| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 80050 | 2007-06-09 23:12:00 | Madness... | somebody (208) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 557788 | 2007-06-10 04:49:00 | I'm with 'somebody'. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: Technology has moved on a long way since Chernobyl. Can anyone (leave Google and other search engines alone!) state where and when the last nuclear disaster anywhere was? OK, go on, Google it - Chernobyl was the last civil reactor disaster - in April 1986!! |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 557789 | 2007-06-10 05:23:00 | May people are just skeptics.....and I guess that's what I am. Chernobyl before its disaster claimed their nuclear operations were safe. Yet, the disaster happened. Nuclear power developers today say their technology is now safe - same thing said by the Chernobyls before the disaster. I just don't want to take chances. Do not live downstream from a river with a dam on it and a power turbine and also on a fault line. There is the possibilty of an earthquake which breachs the dam. Do not take a chance at all. Even if you do not go to work and sit inside your home 24/7 there is a possibility that where you live gets hit by a stray meteor, comet, asteroid. Do not eat food either. It is possible that the canning factory worker has a grudge against his/her employer and introduces a poison in to your can of fruit salad. Definitely do not go for a walk in a park. You may be attacked by a random 4WD vehicle. Or a crazed Oppussom on P. I take a chance every day of my life just by continuing to live. Oh. Watch out for the Taniwha who may live down the road from where you are. Rather than running power/transmission lines from point A to B I would prefer to use a nuclear power plant close to where the power is needed. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 557790 | 2007-06-10 05:32:00 | Nuclear is it for me. You don't see nuclear getting bad press for greenhouse gases (however real they might be). New power stations have a very low amount of waste developed. The boogeymen that people hold up come from the older style stations. like saying chenobyl as an example of nuclear power problems. My opinon changed when cycling around germany, and seeing in a the middle of a totally forested valley a power station quietly steaming away. The problem would be finding a place where earthquakes are not an issue, but a nice little one in northland would provide enough power for the top of the North Island and solve heaps of transmission problems. Its really the way forward... |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 557791 | 2007-06-10 05:33:00 | I'm with 'somebody'. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: Technology has moved on a long way since Chernobyl. Can anyone (leave Google and other search engines alone!) state where and when the last nuclear disaster anywhere was? OK, go on, Google it - Chernobyl was the last civil reactor disaster - in April 1986!! Without Google I think I remember three mile island in the USA. There appeared to be a problem at some stage, I also remember a strike in 1951. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 557792 | 2007-06-10 05:44:00 | Nuclear is it for me. You don't see nuclear getting bad press for greenhouse gases (however real they might be). New power stations have a very low amount of waste developed. The boogeymen that people hold up come from the older style stations. like saying chenobyl as an example of nuclear power problems. My opinon changed when cycling around germany, and seeing in a the middle of a totally forested valley a power station quietly steaming away. The problem would be finding a place where earthquakes are not an issue, but a nice little one in northland would provide enough power for the top of the North Island and solve heaps of transmission problems. Its really the way forward... I have stopped eating baked beans. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 557793 | 2007-06-10 07:31:00 | Chernobyl before its disaster claimed their nuclear operations were safe. Yet, the disaster happened. Nuclear power developers today say their technology is now safe - same thing said by the Chernobyls before the disaster. I just don't want to take chances.The difference here is in the way the reactors are designed. With Chernobyl, the reactors required active measures to shut them down in the event of a problem. With a modern reactor, shutting down is intrinsic to the design. If all controls are suddenly removed, the reactor will simple cease to function - rather than going critical and exploding the way Chernobyl did. It's not possible to override this built-in safety without physically dismantling and redesigning the entire reactor, and also changing the fuel used. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 557794 | 2007-06-10 08:14:00 | I have stopped eating baked beans.That's a relief for everyone near you!! :D :D | johcar (6283) | ||
| 557795 | 2007-06-10 08:17:00 | Without Google I think I remember three mile island in the USA. There appeared to be a problem at some stage, I also remember a strike in 1951.Three Mile Island was March 1979... older than Chernobyl... | johcar (6283) | ||
| 557796 | 2007-06-10 08:28:00 | I have stopped eating baked beans. Thats a relief to all of us. PJ. :D :D |
Poppa John (284) | ||
| 557797 | 2007-06-10 08:36:00 | Nuclear power all the way, seems foolish not to harness it now that its safe, back in the day it was dangerous, but come on people, time to move on and get with the facts | Codex (3761) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||