SMASHPOLL: The 2010 Federal Election

[luke_atyeo]

it may be the size of a fridge, but whats the actual range of its impact?

besides, we dont need nuclear here, we have jon.

 

[Pete278]

If you put it under some concrete, the insignificant amounts of radiation will all be completely absorbed.

 

[C~Dog]

Jetison the waste into the sun.

 

[luke_atyeo]

I wish there were a few other problems I could solve by putting them under concrete

 

[Pete278]

BUT THEN THE SUN WOULD EMIT RADIATION AND RADIATION IS BAD.

10caps

EDIT: I wish I could ignore arguments by insulting the other person too. Doesn't make nuclear waste any less safe.

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Guess what lasts longer, nuclear waste or concrete.

Edit: Can you please explain to me what aspect of nuclear waste is safe exactly.

 

[Pete278]

Well, unless you're doing something stupid to it or having a war on top of it, they should both last about as long as each other.

EDIT: JUST TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW:

You have a mole of the following materials, Francium-221 with a half-life of 4.8 minutes, and whatever waste you want from a nuclear power plant with a half-life of however many billion years you want. They will both emit the same amount of total radiation in terms of energy, but over a different period of time. One will do it over 4.8 minutes, and you'll receive a huge blast of it, and the other will do it extremely slowly over the billions of years. Does it sound safer now?

 

[luke_atyeo]

see, you think I'm argueing with you, and you also think I am insulting you, however I am doing neither.

silly silly pete

 

[Technodeath]

Luke you're probably the most ignorant idiot I've ever had the displeasure of knowing
is your arrogance a defence mechanism to make up for the fact you look like a ginger ogre?

 

[Shaya]

Liam, you agree with me on everything... especially political preference.

The main issue I have with nuclear power is where does the waste go?,
people thought coal power plants were a-okay, but we're pretty much ****ed already and we're going to die from that.

Now inb4 someone says let's jettison it into spac-aww **** it.
The potential risks of doing that involve that the extreme cost in sending something millions/billions of kilometres away in large volume may be fine and dandy... Now if something happened to it like... an explosion whilst near the top of the atmosphere? You pretty much made the entire earth extinct, gg.
(It's what happened to Mars when I was there)

 

[Pete278]

Dig a deep hole in the Aussie desert, layer it with concrete, put it there. Even if the concrete collapses, it'd be so far down the sand would absorb all the radiation before it hit the surface.

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Not particularly, since there are multiple isotopes of different elements produced as waste, and they all don't have half-lives of a billion years. Also I assume you know that the radiation, even though it is been released over a long time, can still be deadly or at least strongly mutagenic in many of these isotopes. So when your concrete decays before the waste what then. Also the chance for a ****-up in nuclear power is far greater than in other forms of current power generation. Like Chernobyl, and yes I am well aware that the reactor there was a **** one and they don't build them like they used to, but the risk is still present. I personally, would rather they wait until they can adequately deal with the waste (which should be in the next decade or so) before they start creating more nuclear power plants and waste. There current method of sticking it deep underground and forgetting about it isn't the best.

Edit: It can still **** up the stuff down there, seep into water tables should i continue?

 

[Pete278]

Going outside can be deadly, since radiation from the Sun can be strongly mutagenic.

EDIT: Also, the problems with Chernobyl was a list so long that its not even worth reciting, but only one thing was really wrong with the plant itself. The fact of the matter is the Union cut corners and the safety wasn't upheld, and people died because of it. It wasn't caused by the nuclear power plant, it was caused by a government that desired the most energy for the least cost, with no desire to care for its people.

 

[Shaya]

IIRC, every human today has a readable level of radiation larger than before due to Chernobyl.

That's when dat COLON CANCER STARTED BECOMING A PROBLEM.
(The last sentence is just to scare Toby further away from his terrible meat gouging habit)

Actually it was AIDS that became a problem... maybe a little earlier, who knows.

 

[Pete278]

And that can be blamed on the Union, not the fact they were using nuclear power. Of course, the extent of the damage is worse because of it, but people still would have died even if Chernobyl was a solar plant. That many corners were cut in its production.

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Wear some sunscreen if you're concerned about UVR. Although it also benefits your immune system in many ways. I wrote an essay on the topic last semester so I can go into quite alot of detail if you want.

Edit: Yeah that was kind of the point I was making with ****-ups in nuclear power being far worse.

Edit 2: GO USSR

 

[Pete278]

Thankfully (well, hopefully), our government isn't as power mad as the Union's, and the problems would be nigh impossible to repeat accidentally. For instance, to save costs, they layered the safety rods (used to prevent the particles causing fission starting uncontrolled chain reactions) with graphite to prevent them melting under the heat. Graphite is a moderator, which speeds up the chain reaction. There wasn't really much of a point even having the safety rods in at that point.

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Oh I know how **** Chernobyl was, we had to watch the same ****ing video about 5 times throughout our highschool science courses.

 

[unreon]

To everyone frightened about nuclear waste:

Please don't be afraid of the word "nuclear". There's a lot of emotion attached to the word which still persists from the Cold-War terror that stemmed from it. It's actually very green and talk to anyone who knows their energy science - they will be a supporter of it.

I didn't mention that the waste is converted from diffuse liquid into stable solid crystals. These rods are now recycled into new fuel cells - a single rod will last us 4000 years. Yes, you read that correctly. 4000 years vs instant burning of coal. It is far more efficient in terms of energy yield. It produces less pollutions in the entire step of it's process. Modern nuclear reactors don't use Plutonium, or any kind of material that can be used/stolen/sold as weapons. It's also cheaper than other renewable energies: hydro and coal are slightly more expensive, and wind/geothermal/etc are significantly moreso. It's 2010 and computational and mechanical safety strategies behind it are redundant many times over.

