Hey guys I need help with a poll real quick! Can you take it? 1 question.

[DeletedUser40768]

Ofcourse a couple of miles of land. Someone bombs down a building and US govt starts mass spying on people and governments worldwide, but when it comes to power, its just couple of miles of land. (BTW land is not measured in miles, is it?)

I did respect your thoughts and ideas in your post until this ending.....

 

[DeletedUser33530]

I did respect your thoughts and ideas in your post until this ending.....

i still don't understand what he was trying to say there lol

 

[DeletedUser40768]

i still don't understand what he was trying to say there lol

lol Can't say I know for sure either, it completely threw me off. I am still in shock

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok so the poll only specified solar energy and biomass. Suddenly all these nuke junkies descend on the thread claiming that nuke power is as safe as can be. Who are you kidding? Give it up already

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Ok so the poll only specified solar energy and biomass. Suddenly all these nuke junkies descend on the thread claiming that nuke power is as safe as can be. Who are you kidding? Give it up already

Be perfectly honest. How much of what they said did you actually read?

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok so the poll only specified solar energy and biomass. Suddenly all these nuke junkies descend on the thread claiming that nuke power is as safe as can be. Who are you kidding? Give it up already

Wow... I've never looked at it this way. Thank you. Thank you for enlightening me with your endless sea of statistics and facts. I wouldn't dare arguing on these points because your arguments are simply irrefutable. You are clearly an expert on this subject matter and have done your homework. I take back everything I said in this thread because this genius of a man has changed my mind with his incredible arguing skills.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Bravo skully

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow, lot's of posts since I last checked. Some stupider than others.


I'm not sure what you're trying to proof here? Can a specific type of pesticide plant working with certain chemicals be dangerous when something goes wrong and this specific chemical leaks? Yes, absolutely.
Does this mean everything chemical is dangerous? No. Your face is chemical. The food you eat is chemical. The very fact that you are alive is a result of chemical reactions. Don't be ridiculous an say s0mething like chemical (or yes, nuclear) is dangerous because the word on itself doesn't mean anything. Methyl isocyanate gas is dangerous, nitrogen is not. They're both chemicals. It's like saying humans are dangerous because one of a million people is a murderer, it's utter nonsense.

Let me see, so what was Skullyhoofd mentioning when he said word chemical is feared, dilute H2SO4 used in high school labs?We all know what we were talking about, my face, my food, off course your stool too emmits chemical gases doesnt means am telling you to wear a gas mask while you go to excreate.

The problem is that people are confusing different kinds of nuclear 'accidents' with each other due to: Ignorance.

Not realy,protesters are protesting for legitimate reasons,you might go diplomatic and say there are also safer kinds,infact that very stance of yours justifies nuclear is dangerous, but then i will also go "protesters are lobbying mostly for stiff regulations and additional safety measures"not saying to ban it completely.So calling them all ignorant is just no right.

Eh? Did you look at your own link? Look at all those 0's in the fatalities column.

Lol,0 fatalities? what does that means,does they do a stat for how many were exposed to radiations?what does that say? Chernobyl Disaster had around 600000(i had to google that,as you guys are so much stat obsessed) people exposed to radiations, and cases of cancer etc, are still being investigated.If you don't count that as consequences of the accident, then theres no point reasoning you.


As for pebbel's, i would say when you say that death is worse than those sufferings,then you certainly dnt know what you are talking about mate.Do you have any idea how many country(govt.) pays the medical expenses of their people? You know how the death is when you have cancer and you dnt have the money to continue the treatment? Go out more mate i would say.

As for Hassan's post if you read it with a broader head, you will understand, he is just saying Stats are disillusional,you need ideal conditions for stats to be repeated,which isnt possible in most cases.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

I decline to comment on the above post as I don't want to be banned.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

As for Hassan's post if you read it with a broader head, you will understand, he is just saying Stats are disillusional,you need ideal conditions for stats to be repeated,which isnt possible in most cases.

Not sure that anyone had a problem understanding that. I think it was more the reference to 9/11 that confused most people.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let me see, so what was Skullyhoofd mentioning when he said word chemical is feared, dilute H2SO4 used in high school labs?We all know what we were talking about, my face, my food, off course your stool too emmits chemical gases doesnt means am telling you to wear a gas mask while you go to excreate.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You're either agreeing with me or I am misunderstanding you due to the language barrier. The point I'm trying to make that not everything 'chemical' is dangerous, just certain types of chemicals. The same goes for nuclear.

