We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
chernobyl nuclear meltdown
Topic Started: Jan 13 2005, 08:44 PM (1,468 Views)
Boles Roor
("\';,,,;'/")™
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
countducky
January 14, 2005 09:27 PM
was that the meltdown in india 21 years ago?

No, this is in the Ukraine. In India was somethign with chemicals, no nukerses.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
If guidelines and regulations are adhered throught these other reactors, I'm sure there won't be another chernobyl accident.


Perhaps you're correct, but I doubt it.
There will be more human errors, and more design flaws discovered.
And there's bound to be terrorist attacks or something against them eventually.

But even if none of those things happen, every reactor in use today produces enough toxic material each year to poison the entire planet for tens of thousands of years.
Very stupid.
Very shortsighted, selfish, and arrogant.

But hey, it allows us to keep our lights on 24 hours a day, just in case!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
DFW333-ZNS
Member
[ * ]
Quote:
 
But even if none of those things happen, every reactor in use today produces enough toxic material each year to poison the entire planet for tens of thousands of years.


Only 10,000 years or so? That is pretty short compared to how long the toxic material from a coal power plant lasts. Lead, Zinc, various oxides (Carbon Mon and Carbon Di) Remain toxic FOREVER!!!! Which is more short sighted? Speaking of pollution, why are there never any people protesting a volcanic eruption? They realease more than 600 times the pollution in one blast than man does in a year.
Mt St Hellens blocked out the sun in Montana, all the cars and factories in LA still havent managed to equal that. When you compare man's pollutants to those that come from natural processes, we barely add 1%.

Next post removed for being completely off-topic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

My sig has nothing to do with this topic, so if you want to ramble on in support of propaganda and ignorance, do so elsewhere.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boles Roor
("\';,,,;'/")™
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
DFW333
January 15, 2005 02:33 AM
Quote:
 
But even if none of those things happen, every reactor in use today produces enough toxic material each year to poison the entire planet for tens of thousands of years.


Only 10,000 years or so? That is pretty short compared to how long the toxic material from a coal power plant lasts. Lead, Zinc, various oxides (Carbon Mon and Carbon Di) Remain toxic FOREVER!!!! Which is more short sighted? Speaking of pollution, why are there never any people protesting a volcanic eruption? They realease more than 600 times the pollution in one blast than man does in a year.
Mt St Hellens blocked out the sun in Montana, all the cars and factories in LA still havent managed to equal that. When you compare man's pollutants to those that come from natural processes, we barely add 1%.

So, what you're saying is that you'd rather destroy the planet for the next generations just so we can live our life how we want now?

That's like spending the savings for your kids school and crap like that in the casino so you can have fun?

Bah..

EDIT
ROFL @ protesting against a vulcanic erution, you can't controll stuff like that, even if you could, it wouldn't do any good would it? ROFL ROFL.. :eh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SkItZo
Support Volunteer
[ *  *  * ]
PhranK
January 14, 2005 08:23 PM
Quote:
 
If guidelines and regulations are adhered throught these other reactors, I'm sure there won't be another chernobyl accident.


Perhaps you're correct, but I doubt it.
There will be more human errors, and more design flaws discovered.
And there's bound to be terrorist attacks or something against them eventually.

I'm sure you're correct, but I was saying more of the same size as the chernobyl disaster. Now, there are stricter laws on these reactors and much better technology to battle such a problem if another would occur.

Quote:
 
But even if none of those things happen, every reactor in use today produces enough toxic material each year to poison the entire planet for tens of thousands of years.
Very stupid.
Very shortsighted, selfish, and arrogant


Hey, give these guys a break, for all we know, greenhouse effects are causing more trouble than the toxic waste of reactors. One of the reasons as to why they still try to make nuclear power plants is that they don't produce greenhouse effects and little if not any pollution in the air. Right now, the main problem is trying to get rid of the left over toxic waste as they are starting to pile up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Regarding DFW333's enlightening post:

10,000 years was an arbitrary number. :rolleyes:
And no, the resultants of burning coal do not remain toxic forever.
They don't even remain in existence forever. :rolleyes:
I'm sure a few people protest volcanoes, most realize that would be silly and useless, as volcanoes are natural and unavoidable.
And somehow, I have a feeling the 600 times figure is just a bit off, as is the 1% figure, but all that is completely irrelevant anyway.
Everyone ingests some level of fecal colaform bacteria every day, no matter how clean their environment, but they still wash their hands for the most part, and they don't take a crap on the dining room table during dinner, which is essentially what we're doing by using nuclear power plants and various other things.
By the way, not sure where you got the part about St. Helens blocking out the sun in Montana, as it didn't even block out the sun in Washington.
But, or course, that's irrelevant as well.
Fact is, if we'd been spending a fraction of the money and resources we waste (and will waste) cleaning up after stupid things like nuclear power plants on intelligent things like safe and renewable energies, we'd probably already be at a point where we could replace those stupid things.
Nuclear plants are a catastrophy waiting to happen, and every day a single one is in existence, much less in operation, is an unnecessary gamble.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
korn_mosher_4life-ZNS
the korn mosher 4life
[ *  *  *  * ]
after doing more research chernobyl was shut down, but there are plants running in ruissa that are using the same type of reactor. No matter what I've read, it says there was also faults the chernobyl reactor, as well as the other reactors made like it, that are still in use. I can post links to everything on chernobyl I have.

