The soviet union wanted so much to bomb the USA but they ended suffering a explosion from their own nuclear power plant that was 10 times worse than the hiroshima bomb!
i bet all the inhabitants of pripyat (almost exclusively nuclear plant workers and their relatives) were informed one single time about the dangers of nuclear power plants, let alone went through security measures or training - as someone said, this accident could only happen in a communist regime of that time...
If only this documentary had been paid for by a different entity than the government tool BBC is. Give me something built with private money - and I'll trust it. Watching BBC material to know what the government program are worth is like reading the Pravda to know what to think about Khrushchev's last quinquennial plan...
My friend, sorry to be the one to bring the news to you, but you've probably been fooled your whole life thinking the fact that the company people around you call "the government" is your friend and nothing more but a company here to help you out and protect you. Some of us wake up early - some never. Some are still sleeping at night thinking that Jesus walked on water 2000 years ago. Wishing you a quick wake-up. The work of Stefan Molyneux (YouTube) may help a bit. Cheers. Marc
Nuclear nightmares!! what Rot. What they need to remember is that there is no such thing as radiation there just 'magic moon beams'. If they did that they would all stop worring. That and 40 mg Diazepam, iv, stat.
YES we got those damn japs!! I love it. They were all "What's up" and we like "No you didn't!" And then we bombed them - and it was like "What's up now bitches??"
decommissioning costs are ridiculously high, the power plants require more water than any other energy source, and the problem is with specific elements - iodine, caesium, strontium, etc. So, uh, no. Radiation is an overly broad term, any way - are you talking alpha, beta, gamma or what? Associated with elements that seep into your bones and stay there - or not?
Finally we can all breathe easy - safe in the knowlege that nuclear radiation is in fact perfectly wholesome and safe for human consumption. People have X-rays all the time and they dont' complain about that - so all radiation must also be good for you.
Except when you have too much radiation. That can kill you. But generally radiation is health-giving and normal.
@MrGrevy You're absolutely right! Because nuclear radiation is EXACTLY the same as the radiation in your microwave!! Clean, safe, and health-giving. In fact, as any conosewer of 1950s B-movies knows, it makes things grow to an enormous size - and increases intelligence by 50,000%!
@badnewswade I wish my Hungry Man dinners would grow in size when I microwave them so that I didn't have to buy as many. If that were the case I could eat a portion of a Hungry Man dinner at night, and take the rest with me to work to eat for lunch.
@MrGrevy You could do that already- I've just looked it up. Christ! Over a pound of food! You Yanks don't know you're born - that makes OUR batchelor's sloptrays of fox chunks in pauper's tears look like CRAP.
Very interesting video, I've learned lots of things even if I know lots in the nuclear field.
I didn't know the UN death toll estimate (4000 for chernobyl and 5000 more for surrounding area) was based on the linar model (Hiroshima bombing). And the deaths from thyroid cancers: surprise, I didn't know that number was this low... 9 deaths caused by radiation, only 1.2% of thyroids are fatal.
I think the people who cleared up the mess after the disaster are heros. Many gave their health and lives to prevent an even bigger disaster. The mistakes had already been made.
Ummm which people would you like me to tell? The ones that were told that there was nothing wrong for almost 3 days? The ones the gave their life to help seal off the remains of the nuclear fuel? Maybe you want me to tell the people that live their now?
Chernobyl was severly mishandled by the Russians. They lied to the people constantly telling them that there was nothing to worry about.
@Baronstone Yes and our nuclear industry never lies or covers things up. Just those darn commies!
Have you noticed how in the old days they used to say "a nuclear acident could never happen" but since Chernobyl they now say "a nuclear accident could never happen here"? And now they're even trying to cover up a lot of the damage in Cherny.
The nuclear industry, worldwide, are notorious for lying through their teeth about safety.
@badnewswade It's bad but not the way the public thinks it is. We get bombarded with gamma rays 24/7. Especially if you live in an area with fresh igneous rock.