Not realy,protesters are protesting for legitimate reasons,you might go diplomatic and say there are also safer kinds,infact that very stance of yours justifies nuclear is dangerous,

No it doesn't. Safeness isn't an absolute state, it's a gradient. ''A'' can be safer than ''B'' with ''B'' still being very safe. Think of it like cars; A ferrari f12 is a fast car, but the Bugatti Veyron is a faster car. Doesn't mean the F12 isn't fast anymore.

but then i will also go "protesters are lobbying mostly for stiff regulations and additional safety measures"not saying to ban it completely.So calling them all ignorant is just no right.

I'm not calling every protester ignorant. I'm calling people who base their opinion on misinformation and are ignoring facts presented to them ignorant.

Lol,0 fatalities? what does that means,does they do a stat for how many were exposed to radiations?what does that say? Chernobyl Disaster had around 600000(i had to google that,as you guys are so much stat obsessed) people exposed to radiations, and cases of cancer etc, are still being investigated.If you don't count that as consequences of the accident, then theres no point reasoning you.

I'm not saying there have been 0 fatalities total, just that a high number of the fatalities cells in the link said 0. Chernobyl was a disaster and while only killing 41 people directly the radiation will likely kill a few thousand over the course of the coming decades, yet the fact remains that this number is still orders of magnitude smaller than deaths caused by other power plants, most notably fossil fuel-based ones.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

I would once again like to refer to Skully's post for truth.

 

[DeletedUser]

...
I'm not saying there have been 0 fatalities total, just that a high number of the fatalities cells in the link said 0. Chernobyl was a disaster and while only killing 41 people directly the radiation will likely kill a few thousand over the course of the coming decades, yet the fact remains that this number is still orders of magnitude smaller than deaths caused by other power plants, most notably fossil fuel-based ones.

I am not saying, I am not saying, I am not saying.......

Both you and a pebble have been have focussed on the safety record of nuclear Power to the exclusion of all other forms of power (with exception of fossil fuels). You have not attempted to comment on the two other forms of resource considered in this poll whatsoever and your arguments for the safety record have consisted largely on misusing data presented by others. In addition a pebble present a specious argument on anti nuclear as somehow being anti evolutionary ????

Let us look at the safety of Nuclear Power from a different perspective to comparing it with a fast car. Let us look at the record vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack

Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns:

• In September 1980, Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq in Operation Scorch Sword.
• In June 1981, an Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility in Operation Opera
• Between 1984 and 1987, Iraq bombed Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant six times.
• On 8 January 1982 Umkhonto we Sizwe, the amrmed wing of the ANC, attacked South Africa's Koeberg nuckear power plant while it was still under construction
• In 1991, the U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot plant facility in Iraq
• In 1991 Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona nuclear power plant
• In Septemeber 2007, Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.

No other power source attracts this kind of strategic military attention leading to incidents that can have a disastrous miliatary consequences for entire nations and potentially the planet.

 

[DeletedUser]

They will exist at some point in time, sure. However they don't at the moment.

Like I said in my previous post, an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor are not the same thing. They are different technologies. Therefore this comparison is erroneous.
Think of it like coal and diamonds. They're both made up from the same element, carbon, yet a coal plant can't use diamonds instead of coal. An atomic bomb needs a special kind of uranium which needs to be prepared specifically for the bomb. Feel free to PM me if you want to know more.



Ignoring the fact that you are grossly overestimating the damage a nuclear plant can do, making decisions based on small probabilities makes no sense. Why don't you move out of the US before the Yellowstone supervulcano erupts? Why ever go outside if there's a chance you'll be hit by a car?
Also, I would argue that the coal plant would do more damage with its CO2 emission.


I think, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that you (and many others) are afraid of something you do not understand. Nuclear has become a word like chemical which has a negative connotation because of ignorance. Nuclear only means it has something to do with the nuclei of atoms. There are many types of nuclear reactors.
I assume you did not look thorium reactors which I mentioned in my last post as thorium has none of the 'dangers' you mentioned. Thorium reactors cannot melt down. There are no 'thorium bombs'. They can explode as much as a coal plant, alloy factory or a enormous walmart can. What would you have against a thorium reactor?

I stand neutral after your correction on my error in thinking nuclear energy technology could relate to that of nuclear warfare.

