FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
nuclear weapons (are bad)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> General View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
r000000b
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 63
Location: Staffordshire



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
(the iranaiens can just fry themselves for all i care)

Dont you think nuklear accidents are everyones problem?

Quote:
What worries me are the scores of extremely poor countries following the same technological development path as the west but lagging by about 30-40 years. Places like Nother Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran and others all have nuklear power programs up and running.


Verry true, also by building reactors they get accese to the by-products necissary to make weapons, a nice solution to the problem could be this.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

icarus wrote:
the iranaiens can just fry themselves for all i care


I remember the chernobyl accident, thousands of kilometres away and yet there are still restrictions on some UK hill farms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1071289.stm

"In the UK, restrictions have been placed on almost 400 farms - most of them in Wales - controlling the movement of sheep. Britain's Food Standards Agency (FSA) warned on Friday that the measures, which are designed to prevent contamination of other livestock and the human food chain, could continue for another 15 years at least. There was heavy rain in the days after the explosion which washed radioactive decay products - mostly caesium 137 - out of clouds and on to fields. And because of the nature of the soil in these areas, the radioactive particles, instead of getting locked up in the soil, were absorbed by plants. The sheep grazing the land ate radioactive grass."
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
limulus



Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 14



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I remember the chernobyl accident, thousands of kilometres away and yet there are still restrictions on some UK hill farms.


No kidding, I live in southern Germany and here you are still not supposed to eat mushrooms found in the wild (you can eat raised mushrooms), venison, wild boar etc. basically anything that lives in the woods since the fallout was kind of "sucked up" by the trees and these animals live off them. I have heard of experiments in the Ukraine where scientists burned a tree and got like 3-4 grams of pure Cs-137 out of it! It takes ages to decay since its half life is very long.

Anything Chernobyl see http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you forget i live on the outher side of the world so unless mexaco has a nukler reactor program that i dount know about we are protected by the 2 largest ocens on the planet

also thare is no rell reason to not let the pepple eat the sheap its just "to maintain consumer confidence in British lamb"
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
starscape junkie



Joined: 15 Jun 2003
Posts: 177
Location: The Thirteenth Colony



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuclear power is sort of a pandoras box weve gone and unlocked. It is by far one of the greatest energy sources known to man, but the risks are so large it begs the question whether we should be using it at all. Admitedly steps are being made so that its "safer", but you cant deny the raw potential for death and destruction.

And dont think that north america is safe just because weve got oceans on both sides, winds have a habit of transversing the world quite easily (mt saint helens ash in aisa as a perfect example, lets just hope the newest eruption isnt that large) Land is only 1/3 of the earth, and with increasing populations, we really cant afford to be contaminating large parts of it especailly with some radioactive half lifes at several million years. Confused

What really worries me about developing nations with nuklear programs isnt so much the weapons, but what the US is going to do about it. So far theyve invaded 2 countries in the past term, and i figure if Bush gets re-elected, it wont be the last. Maybe thats just me being biased and cynical, but i wont be surprised if it happens.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HELLO did anyone read about the pebble bead reactor which isINPOSABLEto melt down
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what your hoping for is that America can quickly develop a safe nuklear technology which it will then distribute to the rest of the world (with appropriate cuts in price to developing nations). No strings attached.

It would be nice, but somehow I doubt it is going to happen. In the meantime you have a lot of poor nations, some with nuklear weapons development plans all racing to gain an invitation to the elite nuklear super power club.

Oh dear...
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no what i am saying is china is develaping meltdown proof nukler reactors and will mass produce them and thay already have a working prototype
i am saying the rest of the world shoud follow suit

but we probably wount see them in the usa beacuse amarica is owend by the oill companys (the guys who told you nukler power was bad in the first place and the same guys who shut the cold fuision reserchers up)
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
chemmanMk2



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 3



PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although radiation definitly is deadly, the effects of a big nuke are not only the radioation. For when a nuke hits hte ground, it releases a lot of dirt into the atmosphere. Most of it falls down in the form of Fallout (yeah, Fallout like Fallout II), but the rest may stay there for a long time. This happened with a volcano once...

