Total servers: 4
107.185.22.128
Unknown
Unknown – 0lt
IP: 107.185.22.128
Game Mode:
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 0
Version: LieroX 0.56b
Players:
109.240.32.186
Unknown
Unknown – 0lt
IP: 109.240.32.186
Game Mode:
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 0
Version: LieroX 0.56b
Players:
DE nonstop + voting
Liero v1.0 – 100lt
IP: 144.76.67.162
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 15
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5
Players:
M0rtsHeaven
Modern Warfare1.0 – 20lt
IP: 84.251.82.159
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 12
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5
Players:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Greenpeace sucks  (Read 16114 times)

Sakmongkol

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2010, 04:02:53 pm »
So in your opinion that group, which was standing in the front of parliament house, the group which contains people, who relate very fanatic in this issue, and which don't know the scientic and economic facts(why Finland chose this solution) of this issue, should decide things?
No. Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of different colors between black and white? Similarly, there are a lot of people between the extremes, in this case between Greenpeace and National Coalition Party. In fact, most people do not belong to either of these extremes.

Besides, do you really know for sure that those people do not know the facts? Have you even bothered to listen to what they have to say?

The waste disposal. Ok, it doesn't dissapear in next 100 000 years, but It's possible the technology developes enough, for example in 100 years, to destroy the dangerous waste. But hey, whatever if it wouldn't do so? It's in safe copper capsule, very deep in rock. What would bring it out from there, the Santa Claus?
Not just 100 000 years. The half-lives of different elements in radioactive waste can be millions of years. Copper capsules, yes, but how can you know if they will be safe enough or not? The capsules won't last forever, but the scientists only need to prove they will last 'long enough'. The thing is, they don't really know for how long the waste will be lethal, and they can't really estimate how fast the capsules will corrode. Corrosion, erosion and mechanical stress will affect them anyway. Then, taking into account that we are in Scandinavia, there will be a big ice age sometime in the 15 000-60 000 years, and that will certainly speed up the corrosion. But again, how much, that is impossible to estimate even somewhat accurately.

Now I want to ask you. You say aren't actually against the nuclear power, though while you are concerned about the risks. Do you think there was a better solution, than this? It seems that greenhippies can't realize that Finland has pledged with a international community to keep its' carbon dioxide emissions low, which means that renewable energies which use fossil fuels are out of the discussion. Still, for example the Greens wants Finland to use these methods.
Wind power, hydropower, solar energy, biothermal energy and so on. Besides, the Kyoto protocol has been ratified by almost the whole world, yet Finland seems to be the only one making such ridiculous investments in nuclear power. What do you think that means? It could be that Finland is the only country who actually intends to keep its emissions low, and thus has to invest in nuclear power. But I don't believe that, I think there must be other possible ways.

One possibility is that Finland simply uses too much energy compared to other countries, when you take into account the geographical location and the relatively small number of people. If this is the case, and I think it might well be, the solution is perfectly simple: reduce energy consumption.

Seriously now, Thor, stop talking about 'knowing the facts' and bring up some real facts for yourself. Or is it just that you take everything Jyrki Katainen says as a fact, and treat everything else as fiction? Are you capable of thinking on your own?
Logged
"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"