Yes, and that causes cancer naturally. There's no "safe dose", doubling the background radiation potentially doubles the level of cancer produced by same.
@badnewswade Yes, and even if you take said doubled background radiation's effects and scale them up by ten, you're still not looking at one percent of the cancer risk associated with drinking water from a bisphenol-A emitting plastic bottle once a month.
Double of almost nothing is still almost nothing. Enough scare mongering, please.
How do we know that for sure - didn't people start getting cancer in droves in the 20th century? What about people in the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl areas?
The nuclear industry has a history of cover-ups on safety issues, we can't trust the buggers.
@badnewswade All organisms have natural mechanisms to deal with radiation. At low doses, a doubling of radiation does not increase the risk by a factor of two. Only when you go over the threshold of our natural mechanisms does that relationship occur. Think of it as a chemistry problem. Our bodies have mechanisms that act as a buffer against radiation. It will eventually reach a point when the dosage exceeds our buffer capabilities. Not to mention, dose rate is important and is being neglected.
What's going to happen to all the completely safe nuclear waste then? Just bury it somewhere and forget about it I suppose.
There could be another Chernobyl. In the USSR they told people to sit back and trust the Government who proceeded to build a shoddy power station with rubbish materials and put loyal party hacks in charge. Then as now... Do you trust the likes of Halliburton to build nuclear power stations?
It is VERY important to understand the difference between a Russian reactor, and everyone elses reactor. In the US, all reactors are surrounded by a very thick concrete shield. Canadian reactors are even safer as the reactor is also submerged in a vessel of water making overheating impossible in the event the reactor goes supercritical. Russian reactors were basically setup in a building with zero shielding. As of now, as long as the safety guidelines are met to the strictest standards,np.
@badnewswade What third world country has a nuclear reactor? Iran isn't third world.
Anyone can play the "if" game. If there is a war a lot of bad shit will go down either way.
Really, if you are concerned with radiation leaking out to the public, look how much radioactive carbon coal plants spew out in to the atmosphere. C14 is unstable and anyone near a coal plant will be inhaling radioactive CO2. In fact, more radiation escapes from a coal plant than from a nuclear reactor to the public.
Cuba? Egypt? North Korea? Lots of places in Eastern Europe? They had to shut down one in Latvia recently as it was a Chernobyl type design.
Thanks to President Bush's little mistake, every tinpot dictator on Earth wants a nuclear bomb. Do you trust them to follow the safety regs?
The "if" game? That's the point. Nukes are bloody dangerous and they don't stop being dangerous when they're switched off, unlike coal plants (which are pretty bad too)
@badnewswade Egypt isn't a third world country... not even close.
Also, the facilities to make a nuke is a lot different than to make a nuclear power plant. I wouldn't put the two on the same level at all.
Coal plants are more dangerous to the public and cause more pollution. Try living within 10km of a coal plant and see the mayhem. Go to a nuclear plant and the only thing youll see are plumes of steam (which is not radioactive btw).
@BFGUITAR The IAEA and several million shit-scared Israelis and South Koreans would beg to differ on that one. Did you know we British used to use our "civilian" reactors to make bomb material on the sly?
@badnewswade For every reason to do something you can find another 10 not to. Look at the alternatives and the growing demand for energy... you will see nuclear (fission or fusion) is the ONLY way to satisfy demands. Solar, once more developed can supplement a nuclear powered planet. We only have one Earth so using up all our fossil fuels for electric energy is the stupidest thing to do. A pellet of uranium can power a house for a month. Calculate the amount of oil you would need...
Sadly there may be a problem with peak uranium, that pellet doesn't come out of the ground that way. There are questions as to how much CO2 and other pollution is caused by the nuclear industry generally, the mining, shipping, building of power stations...
As for the facilities to make a bomb being different, well, some American politicians & diplomats seem to differ with you on that one. Proliferation is a worry.
Have you heard of the DESERTEC plan? Solar power from deserts- now thats cool.
@badnewswade Actually... go look up CANDU reactors. They use Uranium that went through zero enrichment. Of course it has to be purified, but there is no enrichment process. Essentially, the pellet "comes out of the ground" more or less ready to go.