You want to talk about reach? I don't know the exact number, but let's be conservative. Waste by coal plants reach billions of tons. Coal itself is release INTO THE STRATOSPHERE. It is depositing into the oceans, suffocating the life and making it horribly acidic. Acidity is horrible because the oceans produce 70% of the world's oxygen supply, and suffocating it will affect ecosystems worldwide. And I haven't even gone into Global Warming, which is a planetary emergency and unfortunately people don't fear the crisis that is looming.

Nuclear is renewable, highly efficient, cheap, safe, and green.

Now tell me why you're against it?

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Thanks Unreon, I didn't know they had the technology to do that yet, I thought it was a few years off. Well since they no longer have the waste then I see no reason not to have nuclear power plants since they are so much cleaner than coal in other ways. Well it's only 12:37 and I have already learnt something today.

 

[Toby.]

Unreon squeeeee

 

[xXArrowXx]

its easy we drill holes into the earths crust to cool the core of the earth to slow global warming. and if it gets 2 cold we throw in the nuclear waste. or up the green house gases >.>

we recycle this waste into a bomb to fight infidel countries?

 

[isthattim?]

everyone in this thread is wrong
there, i said it

 

[CAOTIC]

including you, so your statement is wrong <3

 

[LarryLD]

I had a great chat about Nuclear power with Toshi the other week, he had just done a big essay on it and seem to think there are a lot of logistical problems with them, things like the parts to build them being extremely hard to come by due to them being made scarcely in only a few places.

My personal opinion: How could it be worse than coal?

 

[Shaya]

Human / environmental extinction if the nuclear waste is not as safe as we'd hope it would be.

Otherwise pro-nuclear power plants.

 

[isthattim?]

Human / environmental extinction if the nuclear waste is not as safe as we'd hope it would be.

Otherwise pro-nuclear power plants.

you're worried about nuclear power plants when there are x thousand nuclear bombs out there?

more nuclear power plants = less nuclear weapons because the isotopes become too valuable

flawless logic?

 

[Toby.]

hahahahah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdFdtXBh58&feature=related

 

[tedeth]

Remember guys, if you roll in nuclear waste you can get super powers.

 

[C~Dog]

Actually I believe Adam West disproved that one.

 

[luke_atyeo]

Luke you're probably the most ignorant idiot I've ever had the displeasure of knowing
is your arrogance a defence mechanism to make up for the fact you look like a ginger ogre?

ahh you know whats funny td? irony.
you know whats funnier? you.
I cant wait to meet you.

And I haven't even gone into Global Warming, which is a planetary emergency and unfortunately people don't fear the crisis that is looming.

its fine, we can just load some huge materia into a rocketship and then... oh wait nevermind.

 

[tibs7]

Global warming....it doesn't make sense. The temperature of the world has decreased by 2 degrees how is it warming up? I think it's a way of creating a new industry, just my awesome 2c

 

[Nova]

I hope the world burns and we get more Hurricanes and then, and only then, will I die happy.
This cooler than average winter ****s me.
Also Global Warming panic "AAHHHH GIVE ME XANAX" freaks stfu, I'm not discrediting anything.
I have no opinion on it; just what I want to happen, i.e. not saying it will.

 

[isthattim?]

Global warming....it doesn't make sense. The temperature of the world has decreased by 2 degrees how is it warming up? I think it's a way of creating a new industry, just my awesome 2c

I'm gonna have to agree with tibs on this one
scientists are selfish horrible people that will say anything to ensure that they get more grant money.
they are in no way dedicated to find accurate, provable answers to important questions and often present things as facts when they have no evidence
scientists make me sick, talk radio hosts are far better at commentating on this type of thing.
For absolute certainty though, ask your minister

 

[Zero]

I love you Tim

 

[Zero]

I hate you bad gateways

 

[unreon]

Global warming....it doesn't make sense. The temperature of the world has decreased by 2 degrees how is it warming up? I think it's a way of creating a new industry, just my awesome 2c

Some people have been getting really cold weather up in the northern countries. It doesn't negate Global Warming, because in reality this coldness is merely a shift of the intensely cold Arctic air down further south where it'd normally hang out. Basically the see-saw effect has gotten a lot more extreme as global warming has mucked up our pressure systems, shifting things around. This is called the Arctic Oscillation. Globally however, it's becoming toastier and toastier.

I just wonder where are you getting this information from...? A simple wiki search will prove otherwise.

According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISS_temperature_2000-09_lrg.png

a recent report shows:

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

It's strange how everyone has an idea for themselves about scientific information. It's as if their decades of research and expertise isn't enough. As if the worldwide consensus of the top climate scientists haven't been enough. No, after all that...they never ever had that brilliant insight to come up with "hey...ice melts in water all the time!".

It's odd that people trust the theories that made planes fly. Or those allowing computers to work. Or medicines to cure. Or ways to clean your water. Or putting men on the moon. The same methods of scrutiny, critical thinking, and data appraisal that those other scientists use are not absent in climate science.

They are bringing you a warning of what's to come, please listen to them


EDIT: crap I just realised you could be trolling. lol whoops I bit. Oh well leaving this here regardless. Better study now. DDDD:

 

[luke_atyeo]

I like how scientists are always wrong and the general public knows more/better.
thats my favorite part.

 

[tibs7]

Nah Jase I wasn't trolling.

Ipcc ey.
"Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers"

I also don't believe the man on the moon thing either...

 

[unreon]

Ipcc ey.
"Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers"

This is your answer. Consider what a reduction of coal use would mean to them. What could their agenda be?

Remember when cigarette companies had a campaign perpetuating ignorance to the dangers of smoking?

I also don't believe the man on the moon thing either...