~ Miles Davis

Rakkula

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2010, 04:58:06 pm »
Neither of you have the facts. I don't either but this I know for sure: the people making these estimations are academic, highly trained professionals. No, they don't know stuff for sure but they can estimate it fairly accurately. Whatever you say, experts are still the people listened to, and for a damn good reason.
        The objections directed at the nuclear power plant investments won't change anything, which is a good thing. 99% of people resisting nuclear power don't have any idea how dangerous radiation actually is. They're just scared of it because it sounds dangerous.
      Scientists can calculate average radiation exposure in Sieverts, taking into account both copper containers and the very thick rock layer above. Yes, not all radiation can be blocked but as long as it stays under a level estimated to have observable biological effects, the exposure is insignificant.
Not just 100 000 years. The half-lives of different elements in radioactive waste can be millions of years.
This is true but the half-lives of different elements is irrelevant. What matters is the half-life of the compound, or in other words the activity of the compound. High activity means lots of radiation but a short half-life. Low activity means the contrary. After the activity has decreased under a certain limit, the danger of the compound has dimished, meaning it no longer produces any significant radiation exposure.
The thing is, they don't really know for how long the waste will be lethal, and they can't really estimate how fast the capsules will corrode.
You can't really speak about lethality in this context. It's the exposure that counts (in Sieverts). They do know the correlation between exposure and biological effects though (such as cancer, radiation sickness etc.). Secondly, they can estimate how fast the capsules corrode in a stable environment (they can't tell the changes in the environment in the vicinity of the capsules for sure though, which is why it's monitored).
Then, taking into account that we are in Scandinavia, there will be a big ice age sometime in the 15 000-60 000 years, and that will certainly speed up the corrosion. But again, how much, that is impossible to estimate even somewhat accurately.
And the mechanism of the acceleration of corrosion is? Yes, it's impossible to estimate it accurately, which is why the containers must be and will be observed.


Logged
Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they usually stink.
I started playing LX while you were on your mother's stomach

Thor

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2010, 05:08:28 pm »
Not just 100 000 years. The half-lives of different elements in radioactive waste can be millions of years. Copper capsules, yes, but how can you know if they will be safe enough or not? The capsules won't last forever, but the scientists only need to prove they will last 'long enough'. The thing is, they don't really know for how long the waste will be lethal, and they can't really estimate how fast the capsules will corrode. Corrosion, erosion and mechanical stress will affect them anyway. Then, taking into account that we are in Scandinavia, there will be a big ice age sometime in the 15 000-60 000 years, and that will certainly speed up the corrosion. But again, how much, that is impossible to estimate even somewhat accurately.

You seriously think that the corrosion, which probably influences like 0,1 % to those copper capsules, is the biggest problem when the big ice age comes?

Wind power, hydropower, solar energy, biothermal energy and so on.

Blablabla, eventhough you don't seem to be a big fan of the National Coalition Party, you just listen to them. And also the leading economists. Those energy solutions are invalid, because Finland still lives of export. And yes, energy solutions like solar energy really don't give the energy Finnish industry needs. Also, for example the wind power destroys the landscape and harms people who live near wind power stations. We in Finland don't have same kind of circumstance as in Denmark. Also the solar energy is very hazard, try to use it in winter heh.


Seriously now, Thor, stop talking about 'knowing the facts' and bring up some real facts for yourself. Or is it just that you take everything Jyrki Katainen says as a fact, and treat everything else as fiction? Are you capable of thinking on your own?

I've myself explored this issue and the only thing I need to do is 1+1 which leads to nuclear power. Why? Because it's the best solution in this global economic situation. Also they have very good experts at their back with the economic and scientic facts. That's what longhairgreenhippies will never understand. Why? Because for example the congressmen in the Green party have lower education than for example the National Coalition party.

The best thing was couple of years ago when one Green party congressman said that if every country around the Baltic sea decrease 4% their emissions it makes 32% totality.

=)

Neither of you have the facts. I don't either but this I know for sure: the people making these estimations are academic, highly trained professionals. No, they don't know stuff for sure but they can estimate it fairly accurately. Whatever you say, experts are still the people listened to, and for a damn good reason.       

This.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 05:11:11 pm by Thor »
Logged

٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2010, 05:58:26 pm »
Yeah kinda similar case in Estonia. We want/need a nuclear station, but then there comes 1 green scientist that says it's dangerous and the whole deal is cancelled.
IDK, in my opinion the security is so strong and dependable, people shouldn't worry about nuclear catastrophes.

But yeah, Eastern European countries are kinda ****ed all. I mean Estonia is expensive country if you compare it with middle-european countries.. So, what is Finland or Sweden? -.-

Neehow I never liked politics, so I'm not going to do anything about it, maybe go live in some other country at some point.
Logged

This is where I put my secret messages, ssh!