There is no question that the CO2 produced from mining for Uranium is less than burning it for energy. That is obvious if you do the math. Go to the Canadian shield and rocks there are 50% Uranium by weight. Politicians are not scientists.
@badnewswade The uranium enrichment difference between a nuclear reactor and a bomb is huge. CANDU reactors don't even need an enrichment facility. Just pick up a rock, do some purification chemistry and youre good to go.
@badnewswade Well, that's probably not possible in my opinion. CANDU reactors are obviously more expensive and require large tanks heavy water... which means you need to build a heavy water facility. The initial start up costs for a CANDU reactor is higher but the fuel is a lot cheaper. It also depends on Uranium ore quality... who knows what the Iranians are using.
As for the nuclear waste... here in Canada waste is buried over 2km down in extremely safe vessels. I often have conversations with the people who actually build those vessels and let me tell you, they are quite secure. After the seal it off there is no way anyone can get down there without explosives, manpower, and machinery.
@badnewswade It depends. Some radioactive substances have a half life of a few thousand years, up to something like radium, which has a half life of 14.5 billion years.
Yeah that bullshit, radium is 1601 years. The longer the half life the less dangerous the material is radiologically. Because of the less energy it gives off per second. Take Bismuth with a half-life of 19 million trillion years (10^18) they did not even know it had a half-life until recently because of how extremely small and difficult to detect radiation it gave off was. Bismuth is us in such things a cosmetics and pharmaceuticals!
@badnewswade ever considered lithium for your paranoia?...I am no psychiatrist but I know several paranoid people whom lithium and Seroquel have worked wonders in eliminating these delusions that you also seem to share with them. cheers, hope this helps out ;)
Perhaps the idiots protesting nuclear power should learn exactly what advances have been made in that area before they fly off the handle.
With the new High heat metal salt cooled reactors, you could completely shut down the cooling system and be fine for about an hour. Thats why the US is talking about building 20 - 45 new power plants based on the design.
@soylentgreenb to what do you refer? I spent 6 years studying modern physics in Prague, I assure you physicists have a very good understand of QP, QED, & areas utilizing these subjects on a theoretical &applied basis. I really want to know what you refer to when you say "They have yet to get a solid understanding..." This is a silly remark made by silly, lay person who is ignorant & possibly paranoid, never receiving even the most basic, most minimal education in physics & applied maths.
@slovakmath If your english is that shaky you would do well by reading a bit more carefully before flying off the handle. It should be fairly clear from what I'm responding to, quoted right there in my post, that I'm refering to anti-nuclear protesters.
You've seen those radioluminescent tritium keyfobs right? They contain about a curie of tritium. The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant leaked about a keyfobs worth of tritium and the anti-nuclear people nearly had an apoplectic fit.
@soylentgreenb please you didn't even attempt my question. i put it to you again: what do physicists not understand about nuclear energy? it is curious to me that you assume that just because I ask for this you think I'm flying off handle...VERY curious no? I'm inclined to draw conclusions as to why certain demographics whom I wont name cant stand their dogmas being questioned, they think asking for verification &examples isnt necessary for learning but rather a response to "flying of handle[s]"
@slovakmath I have never made the claim that you attribute to me. I have not said that physicists do not understand nuclear energy. I have not implied that physicists don't understand nuclear energy. You cannot force me to defend a position I do not actually hold, no matter how many times you persist in posting the same strawman. You're either not reading my comment or not comprehending english.
@mrjkt123 You must be ashamed of yourself. Good thing that Britain's bankrupt and raping kids in Iraq.
toqtaqiya 8 months ago
The soviet union wanted so much to bomb the USA but they ended suffering a explosion from their own nuclear power plant that was 10 times worse than the hiroshima bomb!
worldchampion1986 8 months ago
This spelled the end for the infamous SOVIET UNION.
worldchampion1986 8 months ago
I believe that mankind will eventually die out, not from climate change or pandemics, but our own technology.
TaZ101SAGA 10 months ago
i bet all the inhabitants of pripyat (almost exclusively nuclear plant workers and their relatives) were informed one single time about the dangers of nuclear power plants, let alone went through security measures or training - as someone said, this accident could only happen in a communist regime of that time...
MoveOverCasanova 11 months ago
If only this documentary had been paid for by a different entity than the government tool BBC is. Give me something built with private money - and I'll trust it. Watching BBC material to know what the government program are worth is like reading the Pravda to know what to think about Khrushchev's last quinquennial plan...
marcabela 11 months ago
@marcabela You'd rather listen to corporate interests than government interests? I wouldn't.
Personally I like the BBC and think it's greater than the sum of its parts.
cupmyplums 10 months ago
@cupmyplums,
My friend, sorry to be the one to bring the news to you, but you've probably been fooled your whole life thinking the fact that the company people around you call "the government" is your friend and nothing more but a company here to help you out and protect you. Some of us wake up early - some never. Some are still sleeping at night thinking that Jesus walked on water 2000 years ago. Wishing you a quick wake-up. The work of Stefan Molyneux (YouTube) may help a bit. Cheers. Marc
marcabela 10 months ago 2
Beautiful town??? I think she must be saying that to cheer up her Mother........only a blind man could call Soviet era Pripyat beautiful.
cupmyplums 10 months ago
@cupmyplums You're pathetic.
toqtaqiya 8 months ago
Fallout 3s the shit
SirSnives 11 months ago
At 5:30 the white flashes on the archival footage of the Chernobyl cleanup is radiation. Its crazy you can see the radiation on film.
DanimalCollective 1 year ago
6:30 not so smart
Basketball7552 1 year ago
Why would someone add radiation to drinking water?
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend back then they believed it to have life giving property's.
DidntKnowWhatToPut1 1 year ago
Great doco! thanks:)
pringlewrangler 1 year ago
Nuclear nightmares!! what Rot. What they need to remember is that there is no such thing as radiation there just 'magic moon beams'. If they did that they would all stop worring. That and 40 mg Diazepam, iv, stat.
FreeNBK2000 1 year ago
YES we got those damn japs!! I love it. They were all "What's up" and we like "No you didn't!" And then we bombed them - and it was like "What's up now bitches??"
MrGrevy 1 year ago
5 000 deaths but 200 000 abortions?
Exaggeration?
DesertFoxKG 1 year ago
decommissioning costs are ridiculously high, the power plants require more water than any other energy source, and the problem is with specific elements - iodine, caesium, strontium, etc. So, uh, no. Radiation is an overly broad term, any way - are you talking alpha, beta, gamma or what? Associated with elements that seep into your bones and stay there - or not?
Kletterator 1 year ago
@Kletterator OH NOES!! Water lol. That's a great reason to NOT use nuclear power. My microwave could kick your ass.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
Finally we can all breathe easy - safe in the knowlege that nuclear radiation is in fact perfectly wholesome and safe for human consumption. People have X-rays all the time and they dont' complain about that - so all radiation must also be good for you.
Except when you have too much radiation. That can kill you. But generally radiation is health-giving and normal.
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade Hell, my Hungry Man dinners that I eat every night alone are cooked with radiation! Yet somehow I'm still alive...
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@MrGrevy You're absolutely right! Because nuclear radiation is EXACTLY the same as the radiation in your microwave!! Clean, safe, and health-giving. In fact, as any conosewer of 1950s B-movies knows, it makes things grow to an enormous size - and increases intelligence by 50,000%!
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade I wish my Hungry Man dinners would grow in size when I microwave them so that I didn't have to buy as many. If that were the case I could eat a portion of a Hungry Man dinner at night, and take the rest with me to work to eat for lunch.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@MrGrevy You could do that already- I've just looked it up. Christ! Over a pound of food! You Yanks don't know you're born - that makes OUR batchelor's sloptrays of fox chunks in pauper's tears look like CRAP.
