• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

(UK) Dip in nuclear power support after Fukushima proves shortlived

The dip in public support for new nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster in Japan lasted no more than nine months in the UK, according to a new poll from Ipsos MORI, published here for the first time. Futhermore, looking at the trend over the last decade, acceptance of nuclear power shows a rising trend.
Click to expand...
:)
 
r-j said:
Everybody loves nuclear power, until a few reactors in their country melt down.
Click to expand...

You mean, the whole 2 times in history this has ever happened, once because of sheer stupidity and lack of strict standards, and once because of the worse earthquake the islands of Japan have seen in a thousand years ?
 
Belz... said:
You mean, the whole 2 times in history this has ever happened, once because of sheer stupidity and lack of strict standards, and once because of the worse earthquake the islands of Japan have seen in a thousand years ?
Click to expand...

The same applies to driving and flying. Nothing is 100% safe.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
 
These *********** anti-nuke whackjobs are holding us back big time. If we switched entirely to nuclear, augmented by renewables where possible we could stop spewing CO2 into the air wrt electricity generation. And we could get rid of most of it wrt transportation by switching to electric cars. If our planet gets heavily damaged from global warming, it is partially your fault, anti-nuke whackjobs. Which is ironic because you morons tend to pretend to care about the environment.
 
The Dark Lord said:
These *********** anti-nuke whackjobs are holding us back big time. If we switched entirely to nuclear, augmented by renewables where possible we could stop spewing CO2 into the air wrt electricity generation. And we could get rid of most of it wrt transportation by switching to electric cars. If our planet gets heavily damaged from global warming, it is partially your fault, anti-nuke whackjobs. Which is ironic because you morons tend to pretend to care about the environment.
Click to expand...

Forgive them Lord, for they are scientifically illiterate.
 
Last edited:
The Dark Lord said:
These *********** anti-nuke whackjobs are holding us back big time.
Click to expand...

This myth may comfort the western mind, which thinks China and Russia and all other countries have been halted in their nuclear progress by the concerned scientists and activists of the west.

In reality the lack of reactors has nothing to do with any rabid green or anti-nuke hippy. Of course if you ask somebody spouting rhetoric like the above to provide evidence, say that a single reactor in China or India or Korea or Russia was stopped by nuclear protests, they will quickly dance around providing any. Like any emotional belief, it is based on a feeling, not facts.
 
r-j said:
In reality the lack of reactors has nothing to do with any rabid green or anti-nuke hippy.
Click to expand...

Right. Rabid anti-nuke population.

Of course if you ask somebody spouting rhetoric like the above to provide evidence, say that a single reactor in China or India or Korea or Russia was stopped by nuclear protests, they will quickly dance around providing any. Like any emotional belief, it is based on a feeling, not facts.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, what are these facts. I see words, but no content.
 
This myth may comfort worry the western mind
Click to expand...
It does, yeah.

In reality the lack of reactors has nothing to do with any rabid green or anti-nuke hippy. Of course if you ask somebody spouting rhetoric like the above to provide evidence, say that a single reactor in China or India or Korea or Russia was stopped by nuclear protests, they will quickly dance around providing any. Like any emotional belief, it is based on a feeling, not facts.
Click to expand...
So public sentiment has nothing to do with the number of reactors built in the world because you're unaware of reactors in select not-so-democratic countries that were stopped by protests? Gotcha.
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
that's a lie.
reactors on rivers affect the temperature of the water, which can be devastating to the river's ecosystem.
Click to expand...

As so often happens, truth is simply ignored, when it doesn't match cherished belief.
 
r-j said:
As so often happens, truth is simply ignored, when it doesn't match cherished belief.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this explanation that I gave to BD?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
You're the liar here.

I've explained to you before CNSC regs on reactor intake and outflow temperatures (no more than 3 degrees variation allowed). I've also explained to you how this achieved. The outflow is a pipe laying on a river or lake bed typically a mile to a mile and a half log with perforations along its entire length. The outflow water from the reactors cooling system is allowed to mix gradually with the water in the lake or river and this keeps the temperatures well within the variations imposed by the CNSC.

Nuclear reactors do not threaten the ecology of rivers and lakes... period.

Now please tell me you're going to stop lying about this topic?
Click to expand...
 
As so often happens, truth is simply ignored, when it doesn't match cherished belief.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep bumping the thread when you obviously have nothing more to contribute?
 
Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post: Scientist’s radiation cover-up might have cost thousands of lives

Why do most people today, scientists included, believe that small doses of radiation are harmful to human health when no proof for this theory exists, and when mountains of evidence show the opposite — that small amounts of radiation actually promote health? After years of sleuthing into historical records, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts has found a smoking gun, involving a scientific scam in 1946 at the very highest echelons — the Nobel Prize ceremonies in Stockholm.

In an august Nobel hall one year after the end of the Second World War, the scientific world was knowingly misled by Hermann J. Muller, winner that year of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. This is the verdict from a forensic review entitled Muller’s Nobel Prize Lecture: When Ideology Prevailed Over Science, just published by the Society of Toxicology in the Oxford University Press’s Toxicological Sciences. Had Muller spoken the truth and revealed the existence of contradictory research in the world’s most prominent scientific gathering, we might today have an entirely different view of radiation and its effects, preventing immense human suffering and the loss of countless lives.​

Were it not for the ego of one scientist and the superstition and paranoia of the anti-nuclear lobby and the lies they all told, we could have started replacing coal and oil with clean, safe, cheap and abundant nuclear energy decades ago and saved millions of lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom