|
Originally Posted by Sparetire
(Post 570485)
I think it would matter. Honestly (I am a optimist no matter how hard I try to beat that down) it seems to me that people are begining to really question the specifics of things a lot more in recent years as a general trend. More to the point, they are not nearly as willing to accept someone screaming about waste storage and 3 mile island as a expert with an informed opinion. Most people I talk to are shaking their heads and asking why we dont have more nuclear power.
IIRC Chernobyl failed due to a coolant pump issue that basically meant no fresh water through the system and also a absolutely stupid beurocratic reluctance to shut down the reactor due to the need to keep the ting going and the hassle of of getting it warmed up again. Bad mix. And totaly 100% avoidable. Essentially, the reactor tried to correct the real-time problem they were inducing on it and they shut it down and prevented the reactor from doing what it was designed to do. |
They took all of those provisions off so they could do a stress-test/worse-case scenario drill. They definitely got worse-case. Also the cooling rods that they were using were not adequate to cool the reactor once it had gotten into a stressed state. Epic fail.
|
Originally Posted by thagr81 us
(Post 570548)
They took all of those provisions off so they could do a stress-test/worse-case scenario drill. They definitely got worse-case. Also the cooling rods that they were using were not adequate to cool the reactor once it had gotten into a stressed state. Epic fail.
|
Yeah... They pulled them out because they were starting to show signs of melting. :facepalm: There goal was to replace those with new ones, but the core went critical too quickly to do so. Wouldn't have mattered anyway.
|
Lol at the tags.... Well Im happy with Turkey Point here in Florida :)
|
I'm still mad about some hippies blocking construction of two plants in my local area. Grrrrr....
|
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE
(Post 570507)
Essentially, the reactor tried to correct the real-time problem they were inducing on it and they shut it down and prevented the reactor from doing what it was designed to do.
|
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy
(Post 570661)
Yep. Like I said they were trying to get a few extra percent of output out of it, even though they knew by design it wouldn't take it. Like trying to push 30psi on a 200,000 mile stock block. I had an astronomy teacher who was from the area and had family that worked on the investigation. She had a lot of neat insight on the disaster. She also turned the astronomy class into "why communism doesn't work and sucks" class. I didn't mind, I had already taken the astronomy class before.
|
Originally Posted by thagr81 us
(Post 570600)
Yeah... They pulled them out because they were starting to show signs of melting. :facepalm: There goal was to replace those with new ones, but the core went critical too quickly to do so. Wouldn't have mattered anyway.
Thats awesome. "Hey, these pistons have detonation damage. We better replace them before we up the boost." :idea: |
The big problem I have with all of the "greenhouse gas" hysteria is the same problem I have with most types of hysteria, they dismiss logic. In the late 1960s and early 1970s they were so worried about "global cooling" that the "scientists" actually suggested scattering coal dust across both polar ice caps to warm the planet and prevent a coming ice age. Thirty years later the same douches are screaming and running around with their hair ablaze over the very opposite occurring. I would be very happy for them to sit down and have a heaping bowl of shut the fuck up. Can you imagine the trouble we would have now if they were allowed to act on their brilliant ideas back then?
To the discussion of carbon dioxide being a "greenhouse gas," I don't prefer to discuss it with that manufactured label attached. I prefer to refer to carbon dioxide as "plant food" as it is essential to photosynthetic plant life. As more carbon dioxide is produced, plants become more lush, grow larger, grow stronger, bear more fruit, and cover more barren ground with cool green vegetation. Which is cooler, grass or rock? Grass or sand? The fossil record details that the times with some of the greatest coverage of vegetation on the surface of the earth occurred during times of some of the greatest amount of airborne carbon dioxide (footnote required, but I saw it on TV at some point). The fact that there are more plants in the presence of increased carbon dioxide would mean that there would also be an abundance of oxygen created by those plants when they respirate which would benefit the vitality of animal life. So, if more carbon dioxide is created, both the plants and animals flourish, and if less exists, plants and animals decline. Wait, how is carbon dioxide bad again? |
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 570692)
Which is cooler, grass or rock? Grass or sand?
|
|
Here's the beginning of the series:
Watch all nine and tell me what you think about their points. |
Since this thread is mostly one-sided and I've pretty much stopped responding to political threads...
Sparetire: here is a guide you might like to read if only for the other view. http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ it addresses the vast majority of arguments against climate change. |
Y8S, this brings another question that can be asked. Now, when we're talking of climate change, do you think most of us are on a global scale or more of a territorial scale? I mean, sure, it's getting hotter in a lot of places, but where I'm living, temperatures have been getting gradually colder (and is becoming physically noticeable) over the last 6 years. I'm playing on the Global field only as a voice against significant climate change because (and I'll plead ignorance in a specific sense) it just seems unnatural for things not to be balanced one way or another.
|
Originally Posted by E-NA6CE
(Post 579512)
Y8S, this brings another question that can be asked. Now, when we're talking of climate change, do you think most of us are on a global scale or more of a territorial scale? I mean, sure, it's getting hotter in a lot of places, but where I'm living, temperatures have been getting gradually colder (and is becoming physically noticeable) over the last 6 years. I'm playing on the Global field only as a voice against significant climate change because (and I'll plead ignorance in a specific sense) it just seems unnatural for things not to be balanced one way or another.
|
Originally Posted by y8s
(Post 578672)
Since this thread is mostly one-sided and I've pretty much stopped responding to political threads...
Sparetire: here is a guide you might like to read if only for the other view. http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ it addresses the vast majority of arguments against climate change. Thank you for that, I will read up. |
Originally Posted by NA6C-Guy
(Post 579514)
You may not notice the little signs of big change locally, but you can bet the overall global climate will effect the entire globe in some way or another, especially if it swings to an extreme with a lot of heat and drought, or with cold and an "ice age".
|
http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/06/gore_fraud.jpg
Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it’s a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues. ... But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made “legal” and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?) ... [Global warming] has been has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ”unequivocal.” But wait! The good guys transgressed the rules of decorum, as evidenced in their private e-mails that were stolen and put on the Internet. The referee is all over it: Penalty! Go to your corner! And in their 3,000-page report, the scientists made some mistakes! Another penalty! And if more of the audience is left confused about whether the climate crisis is real? Well, the show must go on. After all, it’s entertainment. There are tickets to be sold, eyeballs to glue to the screen. ... To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public’s respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues. for cereal. |
But what of the tritium leaks?
Originally Posted by thagr81 us
(Post 570548)
They took all of those provisions off so they could do a stress-test/worse-case scenario drill. They definitely got worse-case. Also the cooling rods that they were using were not adequate to cool the reactor once it had gotten into a stressed state. Epic fail.
In our state, a scary company called Entergy buys nuke plants that are past design life, then they file for extensions, and file to run the plants @ 125% of design max output. They always get permission to do both. Then the plant starts leaking tritium into the ground water, and they lie about the construction of cooling pipes, saying none are underground. The plant leaks tritium for months before they come clean and report that rusty pipes are buried and have failed. I have read more about the thorium plant design, and that is very interesting! I'd love to see us put some serious research into that. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands