| 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: |
| chernobyl nuclear meltdown | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 13 2005, 08:44 PM (1,467 Views) | |
| Boles Roor | Jan 15 2005, 09:31 AM Post #31 |
|
("\';,,,;'/")™
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
100K is nothing.. when one blows the whole continent will suffer.. |
![]() |
|
| Spurius | Jan 15 2005, 10:58 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You know... you are probably person #1958290586398763 to have had their mind's warped about something like this. How many times have people predicted that something cannot be destroyed, and was later annihilated? The titanic for one example, although I don't know if that's very good. I don't think many people thought that the World Trade Centers could go down too easily either. There are ways to have these power plants destroyed, and have pernicious Uranium, plutonic, neutron ummmm... substances spreading all through the state, and further.
Ummm, there is a nuclear power plant in my area. Although my house is further than 100KM, there are houses nearer than that. And what about three mile island? There are houses closer to it than 100KM. The truth is, is that there are other ways of getting safe power. It might not provide as much, but I think lives are worth more work. I mean, there are so many, many, many rivers in everywhere. Hydroelectric. What about the sun? It's out right now! Solar. The US now has around 3 tons of nuclear waist that they're trying to dispose of. Of course no one wants it in thier state. Geniuses. I love how no one ever looks in the future, and when it finally arives, they don't know what to do. |
![]() |
|
| Logik | Jan 15 2005, 11:00 AM Post #33 |
![]()
it's not sparkly enough
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I Recommend building more wind and solar and a few hydroelectric polants, and then dump all the nuclear waste into a hole leading to the earth's mantle.
|
![]() |
|
| korn_mosher_4life-ZNS | Jan 15 2005, 03:01 PM Post #34 |
|
the korn mosher 4life
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is a nuclear power plant just 80 miles from my house. Not that far away if there was a meltdown. Solar cost alot, wind is good, but you'd need them in places where there is lots of wind. Hydro, it's good but then they'd make a dam and that would flood an ecosystem. There is actually 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=62 http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=14 |
![]() |
|
| drangonsile | Jan 15 2005, 06:38 PM Post #35 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hum, nuclear power plants are designed not to blow up... to blow up they would need the Uranium woul have to be purified to 98%+ not the regulation 4%...I know my dad buys from the Russian. And people live very close to the power plant, some live only 1 mile away. |
![]() |
|
| korn_mosher_4life-ZNS | Jan 15 2005, 09:54 PM Post #36 |
|
the korn mosher 4life
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I really don't see why people would want to live that close. Anyways, the uranium would have to be purified to 20-90% to do anything harmful. I think they would have cars that run off uranium (well uranium-235 is very hard to find maybe something other then U-235) but think I pellet (sp) has as much power as 157 gallons of gas (the pellet is about the size of your index finger tip.). Think about it. But what I'm wondering is with as many cars there are uranium wouldn't be a good idea....unless you put it in a lead container. Then what about when you have to fill your tank up...you won't just grab a pellet of uranium. Hmm. |
![]() |
|
| drangonsile | Jan 16 2005, 02:58 PM Post #37 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the uranium in plants is only 4% U235, which is still harmful, and if they put uranium in cars then they could run for years meaning it would not need to be replaced often. Ho you would fit the cooling water, is another story. |
![]() |
|
| Tsar_of_Cows | Jan 16 2005, 06:41 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Tzimicse Antideluvian
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nuclear Power plants dont give out radiation to their surroundings, so there ist anything wrong with living 1 mile from one, you wont recieve any more radiation than an average person... unless the plnt blows up ofcourse. But Nuclear power plants are actually very very safe, and them blowing up doesnt usually happen. Uranium sitting around on its own doesnt blow up. It needs to react with other things. Im sorry I cant remember exactly what right now, but I can look it up in minutes... just not at htis time of night. Chernobyl more imploded than exploded, there was no mushroom cloud or nucklear explosion on a hiroshima scale. The real problem was the radioactive particles that were spread into the atmosphere, and over the area around Chernobyl (now refered to as "The Zone" it is deserted because of the radiation levels). But I digress. And, before people get ideas, 1 pellet of uranium might have an equivilent amount of energy to 157 gallons of gas, but it is radioactive energy, not chemical energy. I.e. set 157 gallons of gas on fire and it goes "BOOM!", try and put a pelet of Uranium on fire and it sits there and does nothing. And:
Yeah... problem with that is that you cant just "blow up" a nuclear power plant. There isnt a red "Self Destruct" button, what it would take would be over-loading the reactor. Which, contrary to popular believe, does not produce a nuclear explosion, it would explode, and send radioactive particles into the air, but it wouldnt do a Hiroshima on us. So I dont think we need worry about Osama binladden fireing an AK-47 at a nucklear power plant. And finally when there is a meltdown, there is no "far enough away"... the radioactive particles would spread according to the wind, like after chernobyl, covering thousands of miles of land with radioactive particles. Yummy. ITs not worth worrying about anyhow, nuclear power plants are, by and large, very safe, and radiation doesnt do nearly as much damege as people think, we are exposed to radiation al lthe time infact. ![]() *cue nuclear physicist to come in and debunk everything I just said.. .oh well ,i made this post very late at night and not fully awake so
|
![]() |
|
| drangonsile | Jan 16 2005, 11:10 PM Post #39 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the only nuclear disaster in the US was the fault of the people...turned safty stuff of...the next shift looked at the readings and said "this can't be right this means the core is melting" And every other diaster was the fault of the people. (turning safty features off as if they worn't important) small doses of radiation isn't harmful, infact people pay big bucks to soak in radioactive pools in Navada...Which is very good for your skin and health. PS. you can't blow a plant up acording to my dad and mom who are nuclear engineers. PSS. with most meltdowns 10 milies is a far enough distance because they are so minor. The only time i know they have evacuated in the US was when they had to call that bomb squad (dumb idots trying to expose the core) |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 17 2005, 04:53 AM Post #40 |
|
Deleted User
|
Give me some money and I'll find a way to blow one up. :rolleyes: Whole lot of wishful thinking going on here.. http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/OR3142 , by the way.. ![]() And, I guess SkItZo completely missed the point of my heroin weight loss analogy. >_< My point was, we're using something far more dangerous than the alternatives, with catastrophic potential, in fact, when we probably shouldn't even need to be using some of the alternatives, if we'd only stop being such idiots and gluttons. If we'd actually stop being stupid for a minute and think about what we need and what we really want, maybe we'd realize we could cut out a lot of useless crap and behaviors and find out that not only don't we need nuclear, but we could do without the dams and coal as well. If we can't do the right thing like that and we simply have to be a selfish, consumerist society, fixated on the meaningless, with little regard for true quality of life or purpose, at least we can provide for that lifestyle using methods which don't put humanity and all other life on the planet at risk, like solar, for example, which is only expensive and still fairly inefficient because we're wasting all our money on stupid things instead of investing in the research and development of it. Whether nuclear plants put any polution into the air is really a non-issue, though I'm sure those within the reaches of the toxic cloud of Chernobyl would disagree with your assertion about the lack of air polution.
You're worried about blown up powerplants causing us to lose power? That's the least of the worries. And I doubt many of them are 100km from residential areas. Some are within a few miles, including that Trojan one I linked to, which I've sailed by many times and taken a few pictures of. |
|
|
| drangonsile | Jan 17 2005, 12:21 PM Post #41 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
you can blow one up with a bomb, but it won't be nuclear explosion. nuclear power is very safe, if they would finish yucca mt. then they waste wouldn't be sitting in the duckpond (it is a artifical one, ducks just use it) near the plant. Except for accedents no pollution goes into the air. It is a good way to get ride of weapon grade uranium. Very safe. dose not cause acid rain, only if a problem acures it dosen't let you breathe in cancer causeing toxins. Radiation won't cause you to mutate...not the ways movies show. The only mutation is with cancer were single cells mutate. :X you don't turn green. Nuclear power is the best alternative, no drawbacks (save the waste (BUSH GET YUCCA FINISHED)), the only thing that provides enogh power, unless we cover the world with solar panels, and clear windmills. I have the first mined ore from a mine in texas (Jan. 12, 1988), .25% U3O8, sitting in my room. I don't glow green. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 18 2005, 05:46 AM Post #42 |
|
Deleted User
|
http://www.greenaction.org/yuccamountain/alert042002.shtml http://www.wsdp.org/ Etc. Etc. So let's not only do something stupid and dangerous, and completely unnecessary in the first place.. let's follow that up by doing something stupid and dangerous, as well as immoral and arrogant, to get rid of the mess we make. Amazing.. People absolutely amaze and disgust me with the complete and utter contempt they show for nature, as well as the rights of minorities. ( and common sense.. ) |
