banner_jpg
Username/Email: Password:
Forums

Nuclear Power?

Poll
What is your opinion about Nuclear Power?
It's a great thing as it is.
We should work on it and improve it. It's the future!
I'm against it!!!
I don't like it, but have no idea what else to do instead.
I don't know what to think of it.
I don't care...
We shouldn't depend on it, we should rather... (do this or that, please explain...)
You must login to vote.

Pages (4) [ 1 2 3 4 ]  
You must be registered to post!
From User
Message Body
Post #453276 - Reply to (#453234) by Crenshinibon
Member

10:26 pm, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 263


Quote from Crenshinibon
Quote from kummel
Quote from BoxBox
Quote from kummel
Quote
Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing?

Stop this bullshit right now!

it be nice to use your first post to intro and not make rude remarks

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/17/15515 0.shtml
i don't know why i thought it was 1000.....still with 200 nukes floating out there and people are worried about North Korea and reactors....


http://fakty.ua/83921-nikakoj-propazhi-yadernyh-boegolovok-v-ukr aine-ne-bylo
inb4: cannot into russian:
The entire article of "Pravda.ru" was a big lie. I wonder, why did newsmax quoted not the officials, but some idiot from communist party of the Ukraine that have never even seen the warheads.

As for the second statement you can read the story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
Again some idiot making proofless statement that other idiots immediatly beieve.

Heres another strory that was all over the internet of how USA lost one of their warheads:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1

Quote
it was built poorly and failed

Failure was caused by humans. Reactor itself had flaws in construction (graphite rods couldn't start to work immediatly in that scheme), but that alone could never lead to disaster if personnel didn't started to experiment on reactor without working safety system.


Boxmome bullshits a lot- there's not a lot of credibility. To be fair, he's right sometimes, but usually it's just nonsense with fake sources that people are too lazy to actually read and realize that he's actually wrong, lying, or both laugh .

It's almost like being too lazy to troll properly, but it's kind of amusing so no need to pay too much attention.

Topic at hand: nuclear stuff has a dangerous element. I remember half-watching some history channel (or maybe discovery channel, something like that) program where Stephen Hawking hypothesized that it was possible that intelligent life always ends up destroying itself relatively soon after it learns basic nuclear physics. There are so many ways that things can go horribly wrong it's almost laughable.

That said, practicality is a big problem. With energy consumption levels being what they are, it's hard to flat out say "no" to nuclear power. I don't think anyone would insist that nuclear is the be all and end all solution, but as a stopgap it's too convenient for governments not to use it.


here, i will explain something.

in science theory is a changing fact, law is a proven fact, hypothesis is an "i pulled it out of my ass, lets test it"

im not saying that hypothesis are bad, but they are unproven, unduplicted claims that mean nothing until proven true.

nuclear is bad? yes, you can potentially make a bomb big enough to end all life. however, apposed to ALL OTHER FORMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, and in the FORESEEABLE (20+ years) FUTURE, the best we got.

even if wind solar and hydro had a 99% return rate, they still cant produce the kind of power necessary to sustain a country, though would stand a better chance against nuclear.

user avatar
jail bait
Member

8:16 am, Mar 13 2011
Posts: 1444


something that big must have some destined great use, right? so i think they should farther there studies and everything..

________________
oh please do click this!
The sweeter the apple, the higher the branch. The quieter the fart, the nastier the smell.
GUESS WHO??
Post #453746
Member

10:29 pm, Mar 14 2011
Posts: 25


From what I see:

55.1% support nuclear power (86 votes)
[|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_________________________]
35.8% oppose nuclear power (56 votes)
[||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||_________________________________]
8.9% remain undecided (14 votes)
[|||||||||____________________________________________.]

[Currently 156 votes]

***

Despite the crisis, I support nuclear power and believe it should be improved as any technology should. Without the nuclear technology, Japan probably would be left without power.

I am confident that the Japanese nuclear industry will take this as a valuable lesson in nuclear power plant technology, and implement all necessary changes to existing equipment once this is over. They have acted appropriately and are to be commended in their efforts in the lead-up to and during the current crisis.

As for the rest of the Japanese population, my heart, thoughts and prayers goes out to them.

user avatar
Member

8:22 pm, Mar 17 2011
Posts: 707


I think of nuclear power as a necessary evil. Wind and solar are not enough. Other options are non-renewable... unless someone comes up with some easily made gas or something.

Pages (4) [ 1 2 3 4 ]  
You must be registered to post!