Community

The PokéCommunity

We are still working on a better slogan!

Visit Index



Advertise here

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.

Post Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old November 7th, 2013, 11:20 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California

Advertise here
A lot of countries in the world (likely including the one you live in) rely in part on nuclear power, but it's a controversial power source. (What isn't?) There are a lot of arguments that are pro- an anti-nuclear power.

On the pro-side:
  • It doesn't pollute like coal, oil, and other fossil fuels
  • Consistent power source compared to solar, wind, etc.

On the anti-side:
  • Nuclear waste is a problem to store and disasters (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) are especially devastating
  • Possible misuse and/or nuclear material falling into the wrong hands

There are, of course, many other issues that affect how people feel about this issue. So how do you feel about nuclear power?

deviantart blog pair
  #2    
Old November 7th, 2013, 01:22 PM
Nuke
 
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gateshead, England.
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
It's difficult to argue against with the exception of mentioning the freak accidents that occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Ultimately it's the best way of gathering energy if you don't factor in these horrific incidents. I think ultimately it's worth the risk since fossil fuels are destroying more of the world than a nuclear reactor could manage and alternative sources aren't reliable enough at this point in time.

The UK has just got new plans for a nuclear plant through Chinese investment I believe and I'm fully supportive of that potential economic benefit. Similar to bobandbill's post below, we're unlikely to be hit by a natural disaster and I imagine the plants are well regulated here.

X + Y - 4914-3466-1264

Last edited by Nuke; November 7th, 2013 at 04:25 PM.
  #3    
Old November 7th, 2013, 01:46 PM
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire
でんきタイプ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Livewire
So long as the oversight and regulations are there to keep a watchful eye on nuclear facilities, I would advocate for increased usage. It's also important to note that those accidents are freak, worst-case-scenario ones. You protect against cutting corners with very rigid rules & regulations that are enforced by an agency with teeth, so to speak. Yes, disposing of that waste is troublesome, but again, with proper oversight and whatnot to ensure that radioactive waste isn't stored anywhere close to population centers, freshwater sources, or large wildernesses of value, like a national park per say, then the risk is minimized a bit. Still there, but its really the best we can do. Unless you want to start jettisoning nuclear waste into space.
  #4    
Old November 7th, 2013, 04:16 PM
bobandbill's Avatar
bobandbill
Where's that sheep...
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Coast - Australia
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Send a message via AIM to bobandbill Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to bobandbill
I'm for using it, but I don't think it'll easily happen over here in Australia. Which is a same, we're an ideal place for it. We have a lot of uranium that we sell to other countries, and yet we're largely free of a lot of natural disasters. Earthquakes? Barely anything, not near tectonic plates. Tsunamis? Considering the size of the country which is mostly just desert... Cyclones? Only in the far north. Bushfires are the only problem, and again, we have the desert regions for that. Waste of our natural resources imo. And if one wants to argue the misuse of nuclear products... well, if we're not going to use it, we're just going to sell it to other countries who will use it anyways, so that doesn't fix that problem.

Let's also not forget that technology has improved significantly since those two stations where disasters occurred were originally built.


  #5    
Old November 7th, 2013, 04:23 PM
Alex's Avatar
Alex
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Antarctica
Age: 16
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Alex
A lot of plants from the 1950s have stored high-level nuclear waste in giant cylinders in the Marshall Islands, contained in a sort of matryoshka doll fashion. That was back when nuclear waste was very awkward to handle – this was before they got the hang of properly conducting nuclear fission. It's merely a matter of time before the waste in those cylinders leak out onto the island and eventually into the ocean.

