Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/28/07 03:37 AM, Samen wrote: Power Plants, not Weapons Facilities. (more grammar)

Sorry for being a bitch, but even though I'm not a native english-speaker, i noticed something... Does "Power Plant" and "Weapons Facilities" really begin in capital letters? Just a hint: If you're going to criticize someone's grammar, double-check your own.

What Moron Doesn't No It's Bad?

At 7/30/07 04:42 PM, Emohunter360 wrote: What Moron Doesn't No It's Bad?

go to the bottom of page #4. You'll see a link to a web page with several articles on nuclear power plants.
That expert in the feild 'does not think its bad'.
And amazingly he has facts to back up what he's saying... unlike you.

At 7/28/07 06:28 AM, viceman wrote: every day the fuckin sun burns down on my head but everybody wants some waste so u dont want to build solarplants no u want some dirty nuclear plants

That sunlight you're so happy to bask in causes far more yearly deaths than nuclear energy has ever caused. That sunlight you love to bask in isn't nearly as safe as you would like to think it is.
And I haven't even factored in the pollution caused in the production of the photovoltaic cells needed to harness it. Considering the ecological damage needed to harness enough solar energy to be practical and the damage to come when the solar panels and the batteries used to store the collected solar energy become useless and need to be disposed of, solar energy seems far more expensive in terms of mortality, the environment, and economics. Currently, solar plants are

please build it in every street in america becouse if one of it melt down every american die and i dont have to talk to u anymore i go to the next thread and stay there bitches

Unlike solar collection methods, we wouldn't need to build nuclear plants every where as one in a non-residential area could generate power for the surrounding cities without threatening the lives of citizens in case of a radiation leak (though, as has already been explained int this thread, that is nearly impossible with current safety protocols)

Here's a good reason many why Nuclear energy is a bad thing:

- It would make the US less depedent on Foreign oil; we need to be on good terms with our foreign allies like the saudies and the iranians
- It would ruin the heavy anger america is feeling towards george bush and the evil oil companies due to oil costs.

At 7/30/07 06:14 PM, DrBrainTrust wrote:

At 7/28/07 06:28 AM, viceman wrote: every day the fuckin sun burns down on my head but everybody wants some waste so u dont want to build solarplants no u want some dirty nuclear plants

That sunlight you're so happy to bask in causes far more yearly deaths than nuclear energy has ever caused. That sunlight you love to bask in isn't nearly as safe as you would like to think it is.
And I haven't even factored in the pollution caused in the production of the photovoltaic cells needed to harness it. Considering the ecological damage needed to harness enough solar energy to be practical and the damage to come when the solar panels and the batteries used to store the collected solar energy become useless and need to be disposed of, solar energy seems far more expensive in terms of mortality, the environment, and economics. Currently, solar plants are

please build it in every street in america becouse if one of it melt down every american die and i dont have to talk to u anymore i go to the next thread and stay there bitches

Unlike solar collection methods, we wouldn't need to build nuclear plants every where as one in a non-residential area could generate power for the surrounding cities without threatening the lives of citizens in case of a radiation leak (though, as has already been explained int this thread, that is nearly impossible with current safety protocols)

you dont know how many people died when chernobyl was waisted

so you say that in one year the sun couses so many deaths but if you would read a bit in this forum you would rekognise that in chernobil 336000 people died dont forget about deadly births

in wich planet do u live where every year die 336000 people of sun you stupid

woops sorry wrong numbers it was 12000 people but thats enough

in one year arent 12000 people dieing on sun

At 7/31/07 07:44 AM, viceman wrote: woops sorry wrong numbers it was 12000 people but thats enough

in one year arent 12000 people dieing on sun

Ok, first of all, holy shit, 336000 and 12000 are very different numbers no matter how you cut it.

Second of all, skin cancer kills 60,000 per year, and you can bet that more than 20% of those cases are caused by the sun.

Personally i dont care,as long as the plant isnt near my house.there are goods and bads of everything.
here a list off the top of my head.

Pros:
very effecient

cons:
radiation
nucleur waste

and in my opinion the bad outweighs the good so i would choose off of that.but there are tons of other factors that i havnt placed in pro or con but off the top of my head i would say no to necleur power.unless educated otherwise.nuff said.

At 7/31/07 07:47 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/31/07 07:44 AM, viceman wrote: woops sorry wrong numbers it was 12000 people but thats enough

in one year arent 12000 people dieing on sun

Ok, first of all, holy shit, 336000 and 12000 are very different numbers no matter how you cut it.

