are u for or aginast nuclear weapons/energy

although nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity, nuclear energy is still very help. it produces massive amounts of energy but a accidental mistake can lead to a huge disater.

so wat do u guys think, im really interested in opions.

p.s. despite the threats im pro nuclear energy use. its a neccesity for humanity's progression

Nuclear Power is our most efficient means of producing energy.  Until theoretical energy sources are a reality, including Fission and Fusion reactor theories, Nuclear is the way to go.  It's main opposition is environmentalists who worry about nuclear disaster, which is a verey rare occurence.  Nuclear Power Plants do NOT explode like A-bombs.  They just leave tons of waste if their is an accident, which is very rare.  Just like airplane disasters, they're not that common, but when they do occur it appears far more devastasting because of the number of casualties in a short period of time, when in reality more die from car crashes. 

Nuclear waste is also a byproduct of using Power Plants, and the US has very good companies that contain and dispose of this waste so it doesn't get into the environment and harm people.  Unfortunately, the nuclear industry is in a slump and many plants are shutting down do to unneccesary fear and misunderstanding.

Please enlighten us. How exactly are they disposing of this nuclear waste? Last time I checked, there WAS no way to safely dispose of what must be some of the deadliest substances ever, and that, in my opinion, is the biggest problem with nuclear energy.
What a great thing to have to say to your kids.
Dad: Listen up! You guys have to store our radioactive shit safely, because we lazy bitches couldn't be bothered to develop wind, solar end wave-energy.
Kids: How long should we store your radioactive shit, daddy?
Dad: Oh, a couple of ten thousand years should do the trick. You might want to write this down, you know!
Kids: You suck, Daddy!

Nuclear material comes out of the Earth.  It is mined.  Can it not go back where it came from?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  After it is used in a reactor and some of the energy is taken out of it, the sum total of radioactivity left in it is reduced by at least that amount--if anything it's less dangerous than it was before.

Of course, I don't expect the Screaming Greenies to be willing to use logic.

Screaming greenies? Good to see that only the most mature anonymous people post here.
If radioactive waste is so harmless, why then have the U.S. government decided to store most of it deep inside the Yucca Mountain repository? If it's only screaming greenies that believe it to be dangerous, then surely patriotic americans could divide the waste and keep it in their own backyards? Or could it be that harmless solid radioactive waste, if detonated with explosives, could present even a minor health hazzard?

A health hazzard aside from the actual explosion, of course.

That's propaganda, pure and simple, from extremists, environmentalist wackos, and out-and-out Luddites whose every utterance can be predicted if one assumes they are scientific illiterates whose fondest desire is to see all of First World civilization to go down into the darkness ASAP but are not yet quite willing to say so aloud.

The American educational establishment doesn't help matters by lowering standards and dumbing down the textbooks every year.  And the American newsmedia is populated almost entirely by scientific illiterates who lean politically far to the left, who therefore  believe and enthusiastically repeat as gospel whatever the screaming greenies want to spoon-feed them, whether it's about "global warming," nuclear power, the so-called "hole" in the ozone layer, or any of the other DANGERS! and CRISES! and EMERGENCIES! humanity faces today, whether it's radio waves from cell phones, genetically engineered foodstuffs, electromagnetic fields around high-tension power lines, or a glass of tap water containing three atoms of arsenic and five atoms of lead.  Unknown hazards!  SAVE THE CHILDREN!  Someone must DOOOOOOOOOO something about this!  It's URGENT!  (psst! Back to the caves, RIGHT NOW! But this time, without even fire, flint or animal skins!)

It's cheap fearmongering, pure and simple.

I wonder about the sanity of the hard-core True Believers.  These same people, if they'd been born a hundred and fifty years ago, would be wandering around the streets of major cities, unwashed and pop-eyed, ringing bells and carrying signs that said, "REPENT! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!"

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that governments find this kind of propaganda very useful.  Keep people terrified of imaginary bogeymen, and it's much easier to control them.