I am firmly against nuclear fission. However, I am all-for the developmental power of nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is wasteless, efficient, and thousands of times more powerful than nuclear fission. The only problem is it is a lot less researched than fission is, which is why it hasn't been implemented very much.
  #6    
Old November 8th, 2013, 10:28 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
I'm on the fence myself. I like that it creates less air and water pollution, though uranium mining can be damaging to the environment like regular mining. Big disasters are rare, but it seems like there isn't very good regulation over it. Fukushima happened in part because there was little proper oversight and bad plans in case of a disaster. So while nuclear plants aren't usually faced with extreme weather and other potential dangers, when they are some aren't going to be properly prepared for worst-case scenarios like Fukushima wasn't.

So yeah, like bobandbill said, the technology has improved a lot, but there are still a lot of old plants out there. The US, for instance, has some that are just like the Fukushima ones. Not very encouraging.

deviantart blog pair
  #7    
Old November 8th, 2013, 07:15 PM
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Accidents happen solely because companies cut corners on safety and maintenance. Regulate nuclear better and this won't be an issue. And even if every accident was as bad as Chernobyl (and they're not, mentioning Fukushima or Three Mile in the same breath as Chernobyl is incredibly misleading, they were both far less disastrous) and if the number of accidents was many times higher, it still wouldn't be nearly as bad for the environment or for public health as coal is. I think people sorely underestimate just how bad the stuff that comes out of coal power is.

That said, I think Thorium is the future.
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

PM me if you have computer troubles. I work in IT for a living and can probably solve your problems. My rate is $expensive/hr, but I'm still cheaper than Creep Squad and, unlike them, will actually get the job done or let you know if I can't.

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken, unsourced

Quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

NEW 40K MMOFPS YESSSSS
  #8    
Old November 8th, 2013, 10:05 PM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocows View Post
That said, I think Thorium is the future.
Thorium is BOSS. And tons of it can be found in your own backyard.

I, personally, like Thorium to act as a main battery per se, with Algae as addendum energy. Like on cars, for example, thorium would act as the car's main power source while algae would fuel it.


  #9    
Old November 9th, 2013, 04:18 AM
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
I think as soon as we nail cold fusion we'll be laughing.

But for the time being I hate that people are bringing up worst case scenarios about fission. Chernobyl and that were poorly planned to begin with, who would seriously consider placing a reactor anywhere threatened by earthquakes now that we know these things?

Also waste can now be neutralised and used in glass. So there's that.
  #10    
Old November 9th, 2013, 11:05 AM
Darkroman
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Nuclear fission is wasteful, but that's about it. It's so much better than Coal, Oil, and natural gas. However, nuclear fusion is the future. Wind, and solar can suck it as far as I'm concerned. They suck for more massive scales of power distribution (good for individuals though...).

I'm really interested in dense plasma focus for fusion technology.
  #11    
Old November 11th, 2013, 03:16 AM
KittenKoder's Avatar
KittenKoder
I Am No One Else
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
Bit of a lesson here:

Chernobyl was caused by poorly maintained facilities.

Fukushima was just plain bad planning, anyone should know that sea water is the worst coolant possible in something that has a lot of metal and needs to keep moving parts moving.
If you add me, please message me so I can reciprocate. No, garbage does not make a cute Pokemon, and it smells funny.

Join me on IRC, synirc.net #PokemonTactics, for friendly discussions on tactics and strategies.
  #12    
Old November 14th, 2013, 02:14 PM
LaVida's Avatar
LaVida
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sinnoh
Age: 21
Gender: Female
I'm strictly against nuclear power. The risk that something could happen "might" be very low but if something happened, the consequences would be too devastating. Look at Fukushima and Chernobyl. What if there was a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant?

Also, what about nuclear waste? Where shall we put it? It has to be stored somewhere where it can stay over hundreds of years to come. It used to be thrown into the sea but fortunately, this has been forbidden since 1993.

Also, nuclear power "seems" cheap but in reality, it simpy isn't. Most people don't know that nuclear power plants are not properly covered by insurance. If they were, they'd be a lot more expensive.