Second of all, skin cancer kills 60,000 per year, and you can bet that more than 20% of those cases are caused by the sun.

And of course, you're making a flawed comparison, "per year" and "in one year." If we look at the rate that nuclear power has killed people, say, 15,000 people (This is an overestimate, but it makes the calculations cleaner) since nuclear reactors started generating power in 1951, you get about 268 deaths per year (Another overestimate, since nuclear power plants are becoming safer, and this includes a huge outlier), meaning that the sun is about 224 times more dangerous than nuclear power.

Not that it's relevant, since solar power has no bearing on our exposure to the sun.

At 7/23/07 01:32 AM, IndustrialEngr wrote: Lets face it, we can't rely on fossile fuels forever. One alternative source is nuclear energy. Is it good or bad?

Very very bad, if you think about it. You can't get rid of the nuclear waste and takes a large amount of money to set up. I Doubt congress will go for that idea.

At 7/31/07 11:15 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Very very bad, if you think about it. You can't get rid of the nuclear waste and takes a large amount of money to set up. I Doubt congress will go for that idea.

Uranium ore occurs naturally and is radioactive anyway

God damn, people.

At 7/31/07 11:35 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/31/07 11:15 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Very very bad, if you think about it. You can't get rid of the nuclear waste and takes a large amount of money to set up. I Doubt congress will go for that idea.

Uranium ore occurs naturally and is radioactive anyway

God damn, people.

;
Not to mention everyone is being exposed to background radiation every day.
Since I started looking more into it recently I've noticed the media likes to make a fuss & a few scientists who want to get in the news make ...claims.
But for the most part, mainstream scientists believe that the good out weighs the harm.
For example check out how much enviormental damage is done by the practice of burning coal for power.
All the nuclear fallout by mankind since the 2nd world war until today, isn't as enviormentally damageing as burning coal is for one year on this planet.
And we've been burning coal for over 100 years.

yes sorry but i corrected my mistake imediatly

There is no problem with radiation from the plants. The cores are surrounded by lead and it does a very good job at stopping radiation. When I was at a factory, they used a special xray to xray metal. They had to use a huge amount of radiation to xray it since it was metal. The door that blocked the room was plated with lead. The guy I was working with took a radiation detector and placed it right next to the door and turned the machine to full power. The radiation detector detected nothing.

Also employees get these badges that absorb radiation so the employees know how much radiation they got every year. When I looked at the chart, the average amount of radiation they absorbed was less than what you would get from standing in the sun for an hour. This shows how well we can block radiation and how safe it really is. A nuclear plant would have even tighter restrictions.

At 7/31/07 11:15 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/23/07 01:32 AM, IndustrialEngr wrote: Lets face it, we can't rely on fossile fuels forever. One alternative source is nuclear energy. Is it good or bad?

Very very bad, if you think about it. You can't get rid of the nuclear waste and takes a large amount of money to set up. I Doubt congress will go for that idea.

I'm getting quite sick of the newcomers to this thread who fail to read through the topic before posting.

Honestly, it's like were trying to teach nuclear power to a middle school special education class.

At 7/31/07 11:11 PM, AdamRice wrote:

Nuclear energy iz da goodness

<end>

At 7/31/07 07:44 AM, viceman wrote: woops sorry wrong numbers it was 12000 people but thats enough

in one year arent 12000 people dieing on sun

Alrighty, that number is way, way, way too big, and to prove it I've provided more links!! Yay! Anyway, I'm tired of this Chernobyl crap, and so I've not only provided a link to the information that is relevant to this statement, I've copied and pasted it directly since it seems some of you fail to read my posts here, or the links I've provided to validate my statements. Hopefully this will just end the issue right now, at least about Chernobyl, and so please read everything below, thank you.
________________________________________
________________________________________
_______

2005 Sept 6: The World Health Organization (WHO) [www.who.int] has just released a major study on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. The press release is Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. The gist of the report is that the effects were much smaller than what the scientific community had expected. The present estimate is 50 direct deaths among workers and fire fighters. The Soviets gave 37 as the number. Also 9 children died from thyroid cancer among 4,000 who got the disease, and this compares with a ten-years-after estimate of 4. These estimates are far lower than those given by the Ukrainian government when it was soliciting money from Russia and Western Europe. How many more people will die of cancer from Chernobyl cannot be calculated, because it is such a tiny fraction of normal cancer deaths. A calculation also depends on what theory is adopted for the effects of very low radiation doses.

