End Times

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And if you have something against Chernobyl, then focus your energy at beurocracy because that is what caused that disaster, not the plant.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...781-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/26/w...chernobyl.html

Yes, the choice was made in order to save money.

https://www.mydenveraccidentlawfirm....-of-the-pinto/

But again, according to the quote made by Andreev, no studies were conducted on Chernobyl by the industry.

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lastly, if you took ALL the damage nuke power has caused, and put it up against the BEST CASE SCENARIO for all other forms of power the damage to the environment is literally a puddle, next to an ocean. That is why you lack perspective. You are comparing fantasy to reality.

You're asking me to be afraid of movies and a lack of understanding.

I haven't asked anything other than how is taking into consideration other potential outcomes lacking perspective? There has been no attempt to appeal to anyone's emotions, other than through humor(an overlooked pun). No movies were referenced. Instead, cartoon clips were linked which seemed to help keep things in perspective except in your case because you have contributed precisely zero Simpsons links.

Chernobyl is still a reality, which I am comparing to other real events like the one in Fukushima. The only fantasy elements mentioned? Water dragonses. A missed opportunity on your part to speculate on custom content related to Bertoxxulous.

Also, the article about Onondaga Lake detailed the effect of mercury levels dating back to the 1940s, providing yet more perspective on the topic.

[reznor_]

Chemical and biological pollution is far, far worse to humanity and the food chain than radioactive water leaking into the sea.

There were entire studies done on this. Yeah, it's shitty, there's no denying that, but the average person doesn't understand order of magnitudes when it comes to Curies or Becquerels. Suffice to say, the dilution of tritiated water (which is the issue here) really isn't a public health concern. It's hard to make a good argument online about it, so I tend to stay out of them (plus, most people make up their minds and can't be convinced otherwise). People fear what they can't see -- which is ironic, because no one seems to take COVID seriously -- but I digress.

But, succinctly, the burning of coal for power has put more radiation into the atmosphere than any nuclear plant, or nuclear weapon, ever has.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCL...62/9362611.pdf
http://large.stanford.edu/publicatio...s/hvistendahl/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17777943/

That list continues on and on, just hard to get some of them because they're subscription only material. There's no nuclear power conspiracy. We don't make much money off of it. Coal, gas, oil -- now that's the money you want to trace. These people don't care about anything, just the accumulation of wealth. Most folks in the nuclear industry understand that what they do is far better for the environment

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Chemical and biological pollution is far, far worse to humanity and the food chain than radioactive water leaking into the sea.

There were entire studies done on this. Yeah, it's shitty, there's no denying that, but the average person doesn't understand order of magnitudes when it comes to Curies or Becquerels. Suffice to say, the dilution of tritiated water (which is the issue here) really isn't a public health concern. It's hard to make a good argument online about it, so I tend to stay out of them (plus, most people make up their minds and can't be convinced otherwise). People fear what they can't see -- which is ironic, because no one seems to take COVID seriously -- but I digress.

But, succinctly, the burning of coal for power has put more radiation into the atmosphere than any nuclear plant, or nuclear weapon, ever has.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCL...62/9362611.pdf
http://large.stanford.edu/publicatio...s/hvistendahl/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17777943/

That list continues on and on, just hard to get some of them because they're subscription only material. There's no nuclear power conspiracy. We don't make much money off of it. Coal, gas, oil -- now that's the money you want to trace. These people don't care about anything, just the accumulation of wealth. Most folks in the nuclear industry understand that what they do is far better for the environment

The original point of the thread, I assumed, was to cover all aspects of humankind's self-destructive tendencies, not to compare one form to the other and debate which was worse overall.

https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The original point of the thread, I assumed, was to cover all aspects of humankind's self-destructive tendencies, not to compare one form to the other and debate which was worse overall.

https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU

john oliver is a deformed clone of racheal maddow YUCK

if you want to talk about end times, the reason we are here is because of him and the other nihilist clones we've become.

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was wrong apparently. We are supposed to compare and choose one over the other. Okay then.

Im simply saying that, the desire to be against nuke power, comes from a greater evil (satan) who has deformed the minds of godless children (hippies) to destroy themselves.

Idk, what is your stance on vaxxines? Im just curious, because if youre pro vax take every argument you have against the anti vaxers not understanding science, and apply it to arguments against the anit-nuke power folks not understanding science, because they are of the same quality.

If you're anti vaxx or not worried about our effect on the environment because we're doomed by prophecy already then, ok its cool no worries mate.

[reznor_]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The original point of the thread, I assumed, was to cover all aspects of humankind's self-destructive tendencies, not to compare one form to the other and debate which was worse overall.

https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU

John Oliver's piece was really a sensational hit job. People forget that nuclear is the newest science of power, compared to everything else. Mistakes were made at the outset, no one in the nuclear community denies that. Yucca mountain was perfect, but Harry Reid made a deal with Barack Obama (tinfoil-ish, I know) to give him the electoral votes if Obama supported the closure of Yucca mountain. Bottom line, humans don't do the necessary until it becomes a matter of life or death, and I fear we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Nuclear energy is a major part of the solution, but because most of the US and world are ignorant to science, and the facts of that science, we may not get there. I will never agree that other power sources are as safe and effective as nuclear.