I really can't understand people who are in favor of it. There are a lot better ways to produce environmentally friendly power. Solar power, wind power and of course hydro-electric power. Especially when countries are close to the sea, they could make use of the water around them.
Be in love with life. Every minute of it.
  #13    
Old November 14th, 2013, 05:54 PM
KittenKoder's Avatar
KittenKoder
I Am No One Else
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
I'm strictly against nuclear power. The risk that something could happen "might" be very low but if something happened, the consequences would be too devastating. Look at Fukushima and Chernobyl. What if there was a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant?

Also, what about nuclear waste? Where shall we put it? It has to be stored somewhere where it can stay over hundreds of years to come. It used to be thrown into the sea but fortunately, this has been forbidden since 1993.

Also, nuclear power "seems" cheap but in reality, it simpy isn't. Most people don't know that nuclear power plants are not properly covered by insurance. If they were, they'd be a lot more expensive.

I really can't understand people who are in favor of it. There are a lot better ways to produce environmentally friendly power. Solar power, wind power and of course hydro-electric power. Especially when countries are close to the sea, they could make use of the water around them.
You may want to read back and see that using those as examples is relatively stupid. Compared to coal, the risk and danger is millions of times lower, so is the waste. Smoke from the coal plants released today will impact the global environment for thousands of years.
If you add me, please message me so I can reciprocate. No, garbage does not make a cute Pokemon, and it smells funny.

Join me on IRC, synirc.net #PokemonTactics, for friendly discussions on tactics and strategies.
  #14    
Old November 15th, 2013, 09:52 AM
LaVida's Avatar
LaVida
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sinnoh
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Did you actually read my post?

Nowhere did I say that I'd prefer to use coal. Both coal and nuclear power should be abolished. There are countries like Norway which neither use coal nor nuclear power. In my opinion, all countries (especially those who are surrounded by sea) should take that as an example.

Using what as example is "relatively" stupid? Fukushima, Chernobyl? A terrorist attack (e.g. a plane crashing into a nuclear power plant?)

I don't see why those would be "stupid" examples. Especially in the case of Fukushima, it is clearly shown that even in advanced countries like Japan, accidents like these aren't impossible.

Quote:
Smoke from the coal plants released today will impact the global environment for thousands of years.
And that is a reason to be in favor of nuclear power? There are less dangerous/polluting methods to produce power, you know.
Be in love with life. Every minute of it.
  #15    
Old November 15th, 2013, 12:34 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
One does not simply abolish anything. Actors will do what is in their self-interest, and the perception of cost and benefit and even the calculation will change depending on who you are. For this reason, people will continue to invest in hydrocarbon and other fossil fuels - easily accessed reserves are diminishing, making harder-to-access reserves more the costs, and the technology required to tap those harder-to-access reserves become more developed and cheap over time. It seems to me that reliance on fossil fuels will continue at least into the near future, as technology for extracting shale gas is developing and people figure out how much environmental damage is worth exploiting the tech.

There are good reasons to invest in nuclear energy. The fuel itself is cheap, although the start-up costs are high, but the technology is still developing and the resources will approach renewability through breeder reactors. As a reactor, it's reliable and only down for downtime. And fission is efficient - it doesn't take a lot of fuel to create a lot of energy. We can even "compare" this with renewables.

For example, the world's largest constructed wind farm is the London Array, offshore and has a 630 MW capacity, upgradeable to 1000 MW, and began construction in 2011. It costs approx $3 billion USD. There is a nuclear complex in Ontario, Canada that is one of the world's largest, and generates up to 6-7000 MW which first came online in 1977. It cost $14.4 billion CAD. Now I don't know what the exchange rate is between CAD and USD from 1977, and clearly inflation will bloat the price by maybe 2 or 3x. What I'm demonstrating here is that the largest wind energy complexes don't even approach the amount of power supplied by nuclear reactors. Same goes for solar parks.

I've only compared two cases, but I wish to draw a point to the big picture which is that nuclear energy is at the same time an "old" technology but is also experiencing innovation. Renewables on the other hand require a lot of space - which requires adequate sites - and doesn't turn out a lot of energy for what is now a high price.