A further conclusion of the report is that encouraging people to classify themselves as victims has led to a culture of dependency. However, it was not possible to disentangle the effects of Chernobyl from the much larger harmful effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Chernobyl accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, was the worst accident in the history of nuclear energy, worse than all others put together. The following factors made the accident worse than is likely to happen in other plants.

The 16 RBMK reactors, of which the Chernobyl plant was one, are built without containment shells. In other reactors, the containment shell will keep almost all radioactive material from spreading in case of an accident.
RBMK reactors were intended to produce power and also to produce plutonium for military use. This required that it be possible to remove fuel rods for reprocessing by means of a crane on top of the reactor at short intervals in order to get Pu-239 without substantial admixture of Pu-240. These facilities made the reactor too tall for a containment structure used in Western and other Soviet reactors.

The reactor had several other features which were regarded as unsafe in the Soviet Union as well as by experts from other countries. The Soviet Union never exported RBMK reactors.
Positive void coefficient If the water in the reactor boils in some spot a bubble of steam is produced. In PWR and BWR reactors, this reduces reactivity, causing the nuclear reaction to slow down. In RBMK reactors it causes the nuclear reaction to speed up.
Carbon moderator This can catch fire in case of an accident and did at Chernobyl. Western power reactors and other Russian reactors use water as a moderator.
Making an experiment with the reactor which involved disabling its safety features. This is the single main cause of the accident. The safety features would have safely shut down the reactor if they hadn't been disabled.
In order to prevent the reactor from shutting itself off from xenon poisoning, the operators pulled the control rods almost all the way out. This caused an enormous increase in the nuclear reaction to many times the reactor's normal power level. This caused a steam explosion that blew the top off the reactor, probably stopping the nuclear reaction. Then the carbon caught fire and burned for about nine days. This scattered the reactor contents and large amounts of radioactivity. 32 people died in the accident and in efforts to put out the fire. 38 more people died of acute radiation sickness in the following months. There were measurable health effects in Ukraine and Belarus.
The radioactivity spread over northern Europe caused some plants and wild animals to be more radioactive than was legal for human consumption. However, there were no identifiable illnesses outside the Soviet Union. There may be some increase in cancer but this is unlikely to be detectable, because of the large numbers of cancers from other causes.

Now then, as for the link for this bit of information is below, as with all my other posts with links.
Chernobyl disaster

If you guys want more proof, simply ask for it. Also, when you get numbers, make sure you can back them up, nothing kills an argument faster than bad data.

Ack... sorry, I forgot to post the total estimated deaths for Chernobyl, its 54 for Who, and 33 for the Soviets, and no, that isn't casualties on both sides, thats total deaths, the numbers are estimates by both sides. So at worst there are 54 less people in the world. Harsh.

At 8/7/07 06:48 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Ack... sorry, I forgot to post the total estimated deaths for Chernobyl, its 54. So at worst there are 54 less people in the world. Harsh.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. It is unreasonable to nail it down to such a specific number, as it can actually only be estimated. Also, the direct deaths should always be mentioned alongside estimates of the total; it wasn't just people dying directly.

Ukrainian Government (via CNN): 4500 total deaths (direct and expected incidental)

International Atomic Enegery Agency (UN): 50 already, 4000 more expected

I believe it is more reasonable to mention that "under 4500 people may have died from effects of the meltdown, but approximately 50 died from direct exposure or accidents." Yes, Chernobyl is grossly over-exaggerated and propagandized, but don't go too far in your statistics or you will simply drive off anyone who might have listened to you.

I do believe nuclear power is the best option we have for power generation, and I especially love some of the ingenious new designs for passive-flow nuclear plants (which are drastically cheaper, safer, and smaller, but still experimental). Some day, people will get over their irrational fear and go forward with nuclear energy. Why do we kill ourselves a little bit each day with coal, oil, and other energy forms simply because we are scared that we "might, possibly, be harmed to a small degree which has an even lower chance of killing us" from nuclear power, but we don't care about the mercury poisoning us in our air from coal power plants. Eh, that's ignorance for you.

At 7/23/07 02:08 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: It's a good thing. It's cheap, plentiful, and if you allow for reprocessing there's very little waste produced. There's no real reason not to use more nuclear.

