Originally posted by srussell0018
Accidents happen, disasters happen, etc. People learn from them and move forward. Look at the city of New Orleans. It actually lies below sea level, and is in an area prone to hurricanes. That doesn't mean that nobody should ever live in New Orleans due to the risk.
This disaster is horrible, and we can all agree on that, but to say that it should lead other countries' nuclear programs to do anything but learn from it and move forward would be a mistake.
+10000000
And this may have been the first decent post you've done..
Did you just get laid??
lol...
Euphorica
didnt look to see if this has been posted...worth the repost anyways..lol
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
"volatile" cannot be used in that context as it's a word that describes finances not disasters.
"A combination of an incredibly powerful earthquake and an abnormally large tsunami is a freak occurrence in my book."
No it's not, we're talking about Japan right? a country that invented the word tsunami and has had more tsunami's than any other country in the world.
In terms of nuclear energy and abandoning it. No one says to abandon it immediately, that is impossible. What i suggested was to slowly start investing and looking into alternative means of energy that are less harmful and potentially deadly.
Accident do happen but you don't understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents. In a case with New Orleans even though many died unfortunately we can go back there and rebuild. If there is a nuclear disaster you cannot do anything about it, you have to abandon the region completely or you may die. Plutonium for example that is used in many plants has a half-life of 200 years and if released in atmosphere accidentally is deadly.
The main concern with nuclear disasters is that they don't affect just that one region, overtime is spreads to multiple countries and eventually affects everyone depending on the scale of the disaster.
Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances.
While I do agree that other forms of alternative energy should be explored, nothing that we've even theorized so far could even come close to producing the amount of energy that a nuclear reactor does.
I do understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents, but you're using a lot of ifs in your last paragraph. The negatives for nuclear energy is the potential of harm, not the imminent threat of harm. With proper containment practices, much like your country's own CANDU system, a meltdown is virtually impossible, which brings me back to my previous point that the only thing that this terrible tragedy should lead to is nuclear programs learning from mistakes (whether they be in the design of the reactor, public policy regarding accidents, containment, or anything else).
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by VDub
+10000000
And this may have been the first decent post you've done..
Did you just get laid??
lol...
Yes. Your mom is a freak :p
geroin
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances.
While I do agree that other forms of alternative energy should be explored, nothing that we've even theorized so far could even come close to producing the amount of energy that a nuclear reactor does.
I do understand the difference between reversible and irreversible accidents, but you're using a lot of ifs in your last paragraph. The negatives for nuclear energy is the potential of harm, not the imminent threat of harm. With proper containment practices, much like your country's own CANDU system, a meltdown is virtually impossible, which brings me back to my previous point that the only thing that this terrible tragedy should lead to is nuclear programs learning from mistakes (whether they be in the design of the reactor, public policy regarding accidents, containment, or anything else).
"Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances."
yes it does have many meanings but if you're using it as a "risk measurement" (ie. volatile region) it is wrong.
There are tons of other ways to produce alternative fuel/energy. In fact the only reason the nuclear technology/energy is still in place in many countries is because of the real nuclear attack threat. The technology that is used in power plants today resembles the military production almost to a tee, this is the reason why US is against Iran gaining access to the technology and building theirs even though it seems like they are doing it for "Energy" reasons.
Obviously i cannot say that everyone will be harmed but there is a always probability and that is enough concern for me. With so much money being invested into nuclear technology the same could be used for something else but it's not going to happen just like us using gas to drive, it's all business/money/politics.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
"Volatile was describing the region, not the disaster. Regardless it has numerous meanings, not limited to finances."
yes it does have many meanings but if you're using it as a "risk measurement" (ie. volatile region) it is wrong.
There are tons of other ways to produce alternative fuel/energy. In fact the only reason the nuclear technology/energy is still in place in many countries is because of the real nuclear attack threat. The technology that is used in power plants today resembles the military production almost to a tee, this is the reason why US is against Iran gaining access to the technology and building theirs even though it seems like they are doing it for "Energy" reasons.
Obviously i cannot say that everyone will be harmed but there is a always probability and that is enough concern for me. With so much money being invested into nuclear technology the same could be used for something else but it's not going to happen just like us using gas to drive, it's all business/money/politics.
But what alternatives are you speaking of? Wind or Solar? Ethanol? None of those are realistic alternatives to fossil fuels. They're not cost effective, with the amount of energy they produce not even coming close to the amount produced through fission. There's probability of harm with a lot of things. To me, people being afraid of nuclear disasters is like people being afraid of their plane crashing.
As for the volatile thing, if anything what I said is supporting your arguments about this disaster specifically. When I say it's a volatile region, what I meant is that the probability of damage/destruction due to earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. is high.
Shaya007
quote:
Originally posted by VDub
I do worry about the 50 engineers though...
now is there 50 in total or 50 in 50 out?
they work in shifts no?
srussell0018
The last number I heard last night was 180 that were being cycled in shifts.
Shaya007
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
The last number I heard last night was 180 that were being cycled in shifts.
makes more sense now. thanks!
geroin
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
But what alternatives are you speaking of? Wind or Solar? Ethanol? None of those are realistic alternatives to fossil fuels. They're not cost effective, with the amount of energy they produce not even coming close to the amount produced through fission. There's probability of harm with a lot of things. To me, people being afraid of nuclear disasters is like people being afraid of their plane crashing.
As for the volatile thing, if anything what I said is supporting your arguments about this disaster specifically. When I say it's a volatile region, what I meant is that the probability of damage/destruction due to earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. is high.
There are many like i said but one really good one would be Hydrogen as it could be obtained through water, although there is tons of research still being done in that field there should be more investments made to improve that technology. Or even technologies like Bloom Box but on a massive scale: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/22/...the-home-video/
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
There are many like i said but one really good one would be Hydrogen as it could be obtained through water, although there is tons of research still being done in that field there should be more investments made to improve that technology. Or even technologies like Bloom Box but on a massive scale: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/22/...the-home-video/
Hydrogen is also incredibly combustible. I'm not saying you're wrong and it's not a viable resource, but I'm just trying to point out that there are risks and dangers with pretty much anything. Why not spend that money to improve on an already useful and relatively environmentally friendly technology.
Ideally fusion would be the way to go, but I think that's a long way from being realistic.
geroin
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Hydrogen is also incredibly combustible. I'm not saying you're wrong and it's not a viable resource, but I'm just trying to point out that there are risks and dangers with pretty much anything. Why not spend that money to improve on an already useful and relatively environmentally friendly technology.
Ideally fusion would be the way to go, but I think that's a long way from being realistic.
check this out and decide for yourself:
PS. yes it is combustive, that's the reason we use it as gas/fuel/energy lol
the reason i used these 2 examples as they are least damaging to the environment.