Back in the 1970s, Amory Lovins, the head of California's most influential "anti-nuclear group" said during a press conference, "The only physics I ever took was Ex-lax."  And he was proud of this.  He also said that scientists and engineers should not speak publicly about the issue, "because they have a vested interest."  Read that carefully and think about it--anyone who knows what he's talking about should shut up, and only people who have no idea what they're talking about have a right to speak.  That's positively Orwellian, and par for the course for the screaming greenies.

Those who have learned to think critically and examine scientific claims in a scientific context of empirical truth are not taken in, but there are fewer of us every year.

At some point while reading through anonymous' babble I realized; he may be exaggerating ever so slightly.
Nice try though.

Your surrender is noted.

No white flag has been hoisted, whitebread.
Though it's hard to tell all you anonymous guys apart, your trolling belongs in /b/. Come back when you're ready for a real discussion.

I believe that nuclear is indeed the future. It's certainly a better idea that pumping crud out of coal smoke stacks (which also contain radioactivity). Every other method of power generation out there is either ineffective or produces more wide-spread ecological damage.

Hydrogen dams kill fish and are only useful where there's a lot of water. Solar cells require sunlight and need a variety of nasties in production. Wind turbines are improving but still cannot support a community (nor do we know the impact massive farming of energy from wind will have). Coal, oil and gas are non-renewable and have their own set of problems. Tide turbines haven't been proven to any significant extent.

That said, Zoom has a point. What disposal? Do you know where most companies store their used rods? In tanks on premises. The government promised to take care of the waste decades ago, yet there still is no safe dump in the United States, and political wrangling will keep that from happening in the foreseeable future. Perhaps they should ask France for advice?

>>7's more a raving looney than most greens, BTW. Just because they may be wrong on one count does not mean they're wrong on all of them. Or would you like to gamble the future for minor gains despite an absolute loss if your gamble fails?

>>11
I meant hydro power.

You make perfect sense, and I'll also add that the irony that oil is needed for the production of most windmills and solar panels hasn't escaped me at all. There IS no perfect way to harvest energy yet.
Can the radioactive waste problem be solved, then I'd consider nuclear power a great alternative to fossile fuels.
Let's be realistic about the chance for a disaster at a nuclear plant. You have to make some terrible mistakes to create a new Tjernobyl. They messed up bad, and hopefully that wont happen again.
The problem is, that IF they mess up, the result are horrible. Look at the distance the cancer spread in Ukraine!

They're performing some interresting experiments with geothermal power on Iceland. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

This is a good link about waste disposal:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml

fusion is the future

fission leaves alot of toxic waste

The problem with fusion is that most of the energy released from a hydrogen fusion reaction is in the form of extremely energetic neutrons--and when I say "energetic," I mean they're moving at a fat fraction of lightspeed.  A hydrogen fusion reactor would rapidly turn itself and everything around it radioactive as soon as it was turned on.  Whatever cooling equipment and control circuitry you put inside it had better be very good, very idiot-proof, and very durable, because once you turn it on, you're going to have to seal up the door and stay a long, long way away.

Fission reactions generate energy mostly as heat and gamma rays, and the gamma rays are absorbed by the dense nuclei of the fuel rods themselves and re-radiated as heat.

I have read the claim that all "civilian" fusion power research is in reality research into fusion reactions to further refine nuclear weapons, but I have no idea whether it's true.  The physics of the matter do suggest strongly that nuclear fusion is inherently non-usable for generating electricity, at least without a great many innovations that people a lot more clever than I am are going to have to come up with.

At the present time, only nuclear fission is readily usable as a power source.

>>15 is a prime example of someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about... but don't.

Take a preliminary glance at publications, or even google, before posting.

>>16
I did.  Did you?

Fusion power for generating electricity has been "ten years away" for forty years.  Deuterium-tritium fusion still yields over half its energy as neutrons with energies in excess of 20 MeV, and forty years of Sunday supplement articles and grantsmanship haven't changed the laws of physics.

the laws of physics never change, our understanding of the laws of physics is what changes

but you are right about the current infeasibility of harnessed fusion

as well as the fact that all fusion research projects have always been closely followed by government organizations if not outrightly commissioned by government organizations
the inherent weaponization ability of these technologies is well known, an eye is always kept on such research

Nice diversion >>17. I was referring to this bullshit:

>A hydrogen fusion reactor would rapidly turn itself and everything around it radioactive as soon as it was turned on.  Whatever cooling equipment and control circuitry you put inside it had better be very good, very idiot-proof, and very durable, because once you turn it on, you're going to have to seal up the door and stay a long, long way away.