Yes it is, a very good thing indeed. The russians built the Nuclear Power Plant at Chernobyl, and they obviously did a rather bad job of it. But more or less every country makes damn sure that everything about their wonderful and beautiful nuclear plant is working perfectly and not going to have a melt down or blow up or start spitting out mutant ninja turtles or anything. So there's not much of a reason to worry anymore, you have to be careful with fossil fuel power plants too, and they're dirtier, more expensive ((not initially of course)) and have a bit of a limited supply.

At 8/7/07 09:49 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 8/7/07 06:48 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Ack... sorry, I forgot to post the total estimated deaths for Chernobyl, its 54. So at worst there are 54 less people in the world. Harsh.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point. It is unreasonable to nail it down to such a specific number, as it can actually only be estimated. Also, the direct deaths should always be mentioned alongside estimates of the total; it wasn't just people dying directly.

Ukrainian Government (via CNN): 4500 total deaths (direct and expected incidental)

International Atomic Enegery Agency (UN): 50 already, 4000 more expected

It says there are 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, not that they expect them to die, but I get your point, it also fails to recognize that it is hard to estimate how many of those cases are from radiation exposure vs. regular environmental causes, but now I'm just splitting hairs so I'll drop it.

I believe it is more reasonable to mention that "under 4500 people may have died from effects of the meltdown, but approximately 50 died from direct exposure or accidents." Yes, Chernobyl is grossly over-exaggerated and propagandized, but don't go too far in your statistics or you will simply drive off anyone who might have listened to you.

They are not my statistics, they are WHO's, I merely copied and pasted since some of the folks here don't bother reading what is stated in links, so I cut out the middle man.

I do believe nuclear power is the best option we have for power generation, and I especially love some of the ingenious new designs for passive-flow nuclear plants (which are drastically cheaper, safer, and smaller, but still experimental). Some day, people will get over their irrational fear and go forward with nuclear energy. Why do we kill ourselves a little bit each day with coal, oil, and other energy forms simply because we are scared that we "might, possibly, be harmed to a small degree which has an even lower chance of killing us" from nuclear power, but we don't care about the mercury poisoning us in our air from coal power plants. Eh, that's ignorance for you.

I know... harsh isn't it? Well eventually they will figure it out.

At 7/31/07 07:39 AM, viceman wrote: you dont know how many people died when chernobyl was waisted

appeals to pity; everyone is usin'em!

IMO If Nuclear Power Plants Are Extreamly Safe And Won't Meltdown and we can recycle nuclear waste into fuel rods then it seems quite the energy source

-Extremely low chance of catastrophic incidents arising from power plants
-Enviromentally friendly alternative
-Highly efficient and clean. One Nuclear power plant creates equivalent/more energy than many acres of solar/wind methods.

Well, Nuclear power has obvious advantages over coal/natural gas power. It is more effiecient, does not create ozone harming wastes and is more available than non renewable substances like fossil fuels.
It has advantages over hydroelectric, solar and wind power as well. One of which is that it creates far more amounts of energy than any of the three.
There are the disadvantages of the nuclear waste and possible meltdowns. So far the meltdowns have been a rather insignificant problem aside from 3-mile island and Chernoybl.
Right now we utilize fission, or the breaking apart of the atom, uranium usually. Though many of the worlds lead scientists have created a facility over in Europe that can perform nuclear fusion. Which converts HYDROGEN, our most abundant substance really, into plasma by making the particles white hot. Then they collide and fuse, creating vast amounts of energy compared to the fission of one atom to two.
Some day, we will hopefully be able to step past our beliefs of if its good or bad, once the time comes that there is a solution to the waste and the threat of a meltdown is virtually gone.

(WARNING! PARODY ALERT!)

"Oh noeses! I are teh AuSTRian Viceman! I think that Teh SUN IS UBER 1337 and can supply us FOREVER! WITH NO HARM!!!!! And I don't have to prove any of my arguments because you idiots are all BIG MEANIES WHO SHOOT DOWN MY PATHETIC ARGUMENTS!!!!!"

And that, my friends, about sums up Viceman. But that is unrelated to this thread, so I shall get back on track. I've been looking over the entire thread, and I must say that I agree with those like EndGameOmega who see nuclear energy as the primary future source of not just America's energy, but the world's. It's clean, safe, efficient, and if we can ever master fusion, which we're close to, it will produce almost no waste at all. All-in-all, I like it!