And in response to your critique on KittenKoder's point on environmental damage, you really have to put it in perspective. At the end of the day, nuclear power doesn't release emissions. There's environmental damage that goes on in construction, but then again construction happens everywhere. Sure, there are less polluting ways to produce energy, but there also more efficient and less expensive ways of producing energy as well.
Denny Hamlin. ugh so late
  #16    
Old November 15th, 2013, 01:08 PM
LaVida's Avatar
LaVida
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sinnoh
Age: 21
Gender: Female
I'm really happy to live in a country where all politicians are against nuclear power. I can't grasp why people would want to have nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants may not release emissions. But the nuclear waste in itself is polluting. Again, where do you suggest to store nuclear waste? There's no permanent repository.

Did you ever come across the thought that there might be accidents? Nuclear power plants are operated by people. And people make mistakes. The consequences of said mistakes have a huge influence on people's lives and nature in general. Take Chernobyl as example. Nobody has been able to live in the area around it since 1986. And nobody will be for the next 1000 years.


If there were several Chernobyls in the world, where would we all live? BlahISuck, do you live close to a nuclear power plant? What if there was an accident like with Chernobyl and you'd have to leave your home forever. Do you really think that producing energy is really worth such a high price?

And minor problems at nuclear power plants are common. As they're minor, they don't have any big consequences and are not mentioned in the news normally. But minor problems may develop into bigger ones if people make mistakes.

Also, it's not true that producing energy with nuclear power plants is less expensive. It's just that nuclear power plants are not completely covered by insurance. If they were, producing energy by using nuclear power plants would be too expensive to be taken into account.

By the way, using water is a very efficient way to produce energy. Norway produces 99% of its energy by hydropower plants. I'm sure other countries could pull this off as well.

Using nuclear power plants is irresponsible. For nature and for future generations.
Be in love with life. Every minute of it.
  #17    
Old November 15th, 2013, 02:43 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
I'm really happy to live in a country where all politicians are against nuclear power. I can't grasp why people would want to have nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants may not release emissions. But the nuclear waste in itself is polluting. Again, where do you suggest to store nuclear waste? There's no permanent repository.
It's not polluting in the way that carbon emission contribute to climate change, nor in the way that carbon byproducts lead to smog and air pollution. While storage of waste is an issue, there just isn't that much of it. And at least you can and must store all the waste. Waste can be reprocessed before disposal, which removes some of the radiation, but governments can skimp on that because it can be expensive. In any case, nuclear waste is being stored for the long term all over the world. I don't know where personally, because I'm not an expert, but it's clearly happening. We should have more engagement not less, to bring the best experts to the subject so they can make the best decisions, as well as pressuring governments to let them know that it's worth spending that extra money on tighter regulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
Did you ever come across the thought that there might be accidents? Nuclear power plants are operated by people. And people make mistakes. The consequences of said mistakes have a huge influence on people's lives and nature in general. Take Chernobyl as example. Nobody has been able to live in the area around it since 1986. And nobody will be for the next 1000 years.
Something "might" happen, but you have to question further than that and ask just exactly how often "might" means. Surely equating "might" with "will" is oversimplifying the issue. As to your point on Chernobyl, I'm not sure if Chernobyl-type plants are still in use after what happened. There are new designs involving new technologies being developed every day, and there are international organizations involving many countries that decide how high the standards should be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
If there were several Chernobyls in the world, where would we all live? BlahISuck, do you live close to a nuclear power plant? What if there was an accident like with Chernobyl and you'd have to leave your home forever. Do you really think that producing energy is really worth such a high price?
Yes, I do. It's a fifteen minute drive. And the fact of the matter is that there /aren't/ several Chernobyls in the world. People who design the plants and make nuclear policy do have risk assessments, and it's a risk that they end up taking. However, that's the very reason that your "what if" is a "what if". We've had several accidents in the past, but nothing major. And producing energy in general is worth a high price. That's why energy costs are increasing all over the world, there's just ever-growing demand for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
And minor problems at nuclear power plants are common. As they're minor, they don't have any big consequences and are not mentioned in the news normally. But minor problems may develop into bigger ones if people make mistakes.
While that's true, it doesn't really tell us anything. All big problems come from small problems. Not all small problems turn into big problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
Also, it's not true that producing energy with nuclear power plants is less expensive. It's just that nuclear power plants are not completely covered by insurance. If they were, producing energy by using nuclear power plants would be too expensive to be taken into account.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. In Canada there are laws that require plant operators to provide insurance. The US has a tiered insurance system. Besides, accidents happen so rarely that federal governments don't see a problem with intervening - although, of course, they have to. Anyways, since these operators are paying insurance, the consumer is paying that cost as well so there's no invisible "surcharge" unless there is an accident, then it wouldn't be invisible at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
By the way, using water is a very efficient way to produce energy. Norway produces 99% of its energy by hydropower plants. I'm sure other countries could pull this off as well.
That's the problem. Hydroelectric dams require viable sites to pull off. Or you could be like China and create the Three Gorges Dam, not only the largest hydroelectric, but the the largest power station ever Norway also sells a boatload of oil to other countries, in particular to those who couldn't pull this off.
Denny Hamlin. ugh so late