Kummeliturska

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2010, 06:05:36 pm »
Well, Finland atleast were the 4th expensive country in Europe.
Everything is kinda expensive here. :(
Logged
There was no fail... the fish just blocked the door.

٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2010, 06:10:18 pm »
Well, Finland atleast were the 4th expensive country in Europe.
Everything is kinda expensive here. :(
Yeah that was my point. Fin is even moar fukd that way..
Logged

This is where I put my secret messages, ssh!

Sakmongkol

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2010, 06:11:18 pm »
You can't really speak about lethality in this context. It's the exposure that counts (in Sieverts). They do know the correlation between exposure and biological effects though (such as cancer, radiation sickness etc.).
Why can I not talk about lethality? High exposure is lethal, and even low doses can cause substantial mortality over time.

You seriously think that the corrosion, which probably influences like 0,1 % to those copper capsules, is the biggest problem when the big ice age comes?
Where does that 0,1% come from? Doesn't sound like a fact to me. No-one understands all the mechanisms of corrosion perfectly. Some people have estimated that the capsules can be corroded 1000 times faster than the industry assumes. They could be gone in a millennium. The durability and safety of the capsules has been quite likely overestimated by the industry, because that is the only way they can get a permission to build such things.

Of course there will be many other problems with the ice age, but as we're speaking about nuclear waste disposal, I think it's only realistic to take into account the effects ice age can have on the capsules.

Blablabla, eventhough you don't seem to be a big fan of the National Coalition Party, you just listen to them. And also the leading economists.
Yeah I have 'listened' to them. I've followed the public discussion on the matter. I'm just not buying their stories. I don't share any of their interests.

Those energy solutions are invalid, because Finland still lives of export.
What do those two things have to do with each other?

I've myself explored this issue and the only thing I need to do is 1+1 which leads to nuclear power. Why? Because it's the best solution in this global economic situation.
You can't seriously be naïve enough to believe that decisions like this are as simple as that, with all the things you have to pay attention to and understand (or at least try to understand).

Also they have very good experts at their back with the economic and scientic facts. That's what longhairgreenhippies will never understand. Why? Because for example the congressmen in the Green party have lower education than for example the National Coalition party.
May I laugh? Education doesn't correlate with understanding these matters or being able to make good decisions in any way. So-called highly educated people can be complete idiots, with no understanding about the morality or long-term effects of their decisions. In fact, I'd say many, if not most of such congressmen in Finland are in fact idiots.

Longhairgreenhippies have also scientists and experts to back them up. On what grounds can you say which experts are 'better'? But still, anyone can listen to such experts and scientists and make decisions based on that. It's a lot more difficult to think on your own about these things.

The best thing was couple of years ago when one Green party congressman said that if every country around the Baltic sea decrease 4% their emissions it makes 32% totality.
That is completely irrelevant. Please note also that I haven't mentioned the Green Party in my arguments. I don't support them either. I find it pathetic that they didn't leave the government after the nuclear power decision. But again there are other parties than National Coalition Party and Green Party. And there are other things to think about besides nuclear energy. But it is easy to make everything seem black and white.
Logged
"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"

~ Miles Davis

Gaston

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2010, 06:38:47 pm »
Neither of you have the facts. I don't either but this I know for sure: the people making these estimations are academic, highly trained professionals. No, they don't know stuff for sure but they can estimate it fairly accurately. Whatever you say, experts are still the people listened to, and for a damn good reason.
The people making decisions like this is most likely not at all educated in the area of nuclear power that would make thme an authority on the subject. Which is what matters. What scientists estimate and talk about is at best a side-thought for the decision makers.

That being said, there is no universal support for nuclear power in the scientific enviroment.  There are those who support it and those who don't. This is understandable due to the enormous effect that can be produced through induced fission compared to the potential catastrophes (Chernobyl) and to the problem of handling the different types of long lasting waste that is produced by these powerplants.

