You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
So I quote direct paragraphs from the article that counters all your points about just being able to "turn things off" and how the safety measures are inadequate yet the best you can do is fire off a one liner with no support and call me names?
Direct quotes of bullshit are still bullshit themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death2Theft
State your facts and reasons.
Fact: you're an idiot.
Reason: you're an idiot.
/thread.
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,663
Thanked 10,387 Times in 3,913 Posts
tldr version?
sounds like this is an anti-nuclear reactor article
and it draws a doomsday scenario where some rare event will be the catalyst ?
there are bigger worries imo with more realistic risks like the financial collapse of Europe and USA
and the USA starting more wars to try and offset their collapse which will result in countless more civilian deaths "oh tragic but necessary"
world hunger and malnutrition killing over 20,000 children a day in this day and age...
there's been far more death and tragic circumstances in peoples lives as a direct result of the above noted than some doomsday scenario straight out of a cheesy hollywood scifi script will ever cause... even if there was a remote chance of it coming true there are bigger issues that you can do something about to help put an end to
What exactly would you do in a situation where the grid goes down and you have 400 potential chernobyl's around the globe? The frustrating part is the fix is relatively cheap (2 billion) having extra parts on hand and 1 year of fuel vs 1 week..... compared to world hunger or any other such crisis, this really is peanuts in cost.
Having retards like Soundy being pro nuclear without fuck all for facts/knowledge doesn't help things either thinking everything is safe.
India has certainly taken the right step with thorium reactors instead of nuclear, what most people dont realize is that the nuclear plants were designed for 20 year life spans and most are already pushing 40+. Yet switching to thorium would give people no chance of weaponization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed
tldr version?
sounds like this is an anti-nuclear reactor article
and it draws a doomsday scenario where some rare event will be the catalyst ?
there are bigger worries imo with more realistic risks like the financial collapse of Europe and USA
and the USA starting more wars to try and offset their collapse which will result in countless more civilian deaths "oh tragic but necessary"
world hunger and malnutrition killing over 20,000 children a day in this day and age...
there's been far more death and tragic circumstances in peoples lives as a direct result of the above noted than some doomsday scenario straight out of a cheesy hollywood scifi script will ever cause... even if there was a remote chance of it coming true there are bigger issues that you can do something about to help put an end to
Having retards like Soundy being pro nuclear without fuck all for knowledge doesn't help things either thinking everything is safe.
:noob:
Bullshit you read on internet conspiracy websites is not "knowledge". It's bullshit.
Quote:
India has certainly taken the right step with thorium reactors instead of nuclear, what most people dont realize is that the nuclear plants were designed for 20 year life spans and most are already pushing 40+. Yet switching to thorium would give people no chance of weaponization.
Right, that's why Israel is so chill about India's nuclear program.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
India only has 1/3 thorium. It is however a step in the right direction. So just because a "conspiracy" site says the sky is blue you can choose to ignore it? Perhaps if the guy bum collecting bottles told you that water can turn to ice, you'd also disregard it as a conspiracy theory? Do yourself a favor and go back to whatever reality tv series you were lost in. The rest of us living in the real world care about real things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
:noob:
Bullshit you read on internet conspiracy websites is not "knowledge". It's bullshit.
Right, that's why Israel is so chill about India's nuclear program.
So just because a "conspiracy" site says the sky is blue you can choose to ignore it? Perhaps if the guy bum collecting bottles told you that water can turn to ice, you'd also disregard it as a conspiracy theory? Do yourself a favor and go back to whatever reality tv series you were lost in. The rest of us living in the real world care about real things.
__________________ nabs -Brianrietta are you trying to Mindbomber me? using big words to try to confuse me jasonturbo -Threesomes: overrated - I didn't really think it was anything special, plus it was degrading, marching to the bathroom to fart all that semen out Babykiller -And next to that, there's a little dot called a period. It's not the stuff you eat out of your sisters gash, it's a handy little tool for breaking up sentences so they don't look like nonsensical retard garbage.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,663
Thanked 10,387 Times in 3,913 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death2Theft
What exactly would you do in a situation where the grid goes down and you have 400 potential chernobyl's around the globe? The frustrating part is the fix is relatively cheap (2 billion) having extra parts on hand and 1 year of fuel vs 1 week..... compared to world hunger or any other such crisis, this really is peanuts in cost.