Anyway, when enough nukes, including clean ones, would be launched, we would have a 3-yeared nuclear winter, which would be nasty due to the fact that we couldn't grow any food, and then a nuclear desert, which would be nasty as well.

Oh, and did you know that the size of a hydrogen bomb is unlimited? The more material you add, the bigger the mushroom. Simple nuclear bombs just throw the extra radioactives away with the blast. Although one might think that the result would be building an immensly powerful nuke, no one would be able to transport it. So why the hell would someone need a huge nuke right in the center of his country?
Back to top
View user's profile
Johnh



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 160



PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuclear power can be dangerous, and it can be safe.
About Chernobyl, this is a perfect example of why it can be dangerous. Chernobyl happened because safety procedures were not followed, and many "shortcuts" were taken to cut costs. For example, Chernobyl was only using 6 or 7 control rods, where safety procedures required at least 30. Another thing: the emergency cooldown system was shut off when this happened, and there was extremely poor communication throughout the plant.

So, nuclear power can be very very safe (safer than more conventional power). Unfortunately, here in America, companies don't really care about safety so long as they get money (Remember Firestone refusing to recall faulty tires because it would be too expensive?). So I doubt that a commercial power plant would properly adhere to safety procedures that would make nuclear power safe. I MIGHT trust a government controlled nuclear power plant.

Anyways, any and all power solutions are dangerous to some degree. Fossil Fuels could leak, catch fire, or explode (unless proper safety procedures are followed). It's just much easier, and much cheaper, to follow these safety regulations.

[EDIT:]
Source cited:
http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/
[/EDIT:]
[EDIT2:]
fixed some spelling
[/EDIT2:}


Last edited by Johnh on Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile
sabin-x



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 10
Location: IL, USA



PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*crosses fingers for a global nuclear war*
*goes back to playing fallout*

-sX
Back to top
View user's profile AIM Address
HunterXI



Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 476
Location: Playing like there is no tomorrow.



PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meh, I think, as suggested by Angels and Demons, that Antimatter is the energy of the future. If we can learn to properly contain it without mishap (and keep it out of the hands of terrorists), it could very well be the power of the future. You can produce infinite of it (no need to mine ever-shrinking amounts), it produces power at 100% efficiency (NF is 1.5%), no waste left to deal with, no radiation (you can be near it, so long as there's a barrier between you and it Smile ), no fallout, etc. At the very least, if an Antimatter reactor does redline, the area will be inhabitable pretty much right after the blast, except for that dirt thing, I guess...
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you know how hard it is to get anti matter
its the moast expensive substince on the planet
and it takes mounths to make a tiny fraction of a gram

fuision and fishion are more efichint
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hydrogen fuel cells could service a lot of our energy needs, in particular the old car. Fuel cells exist already, just not enough demand to mass produce them really cheap. They last about 10years and (usually) need hydrogen and oxygen as fuel, they then generate electricity and water. You don't need to go anywhere to get your fuel as we already have working generators, again they just need mass producing to get the price down. Stick it in the back of the garage and leave it plugged in over night and filled up with tap water, next morning your fuel cell is ready to go.

The real trick to keeping this a clean process is to ensure high cost, high maintenance technologies like wind generators and hydroelectrics are used to supply both our homes and the factories producing and refurbishing the cells. If you get all that in place then you have zero pollution and infinite renewability. Alternatively we could still use dirty power stations as our source of supply and still get the benefit of super cheap non-polluting motoring.

Motoring is already cheap I hear you say - well it is in the US but here in the UK petrol costs a fortune and those prices are on the way to the US soon. It might also be a good idea just to stop sending $5billion a day in to the middle east to pay for the petrol (which results in destabilizing the whole region) and make the war on terror (i.e. I want my oil) go away.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

but you power to get hydrogen and you get power you burn coall which is a problem but
pebble bead reactors actuly make hydrogen i am not lieing searously
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group