        The objections directed at the nuclear power plant investments won't change anything, which is a good thing. 99% of people resisting nuclear power don't have any idea how dangerous radiation actually is. They're just scared of it because it sounds dangerous.
This is not a good thing if the objections are legitimate. (which depends on what actual objections you are talking about)

      Scientists can calculate average radiation exposure in Sieverts, taking into account both copper containers and the very thick rock layer above. Yes, not all radiation can be blocked but as long as it stays under a level estimated to have observable biological effects, the exposure is insignificant.
Some things can be calculated. However, outside factors can't be calculated to a good effect in the time period we're talking about. That is a definite problem if these materials are to be stored on Earth for such a timeperiod. And to brush it off with a "we have such a long time that we'll find a solution for it" is foolish at best. It needs to be adressed ASAP considering the growing amount of nuclear waste that is stored on Earth. The current solution is not a good enough one.

And the mechanism of the acceleration of corrosion is? Yes, it's impossible to estimate it accurately, which is why the containers must be and will be observed.
You can't plan to observe something for thousands of years. That is simply not viable in any kind of scenario. For the expansion of production of nuclear power (and therefor poroduction of nuclear waste), there needs to be a definite plan as to how this problem will be handled. Burying it continiually under the ground is akin to wipe the dust under the carpet. In the short term there is no noticable effect, but once you take a small look under the carpet, you see how filthy it is. It is simply not sutainable in the long run to keep burying it underground.

Logged
26 Mars 2007
Belle: woah, is that a neatly snuck in sexproposition? Could I ask you to take of your pants?

Thor

Re: Greenpeace suck
« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2010, 11:43:25 pm »
Yeah I have 'listened' to them. I've followed the public discussion on the matter. I'm just not buying their stories. I don't share any of their interests.
It's too bad you close your eyes from the most trusted party in Finland. But if I understood right, you share your opinions with Vasemmistoliitto? Then I understand very well.. But it's Finland's benefit that party whose ideology is straight from 1960 doesn't have big powers in Finnish decision-making establishment.

 
What do those two things have to do with each other
You seriously have problems in understanding or then you are just an ignorant - just like Paavo Arhinmäki, Martti Korhonen and others who keep screaming in the parliament house, but don't come up with any concrete option.

I explain you this again.

Finland lives of export = finnish industry has to work with the best efficiency as possible.

Well, the best efficiency we get with nuclear power because the wind power and other shit don't construct enough energy for the finnish industry.

Also the international contract influences that renewable energy which uses fossil fuels cannot be used. Nuclear power doesn't cause CO2 emissions.

You can't seriously be naïve enough to believe that decisions like this are as simple as that, with all the things you have to pay attention to and understand (or at least try to understand).
I don't need to believe anything when I know the fact that the nuclear power strategy is the best solution in this global economic situation. And when it doesn't make any major risks for nature, humans or anything eventhough somebodies try to make that kind of propaganda.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 11:45:08 pm by Thor »
Logged

MissingNo.

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2010, 01:52:52 am »
I believe that once solar cells are improved, they will be in high demand. Homes are already using them here and they also use generators that get them through in the night or other low-sun situations. They are discussing putting wind turbines in the ocean because...well it's the ocean. They're out of the way and you can put quite a bit there without disturbing anything other than the wonderful ocean animals.
When/if the nuclear plants are implemented, eventually the codes and standards will be improved. The efficiency and the safeguards may also improve.

Offtopic: Why do you keep calling people hippies as though it is a bad thing? Caring for the environment is not a bad thing. Would you call somebody who would rather ride a bike or walk instead of driving a vehicle a hippie because they don't want to harm the environment? How about people that use electric cars?

Sorry if it seems jumbled or anything, I'm dealing with other things.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 01:54:27 am by MissingNo. »
Logged

Thor

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2010, 02:16:39 am »
Offtopic: Why do you keep calling people hippies as though it is a bad thing? Caring for the environment is not a bad thing. Would you call somebody who would rather ride a bike or walk instead of driving a vehicle a hippie because they don't want to harm the environment? How about people that use electric cars?