Please read up on the design of ITER before making blanket statements. Of course there will be radiation, but hardly as bad as you make it seem.

>>19
I repeat, what are you going to do with all the 20+ MeV neutrons from the fusion reaction?  You can't hold them in with electromagnetic fields because neutrons are not charged.  You can shield them with enough mass--which will absorb them and become radioactive.  It is, if anything, a far worse problem than with fission reactors.

http://www.iter.org/safety-waste.htm

nuclear energy also creates atomic bombs which america already has the power to destroy the entire world with, but thats beside the point. its funny to see arguing over nulcear energy when the weapon are already so deadly. what future if the world is destroyed?

I think it's funny to see a discussion of nuclear energy in /politics/ instead of /science&math/.

its good to have anonymous. they post interesting things

But you must be cautious, because Anonymous does not forgive.

Anonymous has multiple-personalities.

I hope we shall take warning from the example [of England] and crush in it's [sic] birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country.
Letter to George Logan, (November 12, 1816)


Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819)


You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
Letter to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819)


As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
Letter to William Short (Oct. 31, 1819) on his admiration of the principles of Epicurus.


Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
Letter to William Short (April 13, 1820)


My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian... I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They shew that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands... That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible... Excusing, therefore, on these considerations, those passages in the gospels which seem to bear marks of weakness in Jesus, ascribing to him what alone is consistent with the great and pure character of which the same writings furnish proofs, and to their proper authors their own trivialities and imbecilities, I think myself authorised to conclude the purity and distinction of his character, in opposition to the impostures which those authors would fix upon him; and that the postulate of my former letter is no more than is granted in all other historical works.
Letter to William Short (August 4, 1820) on his reason for composing a Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus and referring to Jesus’ biographers, the Gospel writers


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
[Of all these quotes, only in this one does the creator of this web page strongly differ in beliefs with Jefferson; the inclusion of this quote is to show (This is my opinion.) that Jefferson, in this instance of exhibiting a clear-cut dogmatism, was fallible.].
Letter to John Adams (Aug. 15, 1820)


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Autobiography (1821), in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)


The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter... But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)


All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.
Letter to Roger C. Weightman declining to attend July 4th ceremonies in Washington D.C. celebrating the 50th anniversary of Indepencence, because of his health. This was Jefferson's last letter. (June 24, 1826)


This is the fourth?
Last words (Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence)
A few accounts declare that he asked on the night of the third: "Is it the fourth?" Most accounts declare the cited words were his last, and that he died a few hours before John Adams, whose last words are recorded as having been: "Thomas.. Jefferson.. still surv.." or "Thomas Jefferson still survives."

So, back to the problem/solution at hand.  Nuclear waste is safely sealed and stored deep underground by professional personnel who know how to handle it without seriously contaminating the environment.

Unless some major catastrophe happens to break open the waste storage site and spill radioactive material everywhere, or the containers just weren't sealed properly, there isn't much that can go wrong.  Some irradiated land that has to be quarantined, some animals with birth defects that migrate to other areas and cause a wave of widespread irradiated mutant creatures that hunt and kill the human race.  All extremely rare, and extremely unlikely.

Excuse me.  I must get back to my experiments. 

YEAH ANONYMOUS, GO CREATE SOME MUTANT COWS AND HAVE THEM ANAL RAPE SOME CHIKINZ

ahem*, anyway, NUCLEAR ENERGY isn't bad. It's the human being that's bad. We shouldn't ban the nuclear shduff, we should ban human beings. They just don't learn. Stupid mammals.

THE ANONYMOUS FROM MARS SPOKE

>>27
errr wtf are u talking about ?

>>30 Various quotes on Jesus being a fraud and a delusional con artist.  But that's a topic for its own thread.

>>31

lol so how the fuk did that end up in the nuclear energy thread?
im sure he isnt a fuking retard based on his post and the research he put into it?

I'm for it. Nothing beats killing off humans when the nuclear reactors explode. Chernobyl was such a beautiful spectacle. Too bad I was too young to apprecieate it.

>>27

You did read Dan Brown, didn't you.

>>7

Again, someone reads Dan Brown.

>>Please enlighten us. How exactly are they disposing of this nuclear waste?

Smithers: Well, sir, where should we dump <this> batch [of nuclear waste]? Playground?
Burns:    No. All those bald children are arousing suspicion.

simpsons comedy hello ?

Fuggin A, it's buried in sealed containers deep in underground waste sites! 

and Nuclear Reactors don't "explode"!  They just leave nuclear fallout clouds if people FUCK UP.

YOUR REACTOR A SPLODE

LOL URANIUM SPOOGE

1) WEAPONS are ALWAYS bad. They are build with only one intention, to KILL HUMANS. Thus you might imagine that a normally sane person would be against it. Also, NW are out of date. Lack of targets to fire them at is usually the big problem with this. Of course, you could do it like the french and detonate them underwater near some tropical islands (resulting in the usual animal life with godzilla ideas) so you can still play with your toys, but its hardly the same fun. So its better to ditch em and save the money.

2) Nuclear power has always been a good source of power and i recon we are gonna need it far more than ever. As far as im concerned, they can use it as much as they want. They of course do need to constantly research better and cleaner ways to deal with the waste product (such as re-using the low radioactive parts in hospital x-ray machines and such). I recon that in time we can make nuclear powerplants very productive and clean. Our research on making efficient noncorrosive matterials that are resistant to the waste are also well underway. Thumbs-up.

>>40
Shit, I thought this rifle was for hunting intimidating and potentially dangerous animals such as squirrels and geese!

A village in Alaska (Gambell, IIRC) is considering installing a small nuclear reactor to replace their existing diesel fuel electrical generators. It's going to be the smallest nuclear reactor in North America.

jim bob

>>8

>>7 didn't even answer any questions. I hate when these guys go off on these soap-box tangents. Fuck, just give us the rebuttal already! This isn't your high school debate club!

We need to produce nuclear weapons so that we can deal with enemies who have them later. That way we don't find out when we need them the hard way. Also if we didn't have nukes we'd all be communist or french by now.

I'm for the maintenance of some kind of nuclear arsenal for national defense.  I'm against any government subsidies or government funding for nuclear energy.  If the private sector wants to handle it, let them.

nuclear weapons are retarded, don't we have enough of them to keep the entire world in a constant state of MAD by now?

nuclear energy is alright, especially with the pebble bed modulator reactors, they keep the meltdown risk at like, none. as long as it's financially durable i'm for it.

There's not much that can be done about Nuclear weapons.  We've opened pandora's box and we can't change that.  Perhaps one day, in the distant future, we'll be able to disarm the world.  But for now nukes are a problem we'll just have to deal with.  For the sake of maintaining the advantage America should really consider investing in Metal Gear, or something like it.  (ok, j/k about that last part, fags).

As far as nuclear energy, it's a necessity for the growing populations of the world.  And while America might have found places to stash away the waste products, what about the other nations using nuclear power?  How do we know they won't fuck up?

Also, why not send nuclear waste into space?  It's not like we can pollute Venus or the astroid belt.  Even if it's an expensive process, wouldn't be safer than just burrying it?

did any of you hear about the story with the bureaucracy posting instructions to making a nuclear by accident online?

>>48
People don't like the idea of attaching plutonium isotopes to 20 tons of rocket fuel. When will they ever learn?

HAI GUYS I JUST CAME UP WITH A GREAT IDEA, WHY NOT USE NUCLEAR WASTE TO PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! DID YOU KNOW THAT NUCLEAR WASTE DECAYS FASTER WHEN CONVERTED INTO NUCLEAR WARHEADS? PROBLEM SOLVED!

bump