$2bn for each plant? or for all of them? if its $2bn for each plant you can see why no1 would want to and in 152 years only 2 events were ever considered a threat? aren't Nuclear reactors shielded against EMP issues anyhow? so why waste so much $$$ planning for a significantly rare event that probably wouldn't even affect these sites?
isnt a years supply of fuel really on hand if its needed? with oil reserves and refineries almost everywhere?
this "issue" really sounds like those "science" related shows about Mega Tsunamis that could wipe out the East Coast of North America
or extinction events that could wipe out life like it did the dinosaurs
or even "the big one" for us here in Vancouver... it could happen any day now... or 500 years from now.... -_-
as for weaponization (a totally different issue/argument) from nuclear reactors -> nuclear weapons... bfd? countries are going to seek out nukes as deterrents no country has ever used their nukes except America but too bad they already have them and no1 is going to do anything about that
But even the craziest batshit nutjobs (North Korea) wouldn't use their nukes and I dont believe there's another country/leader out there crazier than the Kims
look @ what happens when you dont have a nuke, you get bullied and picked off when a stronger country wants what you got... so what do these smaller weaker countries see as a necessity to their survival? a nuclear weapon, and if they feel threatened their going to pursue that even more... want to stop countries from getting nukes? don't give them a reason to seek one out...stop picking them off 1-by-1 for your own amusement/needs
Hey 48 out of 65 sites leaking ain't bad. Oh but I guess msnbc is a conspiracy site.
Radioactive tritium leaks found at 48 US nuke sites - US news - Environment - msnbc.com
environment/t/radioactive-tritium-leaks-found-us-nuke-sites/
US has one of the highest rates of cancer if not the highest, but surely there is no link.
I guess "idiots" like you wont realize something is bad for you unless it kills you right away.
I can tell you the color of your sky. Dog shit brown so dark you can't even see out of it, for one second to come up with some facts.
A mememe response with no facts is just as good as no response. Continue to flame away but until you come up with some facts theres no real point in responding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
What color IS the sky in your world, anyway?
Last edited by Death2Theft; 02-25-2012 at 08:08 PM.
2 billion covers all the us plants iirc.
Even if they were shielded the issue here is what do you do once you shut them off and the power has no where to go? It takes 3-5 years to cool the radiactive material, with no grid in place how are they going to cool it?
When you can't even pay for transactions with a credit card because the phone lines are down how and the fuel pumps which are powered by the grid down. How on earth are you going to keep topping 400 plants off weekly?
Of course worst case scenario is we get a super bad event like the one in the 1800's that would literally mean 400 plants going chernoybl on you. If that isn't an extinction threat I dont know what is.
However at this point we can only hope that it's a moderately bad event and a few plants get fucked up and people see the danger.
As far as the weaponization aspect I was more hoping people wouldn't use the "i have a nuke too" excuse and stop dumping money into nukes when there are safer alternative energy sources. Unfortunately with the US throwing it's weight around, that may never happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed
$2bn for each plant? or for all of them? if its $2bn for each plant you can see why no1 would want to and in 152 years only 2 events were ever considered a threat? aren't Nuclear reactors shielded against EMP issues anyhow? so why waste so much $$$ planning for a significantly rare event that probably wouldn't even affect these sites?
isnt a years supply of fuel really on hand if its needed? with oil reserves and refineries almost everywhere?
this "issue" really sounds like those "science" related shows about Mega Tsunamis that could wipe out the East Coast of North America
or extinction events that could wipe out life like it did the dinosaurs
or even "the big one" for us here in Vancouver... it could happen any day now... or 500 years from now.... -_-
as for weaponization (a totally different issue/argument) from nuclear reactors -> nuclear weapons... bfd? countries are going to seek out nukes as deterrents no country has ever used their nukes except America but too bad they already have them and no1 is going to do anything about that
But even the craziest batshit nutjobs (North Korea) wouldn't use their nukes and I dont believe there's another country/leader out there crazier than the Kims
look @ what happens when you dont have a nuke, you get bullied and picked off when a stronger country wants what you got... so what do these smaller weaker countries see as a necessity to their survival? a nuclear weapon, and if they feel threatened their going to pursue that even more... want to stop countries from getting nukes? don't give them a reason to seek one out...stop picking them off 1-by-1 for your own amusement/needs
Doesn't matter. In D2T's world, the sky is falling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death2Theft
until you come up with some facts theres no real point in responding
Which is basically how everyone else feels when they contemplate responding to you. Face it, no amount of facts that we could provide you with is going to change your mind since you'll insist that they're all being provided as part of an elaborate coverup or mainstream lies. And since your "facts" are largely provided by crackpots who are routinely laughed out of the proper scientific community so there's really no reason for us to pay attention to them.
Anyways, in the highly unlikely event that we all die as a result of something that you've predicted, I will concede at that time that you were bound to be right about something sooner or later.
__________________ nabs -Brianrietta are you trying to Mindbomber me? using big words to try to confuse me jasonturbo -Threesomes: overrated - I didn't really think it was anything special, plus it was degrading, marching to the bathroom to fart all that semen out Babykiller -And next to that, there's a little dot called a period. It's not the stuff you eat out of your sisters gash, it's a handy little tool for breaking up sentences so they don't look like nonsensical retard garbage.
Wait, I thought tritium was supposed to be safer than uranium anyway, so what's the big deal? Either it's nasty shit, or it ain't.
Quote:
US has one of the highest rates of cancer if not the highest, but surely there is no link.
