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
  • 3
chernobyl nuclear meltdown
Topic Started: Jan 13 2005, 08:44 PM (1,467 Views)
Boles Roor
("\';,,,;'/")™
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
SkItZo
January 15, 2005 01:51 PM
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:

100K is nothing.. when one blows the whole continent will suffer..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spurius
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
korn_mosher_4life
January 15, 2005 01:05 AM
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.

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.

SkItZo
 
And these nuclear power plants are located far away from residential areas (atleast 100KM away).

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Logik
Member Avatar
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. :arr:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
korn_mosher_4life-ZNS
the korn mosher 4life
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spurius
January 15, 2005 09:58 AM
SkItZo
 
And these nuclear power plants are located far away from residential areas (atleast 100KM away).

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.

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
drangonsile
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Boles Roor
January 15, 2005 08:31 AM
100K is nothing.. when one blows the whole continent will suffer..

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
korn_mosher_4life-ZNS
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
drangonsile
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
korn_mosher_4life
January 15, 2005 08:54 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsar_of_Cows
Member Avatar
Tzimicse Antideluvian
[ *  * ]
korn_mosher_4life
January 15, 2005 08:54 PM
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.


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. :P

And:
Quote:
 
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).


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 :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
drangonsile
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tsar_of_Cows
January 16, 2005 05:41 PM
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.  ;)

:yes: :yes:
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) :no:

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)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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. :r

Quote:
 
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).

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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
drangonsile
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
PhranK
January 17, 2005 03:53 AM
Give me some money and I'll find a way to blow one up.  :rolleyes:
Whole lot of wishful thinking going on here..

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.

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. :r

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. :yes:

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
Nuclear waste is the most deadly substance created by humankind and remains deadly for tens of thousands of years. A decision to authorize a federal repository should not be made on the basis of politics or the desires of a corrupt energy lobby, but should be made on sound science and ethics. Yucca Mountain is volcanic. Evidence shows radioactivity could leak into underground aquifers at the site. This is not a safe place to store high level nuclear waste. And moving nuclear waste across the country from nuclear power plants in the east to remote Indian land in the west endangers all Americans with the threat of a nuclear accident on our highways and rails.

What is left out of the nuclear waste debate is the fact that Yucca Mountain is on Indian land; land guaranteed the Western Shoshone Nation in a treaty of peace and friendship. The mountain is sacred to the original peoples of Nevada. Approving this site for the storage of nuclear waste is illegal, immoral and a blatant example of environmental injustice.


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.. )


Quote Post Goto Top
 
drangonsile
Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
PhranK
January 18, 2005 04:46 AM
Quote:
 
Nuclear waste is the most deadly substance created by humankind and remains deadly for tens of thousands of years. A decision to authorize a federal repository should not be made on the basis of politics or the desires of a corrupt energy lobby, but should be made on sound science and ethics. Yucca Mountain is volcanic. Evidence shows radioactivity could leak into underground aquifers at the site. This is not a safe place to store high level nuclear waste. And moving nuclear waste across the country from nuclear power plants in the east to remote Indian land in the west endangers all Americans with the threat of a nuclear accident on our highways and rails.

What is left out of the nuclear waste debate is the fact that

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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:
Quote:
 
The area is criss-crossed by no fewer than 33 earthquake faults. The rock is volcanic, there are volcanic cones in the area, and the latest scientific guesswork is that there has been an eruption in the past 20,000 years

Oh, wow.. and this too:
Quote:
 
Ostensibly, Yucca Mountain was selected for its geology. But when the geological nightmare became clear, the Department of Energy said it would look only at how secure the waste containers would be. When the containers seemed unlikely to meet government standards, the Environmental Protection Agency watered down the standards.

And, goodness.. who would have thought it possible:
Quote:
 
Last year, the Department of Energy found that the law firm it had hired to help draft licences for Yucca Mountain was a lobbyist for the nuclear industry. No fewer than 14 lawyers from the firm, Winston & Strawn, had simultaneously billed the government and the Nuclear Energy Institute, the sector's chief lobbying body.


: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. :r

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.)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
desdemona
Member
[ *  * ]
korn_mosher_4life
January 15, 2005 08:54 PM
I really don't see why people would want to live that close.

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.

Quote:
 
It is a good way to get ride of weapon grade uranium.

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...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3