Last edited by Kanzler; November 15th, 2013 at 02:49 PM.
  #18    
Old November 15th, 2013, 03:28 PM
KittenKoder's Avatar
KittenKoder
I Am No One Else
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
I'm really happy to live in a country where all politicians are against nuclear power. I can't grasp why people would want to have nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plants may not release emissions. But the nuclear waste in itself is polluting. Again, where do you suggest to store nuclear waste? There's no permanent repository.

Did you ever come across the thought that there might be accidents? Nuclear power plants are operated by people. And people make mistakes. The consequences of said mistakes have a huge influence on people's lives and nature in general. Take Chernobyl as example. Nobody has been able to live in the area around it since 1986. And nobody will be for the next 1000 years.


If there were several Chernobyls in the world, where would we all live? BlahISuck, do you live close to a nuclear power plant? What if there was an accident like with Chernobyl and you'd have to leave your home forever. Do you really think that producing energy is really worth such a high price?

And minor problems at nuclear power plants are common. As they're minor, they don't have any big consequences and are not mentioned in the news normally. But minor problems may develop into bigger ones if people make mistakes.

Also, it's not true that producing energy with nuclear power plants is less expensive. It's just that nuclear power plants are not completely covered by insurance. If they were, producing energy by using nuclear power plants would be too expensive to be taken into account.

By the way, using water is a very efficient way to produce energy. Norway produces 99% of its energy by hydropower plants. I'm sure other countries could pull this off as well.

Using nuclear power plants is irresponsible. For nature and for future generations.
Why do you spread propaganda? Norway gets 40% from fossil fuels and about 20% from nuclear. That leaves 40% for hydro. Those figures are from 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electri...ctor_in_Norway
All sources cited.
If you add me, please message me so I can reciprocate. No, garbage does not make a cute Pokemon, and it smells funny.

Join me on IRC, synirc.net #PokemonTactics, for friendly discussions on tactics and strategies.
  #19    
Old November 15th, 2013, 04:04 PM
LaVida's Avatar
LaVida
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sinnoh
Age: 21
Gender: Female
@ BlahIsuck
I guess, we both have our opinions on this matter which will not change no matter what haha But it's nice to discuss with you.

It doesn't matter if they're using advanced technology for new plants. They will never be completely save. And even if the risk is only 0,1%, for me, the risk is still too high bearing possible consequences in mind. About Chernobyl: The accident didn't happen because of outdated technology. The plant's operators were doing tests and turned off several safety mechanisms. The accident couldn't have happened if the plant had been operated normally. A communication error eventually led to the catastrophe.. The exact same could happen with both old and new plants.

As I said, I live in Europe and there aren't any permanent repositories. They keep looking for one but haven't had any success.Personally, I've never of one anywhere

Sorry Im on a stupid tablet, Ill continue my post later
Be in love with life. Every minute of it.
  #20    
Old November 15th, 2013, 04:19 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Well yeah, I didn't mean to say outdated technology exclusively. The design of a power plant involves much more than just technology, it also involves designing the role of the workers and protocols - especially for crisis situations. It's like how the rules of the road were created - when cars were first invented, there weren't any. No speed limits or traffic lights or anything like that. Eventually communication errors created accidents and something had to be done, hence the rules we have today. Are traffic lights breakthrough technologies? No, but there are new protocols that we follow, like right-of-way at a four-way stop to avoid crashing into each other. Of course automobile accidents still happen. But will they happen like they did at the turn of the 20th century? of course not. A similar learning process comes out of accidents like what happened at Chernobyl. Not only does technology improve, but the safety procedures and training also improve. Systems design is a very important part of engineering in general, not exclusively in relation to power plants, so it isn't something one can brush to one side.

What I'm describing here isn't a difference of opinion. It's how the world works. Where we do differ is whether you think it's enough or not.
Denny Hamlin. ugh so late
  #21    
Old November 15th, 2013, 05:39 PM
KittenKoder's Avatar
KittenKoder
I Am No One Else
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
@ BlahIsuck
I guess, we both have our opinions on this matter which will not change no matter what haha But it's nice to discuss with you.

It doesn't matter if they're using advanced technology for new plants. They will never be completely save. And even if the risk is only 0,1%, for me, the risk is still too high bearing possible consequences in mind. About Chernobyl: The accident didn't happen because of outdated technology. The plant's operators were doing tests and turned off several safety mechanisms. The accident couldn't have happened if the plant had been operated normally. A communication error eventually led to the catastrophe.. The exact same could happen with both old and new plants.

As I said, I live in Europe and there aren't any permanent repositories. They keep looking for one but haven't had any success.Personally, I've never of one anywhere

Sorry Im on a stupid tablet, Ill continue my post later
Did you know that you have a higher chance of being struck by lightning than almost any other possible way of getting hurt? It's true, based on statistical data. Coal mines have a much higher fatality rate than mining for radioactive materials, more people die each year from coal mines than most other industrial accidents.

Also yes, the level of technology does matter, that's what we learned from Chernobyl, that the technology must be maintained and updated all the time. The only reason Chernobyl had a meltdown was because of the technology not being up to date, and thus incompatible with any replacement parts for maintenance. So they let a few bolts and screws rust away, ignored the lights that were not on because they were in need of replacement ... what would you expect to happen? Even coal plants, hydro plants, any system at all will collapse and cause massive damage if they did that.

Let's isolate the myths about hydroelectric dams. It does cause harm, directly, to the environment. To make a dam you have to flood a large portion of land that ins inhabited by many other species, you strip them of their homes and often their lives just for your own convenience. That one was easy, damages the environment just as much as nuclear, just in a different manner and the damage is direct.

The next myth, hydroelectric does not produce as much energy per the amount of resources required for it. A small amount of radioactive material mined from the planet's own crust, what we're standing on, creates a lot of energy. Hydroelectric takes several hundred tons of water passing through (thus filtered of all life) to produce the same amount. Sure, it's clean, but the environment is not clean, and thus you are destroying the environment.

There must be geological formations existing for the dams to even work, Norway has the most sites that fit these requirements of any other area, and even they can only supplement 40% of their energy with it. The few dams that are possible in the US, for the purpose of producing energy, cannot cover 10% of our energy use. Why not build more dams? Because there are not suitable sites for more energy producing dams that will not cause massive sections of our land to become flooded, and thus unlivable by most of our native species, including ourselves.

