Sweden shuts down atomic reactor

lol people arguing that nuclear power is cleaner and safer the wind turbines. tell that to thousands (tens of thousands?) of russians with birth defects, cancer...

if all the nuclear plants in the US now took all the current waste and shipped it to yucca.... it would be FULL.

hmm, lets talk about safety. i know they have to have the apaches and navy seals and jean claude van dam running around the windfarms in palm springs and tehachapi because they suspect some funny looking doods in turbans from stealing the waste from the wind turbines (i guess the dead birds and the occasional broken blade) and creating a sort of aviary battle-ax dirty bomb...

how many of you have seen the coal strip mines in wyoming? how about all the dead likes in the NE US from acid rain? heard of the santa barbara black tide? how about prince williams sound in alaska when hundreds of thousands of fish, birds, mammals all bought a nice thick black gooey nap?

ok, lets talk about cost. is wind by itself the answer? no. but arguably the $200 billion that this stupid iraq war is going to cost is a little bit in part to creating energy security for us oil drinking nations. where do you see that cost at the pump? you dont! who gets to pay for the superfund cleanup sites (no wind farms listed)? right again! the US public.

ono, a few birds get chewed up by the blades. gasp! how awful!

sign me up for some of those radiation glass bricks or whatever... i want to make a house out of them lol.
 
FissioN said:
The rest of the world, if you're curious, reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel (consider it recycling), which takes out 90% of the mass/volume of nuclear "waste." All this combines to make it a hell of a lot better than your "wind farms" :rolleyes: We won't even get started on solar cells, either. The US hasn't reprocessed since the Carter presidency, but will start again soon, I think.

And BTW, I'm pretty damn sure those ex-Soviet reactors aren't "rusting" at all. Shut down, decommissioned, sure. Rusting? No.

Do some reading on Three Mile Island, too. Your precious birds weren't in the LEAST bit affected by it, since the containment building functioned as designed.
Click to expand...

It's okay, Canada and France reprocess for the USA some.

Sweden sounds like a pantywaist country, worse than Canada. This is what happens when you have a socialist welfare state: 25% of the population is on constant welfare/unemployment and the other 75% is supporting them with high taxes. The 25% plus 1/3 of the rest who are idealistic unite to keep socialists and marxists in power, because if the right wing party got in they might clean things up and make the bums work.
 
Here's the problem with nuclear power:
ph_three_mile_island.jpg


See those massive towers? They dominate the landscape. Anyone living within 20 miles can see them. That is the problem, perception. People think that those towers are spewing "nuclear pollution" or similar, which is false. Those are cooling towers, and those are water vapor clouds. The radiation level of the vapor is less than the stack exhaust from a coal-fired plant, which by the way, put out a lot of radiation due to the trace presence of nuclear radiocative elements in coal.
 
Last edited:
STP near Houston, TX, doesn't have towers at all. They designed and built a huge cooling reservoir (man-made lake) that they use instead. As I understand it, the guy that owned the land prior to that has exclusive fishing rights (except for I think 1 week a year, when the employees or maybe the city gets to fish).

And for the record, jahman :lol: Way to eat up the anti-nuclear activist bullshit. At least put some ketchup on it, try to cover up the poopy taste.
 
Ash_Parnal said:
LOL, nice one..

But seriously, I kinda do think that three mile island, salliefield, chernobyl...
Click to expand...

Don't compare Three Mile Island with Chernobyl. People in that area were only exposed to about 1 millirem. A chest x-ray is 6 millirem and the natural radioactive background exposure is usually 100-125 millirem per year. To put this in context with Chernobyl the estimated average dose to recovery operation workers in 86 and 87 was between 130 and 180 mSv (1 mSv = 100 millirem) or between 130,000 or 180,000 millirem.
 
Last edited:
JodoFett said:
I bet that'd be so awesome to watch.
Click to expand...
He has a point. Technically, all that shit comes from the earth at some point, so if we could find a way to chuck it back we'd be set.
 
Ash_Parnal said:
LOL, nice one..

But seriously, I kinda do think that three mile island, salliefield, chernobyl, and the combined oil transports and accidents involved, sort of, wack off more birds combined.. Not to mention, the krill, the fish, the whales, the dolphins, the peregrines, the gulls, the eagles, the seals, the ferrets, the crabs, the herring, the eels, the trout, the salmon, the bears, the ..... complete list is * 100 if you want to keep using oils stuff.. :p

Oil, its bad, m'kay, nuclear power, ya gotta store the shit somehow, m'kay? Solar power, wind power, tide power, not as bad..

Though, the problem is, it wont power your SUV..
Click to expand...
You fucking idiots. Nuclear is as clean as it gets for power generation that can actually cover any sort of decent demand.

Flower power will NEVER work. Get this through your heads you hippy queers. Nuclear is the ONLY way to have large quantities of clean energy.
 
heh what i know we ALL want to see is not a nuclear fission reactor, but a nuclear FUSION reactor. if we could acheive the ability of controled nuclear fusion we could produce such insane ammounts of power that we wouldnt need anything else, and if there were a "meltdown" without a better name to call it, there would be not nearly as bad of an enviornmental disaster, because from what i understand, a fusion reactor just dosent make the kind of radioactive materials needed in current nuclear fission plants, as it dosent use it in the first place. the reaction is fed by helium or hydrogen, so what it basically is is just a big ball of plasma reacting in a way identical to the likes of our sun.
 
Warrlord said:
heh what i know we ALL want to see is not a nuclear fission reactor, but a nuclear FUSION reactor. if we could acheive the ability of controled nuclear fusion we could produce such insane ammounts of power that we wouldnt need anything else, and if there were a "meltdown" without a better name to call it, there would be not nearly as bad of an enviornmental disaster, because from what i understand, a fusion reactor just dosent make the kind of radioactive materials needed in current nuclear fission plants, as it dosent use it in the first place. the reaction is fed by helium or hydrogen, so what it basically is is just a big ball of plasma reacting in a way identical to the likes of our sun.
Click to expand...
And in the meantime, we have to live in reality - and that means fission plants.
 
Mantra said:
as an energy economist, i can say anyone against nuclear energy doesn't know wtf they are talking about
Click to expand...

As a human being, i can say that people, in general, dont know wtf they are talking about

as for this thread...wow you anti-nuclear nuts are fucking retarded. get your facts straight and then come back and argue your position.
 
Nuclear power is probably the best thing ever for the world. Not only does it provide delicious energy at low costs, it also provides me with precious uranium!
 
Anyone against nuclear power is a stupid granny-fucking hippie who needs to rot in hell covered in uranium
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top