FYI So Ted Cruz is running NASA. A win for anti-science!

JQQuPAf.jpg


did you know that only reactor 4 of chernobyl suffered the meltdown? the other reactors were still functioning until the late 90s with people working there every day. granted it's the ukraine but it's not like walking into the area will melt your face off. those workers will probably have a greater chance of cancer in their later years but they're not dying of radiation poisoning
 
:lol: way to downplay chernobyl. you can go to certain areas of pripyat but for the next 10-20k years that site will have to be monitored and maintained, you can get within distance of it for so long but nothing crazy. what happens when governments fall, things are forgotten about, etc... ? the future for that site is oblique as fuck. fukushima is also an ongoing problem with contaminated water being pumped into the ocean daily. how many of these incidents can we sustain?

and... there's the waste. here's the measures france is taking, which is appropriate: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 it's going to be an ongoing site and project for tens of thousands of years... it's what's needed, but it's just not practical. they really need to figure out what to do with the waste.

again, i'm not anti-nuclear, but you can't exactly brush over those incidents and the extremely long term messes they've made. if we come up with a new clean energy tomorrow, we'll still have these nuclear relics way longer than modern civilization has existed. this can't be a good thing.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Casper
yes it will have to be monitored and maintained, however you said it was "dead"

it most certainly is not

the water being pumped into the ocean daily is estimated to be raising the ambient radiation level by .01%. You get that from eating a banana.

what do you think happens when governments fall? the coal plants explode, the oil refineries catch fire, and the fracking ventures continue to create flammable water. the nuclear power stations, however, can automatically shut themselves down.

as far as the waste, the issue is certainly being addressed but at least that waste is contained instead of being pumped into the atmosphere which has a higher likelihood of killing millions of people than the nukes.
no is claiming the situation is perfect but it's still significantly better than all of the other forms of energy production we use today

I'm not brushing over the incidents but you are grossly exaggerating them to the point of scare mongering. again, if we push toward thorium reactors then many of those problems - such as waste and safety - will be dramatically improved. but it's a lot harder to convince people of that when people are saying things like "two sites on the planet are DEAD FOREVER"
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor and eileenbunny
I agree that it's not ok but it's a problem to solve. the only problem, in fact, is the lack of adherence to standards. both chernobyl and fukushima were the result of standards not being met to save money. this is why government regulation is absolutely necessary and critical to the equation
 
plot said:
I'm not anti nuclear but we can't exactly overlook the fact that in the 40 some years we've been using it, there are now two parts of earth that are completely ruined for the next like, 50,000 years. The waste storage is also probably going be a giant issue sometime in the near future.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the new technologies in nuclear since we stopped building them like 40 years ago? Some can burn waste from our super toxic, super inefficient reactors we have now. Some simply cannot go critical. Some have waste that has a half life of 100 years. Nuclear today is not your father's nuclear.
 
fly said:
Are you aware of the new technologies in nuclear since we stopped building them like 40 years ago? Some can burn waste from our super toxic, super inefficient reactors we have now. Some simply cannot go critical. Some have waste that has a half life of 100 years. Nuclear today is not your father's nuclear.
Click to expand...

Too bad we're still not building that shit though

boggles the fucking mind
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
fly said:
Are you aware of the new technologies in nuclear since we stopped building them like 40 years ago? Some can burn waste from our super toxic, super inefficient reactors we have now. Some simply cannot go critical. Some have waste that has a half life of 100 years. Nuclear today is not your father's nuclear.
Click to expand...
you mean supercritical

a nuclear reactor that doesn't go critical doesn't turn on

IW8simF.gif
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
Duke said:
Too bad we're still not building that shit though

boggles the fucking mind
Click to expand...
There isn't a single insurance company in the world that could afford to insure a nuclear plant against the potential damage it could do to the environment. That alone makes nuclear energy uncompetitive in terms of price per kilowatt hour. We've thrown in with wind and solar, and they're far more likely to pay off in the long term than nuclear is.
 
Jehannum said:
There isn't a single insurance company in the world that could afford to insure a nuclear plant against the potential damage it could do to the environment. That alone makes nuclear energy uncompetitive in terms of price per kilowatt hour. We've thrown in with wind and solar, and they're far more likely to pay off in the long term than nuclear is.
Click to expand...
All we need is to educate the mouth-breathing populace. Wind and solar are shit for energy production compared to nuclear.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
fly said:
All we need is to educate the mouth-breathing populace. Wind and solar are shit for energy production compared to nuclear.
Click to expand...
If you say so. The elements involved are incredibly toxic, not just from a radiation perspective.

To drag anecdotal evidence into this, all of my paternal family was wrapped up in the Rocky Flats disaster (including actual nuclear physicists), my grandfather was actually killed by it, and none of them are impressed by all the reddidiots running around talking about Thorium. They view it with the same kind of jaundiced eye that most thinking people view the Pickens plan for running our infrastructure on natural gas: long on marketing, short on substance.
 
Jehannum said:
If you say so. The elements involved are incredibly toxic, not just from a radiation perspective.

To drag anecdotal evidence into this, all of my paternal family was wrapped up in the Rocky Flats disaster (including actual nuclear physicists), my grandfather was actually killed by it, and none of them are impressed by all the reddidiots running around talking about Thorium. They view it with the same kind of jaundiced eye that most thinking people view the Pickens plan for running our infrastructure on natural gas: long on marketing, short on substance.
Click to expand...
So you're saying their opinion is slightly biased. I get it. I'm not candy coating it to say that there aren't risks, but the risks are MUCH less than they were 20-30 years ago. And probably much less than the risks of burning coal.
 
fly said:
So you're saying their opinion is slightly biased. I get it. I'm not candy coating it to say that there aren't risks, but the risks are MUCH less than they were 20-30 years ago. And probably much less than the risks of burning coal.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying their opinions are much more valid than yours or mine, and I thought Thorium was a good topic to talk out with them.

Dunno what kind of post-secondary education you got, but mine certainly wasn't in nuclear physics, or environmental engineering. I'm just a simple computer scientist.
 
Jehannum said:
No, I'm saying their opinions are much more valid than yours or mine, and I thought Thorium was a good topic to talk out with them.

Dunno what kind of post-secondary education you got, but mine certainly wasn't in nuclear physics, or environmental engineering. I'm just a simple computer scientist.
Click to expand...
I don't have a nuclear physics degree, but I bet all the people that designed all these new types of reactors do. If I was involved in a nuclear accident, I would have a negative emotional attachment to it as well. That doesn't mean the ideas don't have scientific merit.
 
fly said:
I don't have a nuclear physics degree, but I bet all the people that designed all these new types of reactors do. If I was involved in a nuclear accident, I would have a negative emotional attachment to it as well. That doesn't mean the ideas don't have scientific merit.
Click to expand...
So, you're a victim of marketing, then.

Look, I'm as hopeful as anyone that we might solve the energy crisis with some kind of magic bullet, but until you or I have the credentials to critique the papers and the science that propose these new types of reactors, it's all just dick wagging.
 
Jehannum said:
So, you're a victim of marketing, then.

Look, I'm as hopeful as anyone that we might solve the energy crisis with some kind of magic bullet, but until you or I have the credentials to critique the papers and the science that propose these new types of reactors, it's all just dick wagging.
Click to expand...
I like how you've retooled the, "YOU DONT HAVE KIDS, YOU DONT UNDERSTAND" argument here to make it relevant. I don't have to know how to build one, I just have to have faith in the nuclear engineers, scientists, and physicists who do know their shit that are designing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back