There is nothing bad in caring about enviroment, but here in Finland it has become like a religion and that's sick. Good example was that hippies standing in front of the Finnish parliament house.
Logged

RussG

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2010, 04:07:48 am »
Hyvä hyvä Thor, meidän pikku kokoomusnuori :)=)=)=)=)=))
Logged

Rakkula

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2010, 10:28:19 am »
Why can I not talk about lethality? High exposure is lethal, and even low doses can cause substantial mortality over time.
Well how is it possible to determine a lethal level of activity for the compund? You can't determine it because it's statistical and depends on exposure which depends on distance, time and the substance between you and the nuclear waste. You could of course choose standards (at a distance of 1 meter for 1 hour), but it doesn't seem practical to me.



The people making decisions like this is most likely not at all educated in the area of nuclear power that would make thme an authority on the subject. Which is what matters. What scientists estimate and talk about is at best a side-thought for the decision makers.
This is true. However, it is the highly educated scientists that design the nuclear plant, calculate environmental effects et cetera. They give the go-ahead before the MP's get to do anything. They could do this afterwards though, but then the project is simply cancelled if anything precarious is discovered.
       Just because the choice is given a democratic taste, it doesn't mean that the untrained MP's would make anything more than just a yes/no vote. That's their job, scientists do the rest.

That being said, there is no universal support for nuclear power in the scientific enviroment.  There are those who support it and those who don't. This is understandable due to the enormous effect that can be produced through induced fission compared to the potential catastrophes (Chernobyl) and to the problem of handling the different types of long lasting waste that is produced by these powerplants.
Yeah, I haven't heard of a single scientist who claims the power plants themselves are dangerous. What to do with the waste is another thing though. Scientists are scared of that and I guess that's for a good reason.
       Those potential catastrophes are likely never to occur in modern power plants. You know the safety is designed in a way that there would be on average 1 accident per 2 to 10 million years. Now what are odds of that? Very ridiculously small.
Some things can be calculated. However, outside factors can't be calculated to a good effect in the time period we're talking about. That is a definite problem if these materials are to be stored on Earth for such a timeperiod. And to brush it off with a "we have such a long time that we'll find a solution for it" is foolish at best. It needs to be adressed ASAP considering the growing amount of nuclear waste that is stored on Earth. The current solution is not a good enough one.
I guess the worst case scenario is one where the nuclear waste contaminates ground water. Other problems I don't see. Even if the copper capsules would worn out completely, there's still thousands of tons of solid rock between the waste and the world outside.
You can't plan to observe something for thousands of years. That is simply not viable in any kind of scenario.
What do you mean? You send a couple of engineers every few years to check the cave and a large enough random sample of capsules (in order to follow corrosion) and that's it.
For the expansion of production of nuclear power (and therefor poroduction of nuclear waste), there needs to be a definite plan as to how this problem will be handled. Burying it continiually under the ground is akin to wipe the dust under the carpet. In the short term there is no noticable effect, but once you take a small look under the carpet, you see how filthy it is.
Yeah, you're right at least to some extent. Nevertheless, it appears experts see that as a necessary evil.
It is simply not sutainable in the long run to keep burying it underground.
The matter is only back to where it came from to begin with. We just have to wait for NASA to build that ridiculously large space elevator. Then we can launch all nuclear waste into space.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 12:20:16 pm by Rakkula »
Logged
Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they usually stink.
I started playing LX while you were on your mother's stomach

٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2010, 12:03:23 pm »
You can't plan to observe something for thousands of years. That is simply not viable in any kind of scenario.
What do you mean? You send a couple of engineers every few years to check the cave and a large enough random sample of capsules (in order to follow corrosion) and that's it.
For the expansion of production of nuclear power (and therefor poroduction of nuclear waste), there needs to be a definite plan as to how this problem will be handled. Burying it continiually under the ground is akin to wipe the dust under the carpet. In the short term there is no noticable effect, but once you take a small look under the carpet, you see how filthy it is.
Yeah, you're right at least to some extent. Nevertheless, it appears experts see that as a necessary evil.
It is simply not sutainable in the long run to keep burying it underground.
The matter is only back to where it came from to begin with. We just have to wait for NASA to build that ridiculously large space elevator. Then we can launch all nuclear waste into space.