Europe actually has a lot of nuclear plants. In the world there are thousands of nuclear plants, most have been operating for decades now, and yet there were only three major catastrophes from these plants, only one was never cleaned up. That's not a 0.1% chance of error, that's more like 0.0000000001% chance of catastrophic error.

Sure, it'd be nice if the world was a giant bouncy house and we were all safe, all the time, from everything. But that's not the case. You have a higher chance of being in a car accident on a nature trail in the middle of nowhere, while walking, than a nuclear facility anywhere near you melting down. You are expose to more radiation from your microwave and any CRT displays than you will be from nuclear waste, ever. We produce more tons of toxic waste producing, shipping, and storing food than all the nuclear plants in the world, that's one day's worth of waste from food compared to a decade of nuclear waste. Your tablet produces more radiation than the amount of nuclear waste produced by just using it.
If you add me, please message me so I can reciprocate. No, garbage does not make a cute Pokemon, and it smells funny.

Join me on IRC, synirc.net #PokemonTactics, for friendly discussions on tactics and strategies.
  #22    
Old November 15th, 2013, 06:09 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittenKoder View Post
Also yes, the level of technology does matter, that's what we learned from Chernobyl, that the technology must be maintained and updated all the time. The only reason Chernobyl had a meltdown was because of the technology not being up to date, and thus incompatible with any replacement parts for maintenance. So they let a few bolts and screws rust away, ignored the lights that were not on because they were in need of replacement ... what would you expect to happen? Even coal plants, hydro plants, any system at all will collapse and cause massive damage if they did that.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by design flaws, both technological and human. It's difficult to argue which one was "more" important unless you understand the reports and can explain their conclusions here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KittenKoder View Post
Sure, it'd be nice if the world was a giant bouncy house and we were all safe, all the time, from everything. But that's not the case. You have a higher chance of being in a car accident on a nature trail in the middle of nowhere, while walking, than a nuclear facility anywhere near you melting down. You are expose to more radiation from your microwave and any CRT displays than you will be from nuclear waste, ever. We produce more tons of toxic waste producing, shipping, and storing food than all the nuclear plants in the world, that's one day's worth of waste from food compared to a decade of nuclear waste. Your tablet produces more radiation than the amount of nuclear waste produced by just using it.
We shouldn't compare apples and oranges, but I do see your point. Your explanation of environmental damage due to the construction of dams is good - it's something that people often leave out because the energy itself is "clean". China made a big environmental sacrifice in the construction of the Three Gorges Dam, which is what I was alluding to several posts prior.
Denny Hamlin. ugh so late
  #23    
Old November 16th, 2013, 08:55 AM
LaVida's Avatar
LaVida
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sinnoh
Age: 21
Gender: Female
I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to continue this discussion.

Comparing car accidents to a nuclear a meltdown... This is ridiculous. Of course, the chance of getting involved in a car accident is higher. But getting hit in a car accident doesn't have any health/enviornmental consequences in the area for the next 1000 years.

I live in a country that is strongly against nuclear power. And I'm very happy it's that way. I don't know any person who is in favor of nuclear power.

Using nuclear power is irresponsible. You can't build plants that are save from terrorist attacks. And they can never be 100% save as it's people who operate them. And people are not always exact. I know from some documentaries (which were about people who have worked at nuclear facilities) that saftey measures are a lot of the time not sticked to. Personally, I prefer to not put my life into somebody else's hands.

Yes, those plants might be made to be very save. But if people don't use them correctly, there are bound to be errors. Sometimes fatal ones.

To the person from Australia who said that they find it too bad that they don't have nuclear power plants there: I'd be happy to live on an island far, far away from any nuclear facility.

Anyway, I will restrain from posting on this thread as it's a waste of time to discuss this sort of matter with people like KittenKoder who compare nuclear meltdowns to car accidents and who apprently doesn't even know what propaganda means.
Be in love with life. Every minute of it.
  #24    
Old November 16th, 2013, 09:34 AM
KittenKoder's Avatar
KittenKoder
I Am No One Else
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVida View Post
I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to continue this discussion.