No, you're right, it's ALL linked to nuke plants... it has nothing to do with any other sorts of contaminants, and CERTAINLY nothing to do with their overall lifestyle.
Quote:
A mememe response with no facts is just as good as no response. Continue to flame away but until you come up with some facts theres no real point in responding.
Backatcha. In case you missed it the last two times: just because you quoted bullshit off the internet, doesn't make it not bullshit.
The US, at the time of this article, had 104 nuclear plants, to 55 in Japan. Japan, however, covers about 378,000 km^2, to the continental US's ~8 million, meaning Japan is about 1/20th the land area of the US, yet has about half the number of nuke plants.
In other words, the DENSITY of nuke plants in Japan is TEN TIMES higher than in the US. If they were such a massive cause of cancer, one would expect the rate of cancer to be TEN TIMES higher in Japan, no?
Right: that Americans have been abusing their own bodies with all kinds of shit for generations and that has FAR more to do with the high cancer rates, than anything to do with nuclear power plants.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
this is actually a real problem; we learned about this type of stuff in IT. It can actually cause billions of dollars in damage to infrastructure.
__________________
Quote:
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true; to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs..
-Carl Sagan
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true; to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs..
-Carl Sagan
Well of course since you never read any "propaganda conspiracy theory bullshit" you'd know this is exactly what the article warns about.
Who do you think has older nuclear plants? Japan that was still in disbelief after the nukes were dropped on them? Or the states that already possessed the technology? Sorry pal, you may as well stick to random flaming if you can't even read the "bs article" to argue how it's wrong. This is about aging plants working beyond their expected life cycle and falling into disrepair thus leaking radiation.
Keep on hating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
How did we get from solar flares to this?
Wait, I thought tritium was supposed to be safer than uranium anyway, so what's the big deal? Either it's nasty shit, or it ain't.
No, you're right, it's ALL linked to nuke plants... it has nothing to do with any other sorts of contaminants, and CERTAINLY nothing to do with their overall lifestyle.
Backatcha. In case you missed it the last two times: just because you quoted bullshit off the internet, doesn't make it not bullshit.
The US, at the time of this article, had 104 nuclear plants, to 55 in Japan. Japan, however, covers about 378,000 km^2, to the continental US's ~8 million, meaning Japan is about 1/20th the land area of the US, yet has about half the number of nuke plants.
In other words, the DENSITY of nuke plants in Japan is TEN TIMES higher than in the US. If they were such a massive cause of cancer, one would expect the rate of cancer to be TEN TIMES higher in Japan, no?
Right: that Americans have been abusing their own bodies with all kinds of shit for generations and that has FAR more to do with the high cancer rates, than anything to do with nuclear power plants.
Not sure if this is the right place to be posting this but didn't want to start a new thread since something was already created.
SOLAR FLARE!!
I saw it on the news this morning and I got a bit excited as I watched an old documentary about this kind of thing many years ago as well as learned a bit about it from school.
Big sunspot AR1429 has unleashed another major flare. This one is the strongest yet, an X5-class eruption on March 7th at 00:28 UT. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the extreme UV flash
This eruption hurled a bright CME into space, shown here in a movie from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. Analysts at the Goddard Space Weather Lab estimate that the CME will reach Earth on March 8th at 0625 UT (+/- 7 hr), possibly triggering a strong-to-severe geomagnetic storm. An animated forecast track shows the progression of the fast-moving cloud.
The flare also accelerated energetic protons toward Earth, triggering an S3-class solar radiation storm, in progress. Such a storm is mainly a nuisance to satellites, causing occasional reboots of onboard computers and adding noise to imaging systems. Solar flare alerts: text, phone.
My question is... do you guys think we'll be able to see some type of aurora borealis effect around the lower mainland? Perhaps further away from the city where you can see it a bit more clearly? Cause I wanna snap some photos
__________________ When life hands you lemons, you clone those lemons and make.. super lemons! - Principal Cinnamon J. Scudworth
My question is... do you guys think we'll be able to see some type of aurora borealis effect around the lower mainland? Perhaps further away from the city where you can see it a bit more clearly? Cause I wanna snap some photos
^
Nope. Not sure if anyone else around the globe had any major effects as I did not hear anything on the news nor did I really pay attention. I just wanted to see some type of Northern Light effect. Oh well. Looks like my trip up north is still a go.
__________________ When life hands you lemons, you clone those lemons and make.. super lemons! - Principal Cinnamon J. Scudworth
Clicked into the thread, skipped the first block of text ... read up to "In the past 152 years," ... saw the rest of the wall of text ... scrolled down to see the collection of epic TL;DR meme's lol ... oh and Spiderman made me literally laugh uncontrollably haha ...
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
and in 152 years only 2 events were ever considered a threat? aren't Nuclear reactors shielded against EMP issues anyhow? so why waste so much $$$ planning for a significantly rare event that probably wouldn't even affect these sites?