Wtf, you arguing with yourself?
Logged

This is where I put my secret messages, ssh!

Raziel

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2010, 12:13:41 pm »
Mmmm... this radioactive dust must have influenced him quite much, so now he has split perosnality problem.
Logged
Yes, it's Raziel.

Rakkula

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2010, 12:18:51 pm »
Ye, I've discovered the pleasures of self-argumentation. Can't be bothered to fix it. Just to clear things out, they're directed at Gaston.

Edit: fixed
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 12:20:32 pm by Rakkula »
Logged
Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they usually stink.
I started playing LX while you were on your mother's stomach

Sakmongkol

Re: Greenpeace suck
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2010, 01:27:02 pm »
It's too bad you close your eyes from the most trusted party in Finland. But if I understood right, you share your opinions with Vasemmistoliitto? Then I understand very well.. But it's Finland's benefit that party whose ideology is straight from 1960 doesn't have big powers in Finnish decision-making establishment.
I don't particularly support the Left Alliance either. I feel they have somewhat given up their ideals, although some of them are still 'real' communists. But I think all the big parties (almost all in the parliament) are too similar with each other.

Besides, I think the National Coalition Party's ideology is straight from 1918.

You seriously have problems in understanding or then you are just an ignorant - just like Paavo Arhinmäki, Martti Korhonen and others who keep screaming in the parliament house, but don't come up with any concrete option.

I explain you this again.

Finland lives of export = finnish industry has to work with the best efficiency as possible.

Well, the best efficiency we get with nuclear power because the wind power and other shit don't construct enough energy for the finnish industry.

Also the international contract influences that renewable energy which uses fossil fuels cannot be used. Nuclear power doesn't cause CO2 emissions.
Ok, I think I understand. But then again, that is still not a perfect justification for nuclear power. Building more energy is certainly not the only way to keep the industry working as efficiently as possible. Besides, why should they work so efficiently all the time?

Also, I think it's funny how you use the Kyoto protocol as an excuse to use nuclear energy. You are just replacing CO2 emissions with an even more dangerous waste, instead of reducing energy consumption and pollution altogether.

Even more important than reducing CO2 emissions would be nuclear disarmament. And especially in the future that should, in my opinion, include replacing nuclear power with renewable energy forms, because nuclear waste can be used to produce nuclear weapons.

There is nothing bad in caring about enviroment, but here in Finland it has become like a religion and that's sick. Good example was that hippies standing in front of the Finnish parliament house.
What I think is really sick, is money, greed, efficiency and competition as a religion.
Logged
"If you understood everything I say, you'd be me!"

~ Miles Davis

[leke]GrassNinja

Re: Greenpeace suck
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2010, 05:50:43 pm »
And when it doesn't make any major risks for nature, humans or anything eventhough somebodies try to make that kind of propaganda.

Are you nuts? Nuclear power is a major risk!

But you are right, that it's the only solution at the moment that is effective enough to provide us with enough power.
Logged

Gaston

Re: Greenpeace sucks
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2010, 07:43:28 pm »
This is true. However, it is the highly educated scientists that design the nuclear plant, calculate environmental effects et cetera. They give the go-ahead before the MP's get to do anything. They could do this afterwards though, but then the project is simply cancelled if anything precarious is discovered.
I'm pretty sure it's the politicians that chooses to build the plant and where it is which is what matters, and then the scientific research as to enviromental effects and such starts. Given that, I think they have too much power.

Just because the choice is given a democratic taste, it doesn't mean that the untrained MP's would make anything more than just a yes/no vote. That's their job, scientists do the rest.
There are strong political influences that have much more to say than simply voting yes or no to something. Lobbyism comes to mind at that. The political system (in any given nation) is much more to than merely voting over issues, and nuclear power is a matter which is given a lot of attention in politics and amongst people influencing politics.
Yeah, I haven't heard of a single scientist who claims the power plants themselves are dangerous. What to do with the waste is another thing though. Scientists are scared of that and I guess that's for a good reason.

