities like San Francisco do not need to have a power plant in their city. They can, and do, get power from distant locations which can be safer to build on. It can also be cheaper even considering the power losses for a number of reasons. I never mentioned my opinion, but thanks for your opinion on it.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14176056 - 03/24/11 02:10 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
re DU:
Iraqi doctors demand cancer probe
Quote:
Cancer rates in the province of Babil have risen almost tenfold in just three years.
In 2004, 500 cases of cancer were diagnosed there. That figure rose to almost 1,000 two years later. By 2008, the number of cases had increased sevenfold to 7,000.
OR see what else it is capible of.
I know that there is a possibility that coal cancer rates are higher because of it's long use but given all the places the US has used DU it's worth considdering that in fact my claim is correct.
--------- Re power lines: Maybe you miss what I am saying, I am not saying that people should put nuclear plants in city centres. But they will have to be near them, and near San Francisco is relatively as bad as being in it. Frankly I don't think we should be building any fucking nuke plants in the pacific ring. It has shown to generate massive nearly 10pt earthquakes (Chile was 9.5) and is not suited for nuke plants for this reason.
Also HVDC is not as easy as you make it sound, as the article you linked to says they must be under-water or under-ground. This is by no means commonly used.
Edited by ScavengerType (03/24/11 02:18 PM)
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14176543 - 03/24/11 03:25 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 2 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14176606 - 03/24/11 03:34 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
yes exactly
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ScavengerType]
#14176609 - 03/24/11 03:34 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: Also HVDC is not as easy as you make it sound, as the article you linked to says they must be under-water or under-ground. This is by no means commonly used.
No, but the quote also contained efficiencies for other types of power lines which are in common use, and do transmit power over distances of hundreds of miles. Even a 7% loss, if you're 1000 miles away from the power plant, isn't that much of a loss when you consider that the AC adapter your laptop is being powered with is dumping about 10-20% of the energy that it consumes to heat.
The point is that power plants can be, and often are, built at locations remote to the people consuming the power they produce. There is nothing radical about this.
Edit: and the article only says that a particular version of HVDC power transmission lines, called HVDC Lite, are underwater or underground. And the current prevalence is moot when discussing the building of a future power plant since the power lines connecting it to the grid will be built along with the plant.
Edited by ChuangTzu (03/24/11 03:44 PM)
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14176719 - 03/24/11 03:53 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
sounds like you loose
100's of km with less than 10% E drop /100km?
(note: what does whether power lines consume "a lot" of power have to do with anything anyways?)+Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
Why do you have to beleive that? Okay, its used in war zones and in body armor, as alleged. What does that have to do with whether it causes health problems in those people?
You invest in the same failed thinking and conclusions the other person did, begging the question.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist




Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,660
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 7 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: johnm214]
#14177217 - 03/24/11 05:11 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'll just put this here.
-------------------- This space for rent
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: imachavel]
#14180434 - 03/25/11 04:50 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
imachavel said: so where are you supposed to put it? i mean there are hundreds of major cities built across fault lines across the world, such as in california, you have san diego, l.a., san fransisco. where are they supposed to draw their power from? new mexico?
cmon dude, think first.......... 
Luckily power lines can and do efficiently transmit energy over long distances so the power plant that serves San Francisco doesn't need to be in the middle of San Francisco. California gets lots of their power from Mexico...
This is actually false power lines consume a lot of power particularly over long distances. I already outlined this earlier in the thread.
sounds like you loose
100's of km with less than 10% E drop /100km?
(note: what does whether power lines consume "a lot" of power have to do with anything anyways?)+Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
Why do you have to beleive that? Okay, its used in war zones and in body armor, as alleged. What does that have to do with whether it causes health problems in those people?
You invest in the same failed thinking and conclusions the other person did, begging the question.
haha what nation's rocking DU body armor?
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > DU isn't giving people cancer in warzones. ... you might get a significant dose off of it but significant DU emissions are confined to the alpha band
I'd be careful making such a claim. Depleted uranium is relatively safe, but there are still health issues associated with it, especially when used in war zones. You are correct, it is an alpha emitter, which means it is safe unless inhaled or ingested. Unfortunately, uranium is pyrophoric and vaporizes when used as an armor piercing munition. Inhaled or ingested alpha emitters are very nasty and are a serious cancer concern. Additionally, depleted uranium decays into thorium-234 and protactinium-234, both of which are beta emitters. A "real world sample" of DU will emit small amounts of gamma, and both beta and alpha at approximately the same rate.
> That's part of what makes it "D"
D means "depleted" and refers to the removal of the 235 isotope. It does not mean safe.
where does this guy get the idea that depleted uranium doesn't give people cancer in war zones? it's used in tank shells and in body armor, and you better believe people who've been around where those tank shells explode, and even the soldiers wearing the body armor, have experienced health problems from radiation. where did you get the idea they didn't? that shit is toxic
First off, you don't ever get the idea that something doesn't do something...that's not how facts work... The person that thinks the thing does cause the other thing needs to demonstrate that it's so.
war zones are full of toxic chemicals. As well as explosions, the enemy, etc. They are problematic environments for the human animal. It's a good supposition that du causes health problems, but if you are so dead certain it is the sole definite cause of a definite case or set of cases of cancer, please type up a paper on it and drop that shit in the mail to some journal
ps
What nation is rocking DU body armor? Cause those fuckers are hardcore. Like KISS ARMY level hardcore.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
JohnnyConverse said: First off, you don't ever get the idea that something doesn't do something...that's not how facts work... The person that thinks the thing does cause the other thing needs to demonstrate that it's so.

|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14182959 - 03/25/11 06:06 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He asked where i got the idea du doesn't cause cancer.
It's incumbent on him to prove a positive hypothetical by substantiating it its not my duty to disprove each hypothetical proactively
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
|
> He asked where i got the idea du doesn't cause cancer. > It's incumbent on him to prove a positive hypothetical by substantiating
Uh... if he asked you for a source, then he isn't trying to prove a hypothetical nor does he have anything to substantiate. Also, punctuational would make it a lot easier to understand you.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: Maybe Nuclear Power Is A Bad Idea [Re: Seuss]
#14185111 - 03/26/11 01:14 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I was on my phone. I just thought it was a funny turn of a phrase, ok? I like to think of things in terms of cause and effect, not not-cause and not-effect. Since it's not proven DU IS causing cancer in warzones, why should I have to prove it doesn't?
There's been about half a dozen studies on it. I'm sure they're all from warmongers that want to keep shooting stuff (and I respect their energy if not its direction) but they ARE out there.
http://www.onk.ns.ac.rs/Archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p251.pdf
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonprolif-sec/snl-dusand.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/du/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
iluvfungi



Registered: 06/17/09
Posts: 1,488
Loc: Oakland, CA USA
Last seen: 13 years, 6 days
|
|
Seems like the Whole World was engineered to kill people. But who knows, perhaps blasting power to the atmosphere would have had more health effects; since we could have powered the World without power plugs, if we would have gone with Tesla wave theory a hundred years ago.
|
|