I'll admit that if it has no relations to nuclear warfare, I cannot make an appropriate argument against it. However, do not make the assumption that I am afraid of something I do not know. Rather, realize that I am familiar with tragic nuclear incidents and that has tarnished all nuclear technologies in my eyes.

But since I am unfamiliar with nuclear technologies, to restate, can you tell me with 100% certainty that nuclear energy, in no way, is used in nuclear warfare?

Also, making decisions on small probabilities is always important. Let's say you just got yourself a brand new rifle and you thought, "gee jolly, since I live in the country what are the chances of me hitting someone if I shoot up in the air?" The probability was low, and yet here we are with the story of 'The Swallowing Stone'. Add in all the factors of that story and it would seem highly unlikely you'd hit anyone but it happened. Now I'm sure nuclear incidents have an even lower probability, but to have a motto, "What does it matter if the chances are low?" is a very dangerous motto. Also, it is dangerous going outside as the probability of a car related accident is fairly decent. But we do so because we generally have to in order to get things done. We don't have to have nuclear power plants. As for Yellowstone, I'll wait until 'their' prediction draws near to head out. (Don't really have an argument for that one but can't win them all XD)

Now I'll admit I got lazy and didn't wait to read all the other posts before posting this so if I missed anything of relevance to my post, just point it out.

Also above Skully, you say that not everything 'chemical' is dangerous including nuclear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some nuclear things, unprotected, emit radiation of some sort? If so I wouldn't say it isn't dangerous. (I say all these things but I worship you Skully XD)

 

[DeletedUser40768]

You know what I just realized, as great as this debate is, a nuclear powered stadium is just not realistic. Think about it, a normal sports stadium costs hundreds of millions, and now in days can even exceed 1 billion dollars. Now that is without any special energy source. With nuclear power, if would easily cost billions more in taxpayer dollars from the city. To use that much money on a stadium that isn't even used daily would be a waste of money for the city and the state (or country I guess if it isn't in the US).

 

[DeletedUser46838]

I think a Joseph Nieves Powered Stadium is the best

Because:

• Power Efficient
• Virtually Free
• Plenty in abundance
• Easy replaceable
• does not produce greenhouse gases

Jokes aside though, I agree with Joseph because even though Nuclear Power is safe and what not, it's expensive. I ll rather use solar energy and at night use artificial sunlight on my solar panels.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

I think a Joseph Nieves Powered Stadium is the best

Because:

• Power Efficient
• Virtually Free
• Plenty in abundance
• Easy replaceable
• does not produce greenhouse gases

Jokes aside though, I agree with Joseph because even though Nuclear Power is safe and what not, it's expensive. I ll rather use solar energy and at night use artificial sunlight on my solar panels.

I agree with the list other than easily replaceable, not sure what that is supposed to mean Oh and also stadiums are constantly being demolished and replaced by new ones after just 20-30 years now, as they apparently become too expensive to renovate and become outdated fast it seems

 

[DeletedUser46838]

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Jokes aside though, I agree with Joseph because even though Nuclear Power is safe and what not, it's expensive. I ll rather use solar energy and at night use artificial sunlight on my solar panels.

artificial sunlight would take power and you wouldn't even be getting all that power back.

 

[DeletedUser]

Both you and a pebble have been have focussed on the safety record of nuclear Power to the exclusion of all other forms of power (with exception of fossil fuels). You have not attempted to comment on the two other forms of resource considered in this poll whatsoever and your arguments for the safety record have consisted largely on misusing data presented by others.

True.. This thread has turned into a debate on nuclear power, so of course I didn't really focus on the options from the poll. Did this thread venture off-topic? Yeah, but honestly it's like the only active thread in OT that isn't a game so I doubt anyone really cares we went off-topic.

How are we misusing data? I'm just presenting statistics.

Let us look at the safety of Nuclear Power from a different perspective to comparing it with a fast car. Let us look at the record vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack

Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conflict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns:

• In September 1980, Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq in Operation Scorch Sword.
• In June 1981, an Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear research facility in Operation Opera
• Between 1984 and 1987, Iraq bombed Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant six times.
• On 8 January 1982 Umkhonto we Sizwe, the amrmed wing of the ANC, attacked South Africa's Koeberg nuckear power plant while it was still under construction
• In 1991, the U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot plant facility in Iraq
• In 1991 Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israel's Dimona nuclear power plant
• In Septemeber 2007, Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.