Comparing car accidents to a nuclear a meltdown... This is ridiculous. Of course, the chance of getting involved in a car accident is higher. But getting hit in a car accident doesn't have any health/enviornmental consequences in the area for the next 1000 years.

I live in a country that is strongly against nuclear power. And I'm very happy it's that way. I don't know any person who is in favor of nuclear power.

Using nuclear power is irresponsible. You can't build plants that are save from terrorist attacks. And they can never be 100% save as it's people who operate them. And people are not always exact. I know from some documentaries (which were about people who have worked at nuclear facilities) that saftey measures are a lot of the time not sticked to. Personally, I prefer to not put my life into somebody else's hands.

Yes, those plants might be made to be very save. But if people don't use them correctly, there are bound to be errors. Sometimes fatal ones.

To the person from Australia who said that they find it too bad that they don't have nuclear power plants there: I'd be happy to live on an island far, far away from any nuclear facility.

Anyway, I will restrain from posting on this thread as it's a waste of time to discuss this sort of matter with people like KittenKoder who compare nuclear meltdowns to car accidents and who apprently doesn't even know what propaganda means.
Do you know why the US government is broken? Because the vast percentage of voters are stupid. That holds true for everywhere. Just because the vast majority of people are too lazy to actually look up the facts doesn't make them right. A vast majority of people in the world still think their imaginary friend made the universe and governs life on Earth, as well, does the vast majority thinking this make that any more real?

Comparing it to automobile accidents? Actually, if we compared nuclear to automobiles in general, automobiles cause more pollution, more deaths, and more harm to everything around them than all the nuclear plants in the world. Do we need cars? No, we don't, we need them less than we need electricity. The comparison is valid.

Errors happen all the time, all the time, as in every second of every day someone is making a mistake somewhere. You are ignoring the simple point here, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it's bad, it's called weighing the options. Living is, in itself, a very dangerous activity, because there is a 100% chance you are going to die.
If you add me, please message me so I can reciprocate. No, garbage does not make a cute Pokemon, and it smells funny.

Join me on IRC, synirc.net #PokemonTactics, for friendly discussions on tactics and strategies.
  #25    
Old November 16th, 2013, 11:39 AM
Rezilia's Avatar
Rezilia
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittenKoder View Post
Living is, in itself, a very dangerous activity, because there is a 100% chance you are going to die.
For now >.>

I agree with you, Kitten.


Power is dangerous. Because of this, great power means even greater responsibility.

As a U.S. citizen, I find the reason the majority of people in my nation are stupid is because they rely on educational institutions for their smarts. The vast majority of stuff taught in schools is bullcrap - like the Big Bang, for example, which has been disproven many times in many different ways for years. And yet people still believe it.

Our representatives are also stupid - this is actually the largest concern. The general populace being stupid is one thing - in a representative system, they don't have as much power as they could. This means that representatives, having the majority of power, need to be absolutely brilliant in order to get things done correctly. This isn't the case. As shown with Obama, there's honestly no hope left for the political world.

I support E-Democracy not only because it shanks the representative system and allows instantaneous direct democracy, but because it uses the internet - which is, for now, the only unlimited and unregulated mass-communication and mass-information device in the entire world. You get on the internet, you become truly smart. Period. While many people will stick to YouTube and FaceBook for a few years, they will eventually start creeping up on forums and wikis - learning more, properly.


Post Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Advertise here
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 05:34 AM.

About Us
© 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com. Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.

Copyright
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com. PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator. Header artwork by Jordanice of deviantART.

Social Media
If you would like to stay up-to-date with us on the go, when we're down, or other such things, follow us on social media sites--most notibly Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus--by clicking on the links provided.

Design presented by Peitharchia. Special thanks to Hiroshi Sotomura and Ausaudriel.