|
|
| drangonsile | Jan 18 2005, 08:50 PM Post #43 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
it only stays deadly for around 10000 years not tens of thousands yucca mountian volcannic? are we talking about the same mountain. the water that radiation would infect would take so long to reach the surface it would no longer be radioactive. would you perfer the current storeage...example, i could walk to a power plant and make off with some sheilded waste, no security. The current sheilding would take more than a wreak to break. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jan 18 2005, 11:59 PM Post #44 |
|
Deleted User
|
10,000 years... 20,000 years.. 30,000 years.. 100,000 years.. 100 years.. does it matter? :rolleyes: I don't know what Yucca Mountain you're talking about, but I'm talking about this one. Ooh looky, this is interesting:
Oh, wow.. and this too:
And, goodness.. who would have thought it possible:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So, you've been around for thousands of years and fully observed the migratory habits of water in that area, have you? Otherwise, how could you be so confident that the water system won't be contaminated? I guess I'm old, but it became apparent to me long ago that nothing ever goes as planned, and if any survivors of the Titanic are still living, I'm sure they could offer some advice and opinions about Man's claims of certainty. You act as if Yucca Mountain or the status quo are the only two alternatives, just as some people argue that the only alternatives for energy production are concentrating on supposedly clean nuclear or the status quo and more greenhouse gasses. This is no where near the truth. It's simple manipulation. I'd prefer people weren't stupid enough to get us into such situations to begin with, and, failing that, that they not be stupid enough to add new layers of stupidity on top of old instead of fixing the cause of the situation, and I'd prefer that corrupt people in positions of power not be manipulative in the way they handle (or perhaps more accurately, avoid handling) the the problems they create. If you'd like something a bit more detailed, my views on the matter align fairly closely with those of the Sierra Club. (You should join! )Here's a little additional information I found while looking for those links, and thought some might find interesting. Oh, and this was amusing: http://www.bredl.org/pdf/YM-TMI25factsheet.pdf (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) (From the Nuclear Waste Watch page of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League website.) |
|
|
| desdemona | Jan 19 2005, 09:14 AM Post #45 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I just had to reply to that... I live about 25 km away from a nuclear power plant. Why? Because the swedish government decided that would be a nice spot for a plant... with 2.5 mio people living within a radius of 40 km <_< This is a map: http://home20.inet.tele.dk/desdemona/misc/barseback.png The red cross is Barsebäck, the city to the left is where I live. The capital of denmark btw... I think it would be more fair to ask why are powerplants build were people live? Or why are the build at all? Now I know that it's probably saver to live by a nuclear powerplant than walking down the street bla bla bla. But the thing is, IF there should be an accident... the consequenses would be horrifying! And no it's not supposed to happen, but it CAN happen, as history shows. (Just as american 'precision' bombs have been known to hit civilian targets and even another country that they were ment to hit (referring to the war in serbia here)) The danger of accidents is not the only problem, the nuclear waste production is another downside to nuclear power. The fact that the human race have invented several other ways to destroy the planet doesn't really convince me of the benefits of nuclear power.
uhmmmm.... weeeellll... you know, I'd argue that mankind doesn't really NEED to use nuclear weapons either. There are 2 major things that needs to be done in order to get rid of nuclear power... 1. Use less energy. Yup. And you know the oil reserves are not gonna last for ever so better start acting NOW. I'm not talking sitting around in the dark in your room, but the goverments and industry need to take this seriously... and yes, it does affect consumers also.2. Increase funding to research in alternative energy production. Imagine hop much research could be done with the money the US is spending on the war in Iraq :blink: Now these things will most likely NOT be done... As they are against the interest of big business. The interest of big business doesn't include the urge to preserve nature or even people, it includes the urge to make money and hold on to power... a bit simplified yes, but true in essense. And of course as citizens of the western world we get bought off with material goods and promises that it will last. It might last for a generation, but already now it's obvious which way the world is heading... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
8:21 PM Jul 10
|



![]](http://b1.ifrm.com/0/1/0/p601690/pipright.png)









8:21 PM Jul 10