No other power source attracts this kind of strategic military attention leading to incidents that can have a disastrous miliatary consequences for entire nations and potentially the planet.

Firstly, I didn't compare nuclear energy to cars, I used that analogy to show that safeness is a gradient and not a state.

Secondly, you're right. They are vulnerable to attacks, but so is every utility facility, strategic building or place with high population density. I personally don't think that decisions should be made based on the possibility of military attacks, especially in first-world countries where war will never happen in the foreseeable future on their own soil.

I stand neutral after your correction on my error in thinking nuclear energy technology could relate to that of nuclear warfare.

I'll admit that if it has no relations to nuclear warfare, I cannot make an appropriate argument against it. However, do not make the assumption that I am afraid of something I do not know. Rather, realize that I am familiar with tragic nuclear incidents and that has tarnished all nuclear technologies in my eyes.

But since I am unfamiliar with nuclear technologies, to restate, can you tell me with 100% certainty that nuclear energy, in no way, is used in nuclear warfare?

Don't get me wrong, the technologies are definitely related. Nuclear power exists solely because of the invention of atomic weapons.
What I was trying to say is that a nuclear power plant can in no way explode like an atomic bomb can. It uses a different (wrong even) kind of uranium and is simply radically different in design. Atomic bombs were designed to explode, nuclear power plants are designed to not explode.
Nuclear energy is also used in warfare as many submarines are powered by nuclear energy. But no, the power producing nuclear power cores cannot be used as a weapon.

Also, making decisions on small probabilities is always important. Let's say you just got yourself a brand new rifle and you thought, "gee jolly, since I live in the country what are the chances of me hitting someone if I shoot up in the air?" The probability was low, and yet here we are with the story of 'The Swallowing Stone'. Add in all the factors of that story and it would seem highly unlikely you'd hit anyone but it happened. Now I'm sure nuclear incidents have an even lower probability, but to have a motto, "What does it matter if the chances are low?" is a very dangerous motto. Also, it is dangerous going outside as the probability of a car related accident is fairly decent. But we do so because we generally have to in order to get things done. We don't have to have nuclear power plants. As for Yellowstone, I'll wait until 'their' prediction draws near to head out. (Don't really have an argument for that one but can't win them all XD)

Good point but our examples differ slightly, and you hinted at it yourself.
Shooting up a rifle in the air has no upside. You gain nothing apart from maybe 'feeling cool' so not doing it doesn't bring any drawbacks with it. Not going outside because you're afraid of being hit by a car means you can't live your life properly. Moving outside of the US because of Yellowstone means you don't get to live in your native country, which is one of the better countries in the world. And finally... not using nuclear energy means you need more fossil fuel based sources which are quite literally killing this planet at a rapid rate. You said we don't need nuclear energy and I agree to an extent, but we do need an alternative source of power. Nuclear is not ideal, but it's simply one of the best options we got at the moment.

Now I'll admit I got lazy and didn't wait to read all the other posts before posting this so if I missed anything of relevance to my post, just point it out.

Well a short summary about thorium energy: Imagine nuclear energy but without almost every downside. I genuinely think it will be the future.

Also above Skully, you say that not everything 'chemical' is dangerous including nuclear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some nuclear things, unprotected, emit radiation of some sort? If so I wouldn't say it isn't dangerous. (I say all these things but I worship you Skully XD)

True to an extent. There are 3 types of radioactive radiation. 2 of the types are not strong enough to penetrate your skin and are only dangerous when ingested, the other is quite dangerous but we know how to work with them and with proper protection they're very safe to work with. There's lots of more factors, like the fact that radiation is only really dangerous when exposed to for long periods of time and that eating a banana daily is as dangerous as some of the more radioactive elements (bananas are surprisingly radioactive ) but I don't wanna give you a physics lesson. If you really want to know just take a higher level physics class or take online classes or something

You know what I just realized, as great as this debate is, a nuclear powered stadium is just not realistic. Think about it, a normal sports stadium costs hundreds of millions, and now in days can even exceed 1 billion dollars. Now that is without any special energy source. With nuclear power, if would easily cost billions more in taxpayer dollars from the city. To use that much money on a stadium that isn't even used daily would be a waste of money for the city and the state (or country I guess if it isn't in the US).

Oh definitely, I said this from the moment pebbles suggested nuclear energy. The thread just kind of ventured off-topic into a debate on nuclear energy.

at night use artificial sunlight on my solar panels.

lol.