I will chime in on Chernobyl, since every anti-nuke in this thread uses it as scapegoat. The brass tacks are: the design was flawed from the outset. The Soviets made a terrible design using POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which are different (and bad) from NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. What this means is: in a normal (well designed) nuclear reactor, as the fuel heats up, the fuel becomes less reactive, meaning that if there is some power excursion, the fuel's physics are leveraged to stop it from fissioning, and help mitigate any kind of accident. These are the PWR (pressurized water reactor) and BWR (boiling water reactor). Chernobyl was an RBMK model, and had POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. Every other reactor has NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which help safely shut it down in the event of an accident scenario. Chernobyl went into a catastrophic accident phase because as the fuel heated up and the cooling water evaporated, the fuel became more and more reactive. This led to the accident.

Fukushima was a bad geographic placement and poorly planed from TEPCO's perspective from the start. Because people wanted to save money (and conversely, MAKE MONEY) the TEPCO board ignored Japanese geological surveys which said a 100 year flood (in the form of tsunami) had a decent chance of occurring. A sea wall could have been built around Fukushima which would have mitigated the disaster. Furthermore, response authorities did not helicopter in diesel generators (which, as a young nuclear engineer, I said they should do) to counterbalance the power outage (so ironic, that a nuclear plant can't use the power it creates to power it's own pumps).

Keep in mind, nuclear is the youngest power source. You don't hear about the direct deaths from coal and gas and wind, but they're there. They just aren't as sexy as direct deaths from nuclear.

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

John Oliver's piece was really a sensational hit job. People forget that nuclear is the newest science of power, compared to everything else. Mistakes were made at the outset, no one in the nuclear community denies that. Yucca mountain was perfect, but Harry Reid made a deal with Barack Obama (tinfoil-ish, I know) to give him the electoral votes if Obama supported the closure of Yucca mountain. Bottom line, humans don't do the necessary until it becomes a matter of life or death, and I fear we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Nuclear energy is a major part of the solution, but because most of the US and world are ignorant to science, and the facts of that science, we may not get there. I will never agree that other power sources are as safe and effective as nuclear.

I will chime in on Chernobyl, since every anti-nuke in this thread uses it as scapegoat. The brass tacks are: the design was flawed from the outset. The Soviets made a terrible design using POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which are different (and bad) from NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. What this means is: in a normal (well designed) nuclear reactor, as the fuel heats up, the fuel becomes less reactive, meaning that if there is some power excursion, the fuel's physics are leveraged to stop it from fissioning, and help mitigate any kind of accident. These are the PWR (pressurized water reactor) and BWR (boiling water reactor). Chernobyl was an RBMK model, and had POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. Every other reactor has NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which help safely shut it down in the event of an accident scenario. Chernobyl went into a catastrophic accident phase because as the fuel heated up and the cooling water evaporated, the fuel became more and more reactive. This led to the accident.

Fukushima was a bad geographic placement and poorly planed from TEPCO's perspective from the start. Because people wanted to save money (and conversely, MAKE MONEY) the TEPCO board ignored Japanese geological surveys which said a 100 year flood (in the form of tsunami) had a decent chance of occurring. A sea wall could have been built around Fukushima which would have mitigated the disaster. Furthermore, response authorities did not helicopter in diesel generators (which, as a young nuclear engineer, I said they should do) to counterbalance the power outage (so ironic, that a nuclear plant can't use the power it creates to power it's own pumps).

Keep in mind, nuclear is the youngest power source. You don't hear about the direct deaths from coal and gas and wind, but they're there. They just aren't as sexy as direct deaths from nuclear.

the generators they had got flooded(11/12) and failed but i don't see a reality where we can deliver enough portable generators to supply a nuclear plant. just scale.

[reznor_]

Originally Posted by Pulgasari [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the generators they had got flooded(11/12) and failed but i don't see a reality where we can deliver enough portable generators to supply a nuclear plant. just scale.

In the 24 hours that batteries supplied aux power, you could have helicoptered and daisy chained diesel jennys.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yucca mountain was perfect, but Harry Reid made a deal with Barack Obama (tinfoil-ish, I know) to give him the electoral votes if Obama supported the closure of Yucca mountain.

It wouldn't be all that surprising.

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I will never agree that other power sources are as safe and effective as nuclear.

Oil seems to be the worst, from South America to California, etc.

https://www.latimes.com/projects/cal...-idle-cleanup/

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I will chime in on Chernobyl, since every anti-nuke in this thread uses it as scapegoat.

Well, that and Three Mile Island. And of course now there's that more recent example that comes to mind.

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The brass tacks are: the design was flawed from the outset. The Soviets made a terrible design using POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which are different (and bad) from NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. What this means is: in a normal (well designed) nuclear reactor, as the fuel heats up, the fuel becomes less reactive, meaning that if there is some power excursion, the fuel's physics are leveraged to stop it from fissioning, and help mitigate any kind of accident. These are the PWR (pressurized water reactor) and BWR (boiling water reactor). Chernobyl was an RBMK model, and had POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. Every other reactor has NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which help safely shut it down in the event of an accident scenario. Chernobyl went into a catastrophic accident phase because as the fuel heated up and the cooling water evaporated, the fuel became more and more reactive. This led to the accident.

The description of Leningrad's made it sound like more trouble than it was worth, with round the clock upkeep.

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You don't hear about the direct deaths from coal and gas and wind, but they're there. They just aren't as sexy as direct deaths from nuclear.

True, unless people are still potentially alive underground. Then it becomes a recurring news segment.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/19...er-and-divided

But even so...

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...ic-low-in-2020

[Jibartik]

reminder doesn't even matter though we're in the thread title.



and even if another chernybol is a reality it still pails in comparison to the best case scenario of the other options.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

reminder doesn't even matter though we're in the thread title.

and even if another chernybol is a reality it still pails in comparison to the best case scenario of the other options.

I was wrong apparently. We are supposed to compare and choose one over the other. Okay then.