• The Dalai Lama is Pro-Nuclear
    35 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Contag;33279458] Depleted uranium isn't dangerous because it's slightly radioactive, it's dangerous because it's fucking heavy [/QUOTE] The spent fuel rods the fission reactors use are actually more dangerous than the unused ones. This is because the uranium emits alpha particles before it is used (which cannot pass through the can), and afterwards emits gamma (and beta, I believe) which can pass straight through the fuel can. So, it's not just slightly radiactive. Infact after it is used it is kept in cooling ponds for about a year before being carefully transported and kept in deep trenches. In the UK it's actually processed and kept in a place called Sellafield, I think. Sucks to live there, I guess. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] Oh yeah it is Sellafield: [url]http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/summaries/england.cfm[/url]
Well, I'm all for nuclear power and all, but I love how when it's coming from this autocrat it's a-ok, but when it's spouted by Ahmadinejad or Al-Assad, it's a problem. And the Dalai Lama is not so much racist, as a race purist. He's stated a few times that it's important for whites and Tibetans to maintain the purity of their races so as not to become minorities. He's also made...unfavorable comparisons to the Chinese race in Tibet.
[QUOTE=Florence;33278044]Enjoy the nuclear waste and deformed babies.[/QUOTE] Me Florence. Me post with rock.
[QUOTE=Florence;33278044]Enjoy the nuclear waste and deformed babies.[/QUOTE] SUUUURE, I mean it's not like coal mining isn't already fucking over our world and killing thousands a year. [editline]14th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Florence;33278505]I think you mean a Vault. And I like how everyone here is sold on nuclear. So tell me guys, what happens when a nuclear station has a serious malfunction? Care to compare it to the malfunction of a wind turbine, of solar panels or of a geothermal station -- which unlike McHoliness says is a viable alternative from nuclear? (Hint: One fucks over an entire generation, the other is trivial.) Even with that out of the way, do you wonder what we do with the [URL="http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/extremedeformities.html"]depleted uranium[/URL]? Page through that and revel in the wonders of the nuclear industrial complex -- hell, it's good enough to be used for Libya's population! Protip: Being opinionated doesn't equal being a troll -- it just means you don't have any arguments to rebuke the "troll-ish" claims, so you dismiss anything outside of your field of understanding.[/QUOTE] Yes, we launch the depleted uranium into space where there's already a fuckload of radiation. The only times bad things happened with nuclear reactors is A) A bloody 9.0 earthquake and tsunami B) Prototype! Shit happens, and now, Chernobyl is filled with plant life. C) One in California, I think, that did...wait for it...fucking nothing. And how many times has coal mining gone badly? Well, not that many, but it doesn't need to, thousands of people die every year, and our world's climate is messed up. Nuclear is safe and reliable, and if there's a fuck up? Yay! Lush plant life and men in special suits to save the day.
[QUOTE=Contag;33279458] You wouldn't want to stick any kind of radioactive material in a rocket, considering the relative frequency at which they explode[/QUOTE] Are mass drivers something currently feasible to build? Taking the rocket out of the equation entirely seems to get rid of most of the risks
[QUOTE=Last or First;33278809] It might also have a meltdown if it's [I]hit with a fucking 9.0 earthquake and a fucking tsunami[/I] [/QUOTE] It survied the earthquake FYI. It was fine till its cooling system got destroyed by (ironicly) water.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.