Those potential catastrophes are likely never to occur in modern power plants. You know the safety is designed in a way that there would be on average 1 accident per 2 to 10 million years. Now what are odds of that? Very ridiculously small.
The plants are highly dangerous. There is no doubt about that. However, when in the right hands, the risk seems to diminish enough for it to be acceptable. But if a terror attack were to strike a power plant, a meltdown isn't that far-fetched. The plants can be at the center of events as catstrophal as Chernobyl (though not necesarrily by the same cause) in it's time if the right circumstances allow for it. That is a risk that has to be factored into the equation. The plants pose a definite risk for the surrounding enviroment. Not by how they work themself, but through outside factors which can **** up the plan.



I guess the worst case scenario is one where the nuclear waste contaminates ground water. Other problems I don't see. Even if the copper capsules would worn out completely, there's still thousands of tons of solid rock between the waste and the world outside.
Right now it's not a problem. The waste we have is manageable. However, it lasts so long that we're not getting rid of most of it for a long time. And if we keep accellerating nuclear power plants (and therefore nuclear waste), we're gonna end up with mountains filled with waste, and soon we'll be hard pressed to find enough room for it. There is only so much space on Earth.

There are a lot of factors which can **** up the nuclear waste given enough time. Tectonic plate movement, erosion, extreme climate and people. Just give them enough time, and it's quite possible.

What do you mean? You send a couple of engineers every few years to check the cave and a large enough random sample of capsules (in order to follow corrosion) and that's it.
Yeah that works for a few hundred years. But wars, extreme climate, earthquakes, famine and whatnot could have the potential to wipe out our knowledge of these storage sites. And if noone remembers them, noone will check up on them. It is simply not viable for any organization to plan to observe something like that for thousands of years. It's unresponsible for any more than a few hundred years.

Yeah, you're right at least to some extent. Nevertheless, it appears experts see that as a necessary evil.
It is not by a long shot a necesarry evil. It is a consequense that needs serious research until we get a solution that works in the long term. Anyone willing to think that the solution of continually burying the waste underground is good, would be as bad as someone thinking that oil will last forever.

The matter is only back to where it came from to begin with. We just have to wait for NASA to build that ridiculously large space elevator. Then we can launch all nuclear waste into space.

The matter in its original form wasn't nuclear waste. It's not like taking a crap in the yard, and it'll eventually turn back to earth. This waste will stay waste longer than the human race have existed.

And you can't just count on waiting for NASA to step up. NASA fundings have been cut to bone, and they are almost being surpassed by ESA. If we're gonna be able to throw this waste into space, we'll need to put serious power behind research to do so, and not just pray to God to fix it for us.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 07:45:19 pm by Gaston »
Logged
26 Mars 2007
Belle: woah, is that a neatly snuck in sexproposition? Could I ask you to take of your pants?

Thor

Re: Greenpeace suck
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2010, 10:36:34 pm »
Are you nuts? Nuclear power is a major risk!

Nah, not atleast here in Finland because of our stable rock foundation, technology expertise and our care of responsibility.

Also, I think it's funny how you use the Kyoto protocol as an excuse to use nuclear energy. You are just replacing CO2 emissions with an even more dangerous waste, instead of reducing energy consumption and pollution altogether.

Well, Finland is in that protocol, they care their responsibility in decreasing CO2 emissions. 'Dangerous waste' is not dangerous here in Finland like I told GrassNinja. Though, of course there is a risk of terrorist attack, but I think that Finland isn't (yet) the biggest enemy of al-Qaida for example.

Even more important than reducing CO2 emissions would be nuclear disarmament. And especially in the future that should, in my opinion, include replacing nuclear power with renewable energy forms, because nuclear waste can be used to produce nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I agree with this, but it isn't topical right now. They need first to develop the renewable energy forms, so the finnish industry gets the best efficiency of it. And the best efficiency they get of nuclear power, which is a fact.

What I think is really sick, is money, greed, efficiency and competition as a religion.

It's not a religion, it's the nowaday world. Live with it or get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
 

anything