Also they have tested the walls built around the reactor and even if a fully loaded 747 hit it, it would not effect anything. http://www.nei.org/documents/EPRINuclearPl...Study200212.pdf (pdf file so have adobe reader installed. I also found this to be a very nice little read about nuclear power. Along with the stuff at the nei.org website, find the link about how the get rid of the waste...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

SkItZo
January 14, 2005 07:20 PM
I'm sure you're correct, but I was saying more of the same size as the chernobyl disaster. Now, there are stricter laws on these reactors and much better technology to battle such a problem if another would occur.

Laws mean next to nothing.
There were laws before, and regulations, and it mattered about as much as it does now.
And then there's still the matter of a few terrorists Bush and his ilk are effectively inviting to attack us, and nuclear plants make lovely targets, considering taking out a small handful of them could pretty much ruin the entire country.

Quote:
 
Hey, give these guys a break, for all we know, greenhouse effects are causing more trouble than the toxic waste of reactors. One of the reasons as to why they still try to make nuclear power plants is that they don't produce greenhouse effects and little if not any pollution in the air. Right now, the main problem is trying to get rid of the left over toxic waste as they are starting to pile up.


The whole thing about greenhouse gasses being a good reason for nuclear is nothing but a ruse.
Lots of things don't produce greenhouse gasses.
You might as well say shooting heroin is a reasonable method of weight control because it doesn't cause the problems that diet supplements containing ephedra do.
How about using a weight control method with no side effects?
Or better yet, how about reconsidering whether you really need to lose the weight in the first place?

Instead, we have people trying to fool us into believing nuclear is not only acceptable, but necessary, when far from either.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
korn_mosher_4life-ZNS
the korn mosher 4life
[ *  *  *  * ]
did you not read the PDF file phrank? o_O those walls are like 12 feet of iron and cement. Also Russia didn't and still doesn't have strict laws and guidelines that nuclear power plants must follow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

No, I didn't read it.
You don't need to blow a hole in a 12 foot thick wall, though I don't doubt it could be done.
You could infiltrate the plant.
You could sabotage the water intake or something.
You could take out the computer system.
You could blow up the trucks/trains or whatever carrying the hazardous waste away.
Etc.
Etc.
I'm sure if you thought about it, there's dozens of ways to do very nasty stuff because we're silly enough to have such things going on.
Not that you couldn't as easily take advantage of other silly things like oil refineries, pipelines, and tankers, or large dams, or all sorts of things, but they hold far less risk, especially long term.
Why provide any more opportunities for disaster than we need to?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
korn_mosher_4life-ZNS
the korn mosher 4life
[ *  *  *  * ]
I can't think of anyway to damage a nuckear power plant. They have built them with lots of thinking.....you don't through a power plant up like you do a house. Think of how thick 12 feet of iron and cement is. Sorry but I just don't think you could blow a hole in it.

Anyways would anyone happen to know where I could get the video Suicide Mission to Chernobyl I've looked all over the web for it and haven't been able to find it for sell anywhere. It's really starting to piss me off.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Try contacting PBS?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
korn_mosher_4life-ZNS
the korn mosher 4life
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'll try that tomorrow, after Itry going to borders and movie trading co. But I'll be glad if they have it :duff: :loth:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SkItZo
Support Volunteer
[ *  *  * ]
PhranK
January 14, 2005 09:49 PM
SkItZo
January 14, 2005 07:20 PM
I'm sure you're correct, but I was saying more of the same size as the chernobyl disaster. Now, there are stricter laws on these reactors and much better technology to battle such a problem if another would occur.

Laws mean next to nothing.
There were laws before, and regulations, and it mattered about as much as it does now.
And then there's still the matter of a few terrorists Bush and his ilk are effectively inviting to attack us, and nuclear plants make lovely targets, considering taking out a small handful of them could pretty much ruin the entire country.

Quote:
 
Hey, give these guys a break, for all we know, greenhouse effects are causing more trouble than the toxic waste of reactors. One of the reasons as to why they still try to make nuclear power plants is that they don't produce greenhouse effects and little if not any pollution in the air. Right now, the main problem is trying to get rid of the left over toxic waste as they are starting to pile up.


The whole thing about greenhouse gasses being a good reason for nuclear is nothing but a ruse.
Lots of things don't produce greenhouse gasses.
You might as well say shooting heroin is a reasonable method of weight control because it doesn't cause the problems that diet supplements containing ephedra do.
How about using a weight control method with no side effects?
Or better yet, how about reconsidering whether you really need to lose the weight in the first place?

Instead, we have people trying to fool us into believing nuclear is not only acceptable, but necessary, when far from either.

You using herion for a weight loss agent is just a totally different story. I'm talking about nuclear powerplants not producing greenhouse effects. They provide lots of power and gives out little if not no pollution in the air. Same goes for wind milled power plants, but the downside is that you need a lot of them to even compare to 1 nuclear power plant.

Plus, I'm sure the terrorists would luv to blow up a few of these, but it won't neccessarily cripple the US as they have many major powerplants. And these nuclear power plants are located far away from residential areas (atleast 100KM away). :qb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4