Damn. You've made me want microwave food now.
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade I like it when you talk funny talk. I have to go eat my Hungry Man dinner now. I'll be back later.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@MrGrevy Gaaah! I bet it's the Mexican Style Fiesta. Bastard.
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade Ok I'm back. I enjoyed my Hungry Man dinner. It was chicken. What are you on about?
MrGrevy 1 year ago
Very interesting video, I've learned lots of things even if I know lots in the nuclear field.
I didn't know the UN death toll estimate (4000 for chernobyl and 5000 more for surrounding area) was based on the linar model (Hiroshima bombing). And the deaths from thyroid cancers: surprise, I didn't know that number was this low... 9 deaths caused by radiation, only 1.2% of thyroids are fatal.
badthoughs 2 years ago
whats the hardest part about telling your parents you're gay? telling them you're joining the Navy!!!!!!!
|
|
V
exfb64 2 years ago
borp borp borp nuclear power is really safe borp borp borp im a navy nuke its really safe quit being idiots go read books
covingtonium 2 years ago
@covingtonium You know nuclear energy is dangerous...just listen to that music!!
MrGrevy 1 year ago
What was the name of that guy in 8:46 that drank a cup of radioactive iodine?
eebil 2 years ago
I think the people who cleared up the mess after the disaster are heros. Many gave their health and lives to prevent an even bigger disaster. The mistakes had already been made.
midy007 2 years ago 3
we need more of them
>:{
nephildevil 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh god, a horrible denialist piece about how radiation isn't really bad for you
Tell that to people in the Ukraine mother fuckers
badnewswade 2 years ago
Ummm which people would you like me to tell? The ones that were told that there was nothing wrong for almost 3 days? The ones the gave their life to help seal off the remains of the nuclear fuel? Maybe you want me to tell the people that live their now?
Chernobyl was severly mishandled by the Russians. They lied to the people constantly telling them that there was nothing to worry about.
Baronstone 2 years ago
@Baronstone Yes and our nuclear industry never lies or covers things up. Just those darn commies!
Have you noticed how in the old days they used to say "a nuclear acident could never happen" but since Chernobyl they now say "a nuclear accident could never happen here"? And now they're even trying to cover up a lot of the damage in Cherny.
The nuclear industry, worldwide, are notorious for lying through their teeth about safety.
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade It's bad but not the way the public thinks it is. We get bombarded with gamma rays 24/7. Especially if you live in an area with fresh igneous rock.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
Yes, and that causes cancer naturally. There's no "safe dose", doubling the background radiation potentially doubles the level of cancer produced by same.
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade Yes, and even if you take said doubled background radiation's effects and scale them up by ten, you're still not looking at one percent of the cancer risk associated with drinking water from a bisphenol-A emitting plastic bottle once a month.
Double of almost nothing is still almost nothing. Enough scare mongering, please.
StoneCypher 2 years ago
How do we know that for sure - didn't people start getting cancer in droves in the 20th century? What about people in the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl areas?
The nuclear industry has a history of cover-ups on safety issues, we can't trust the buggers.
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade All organisms have natural mechanisms to deal with radiation. At low doses, a doubling of radiation does not increase the risk by a factor of two. Only when you go over the threshold of our natural mechanisms does that relationship occur. Think of it as a chemistry problem. Our bodies have mechanisms that act as a buffer against radiation. It will eventually reach a point when the dosage exceeds our buffer capabilities. Not to mention, dose rate is important and is being neglected.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
What's going to happen to all the completely safe nuclear waste then? Just bury it somewhere and forget about it I suppose.
There could be another Chernobyl. In the USSR they told people to sit back and trust the Government who proceeded to build a shoddy power station with rubbish materials and put loyal party hacks in charge. Then as now... Do you trust the likes of Halliburton to build nuclear power stations?
badnewswade 2 years ago
It is VERY important to understand the difference between a Russian reactor, and everyone elses reactor. In the US, all reactors are surrounded by a very thick concrete shield. Canadian reactors are even safer as the reactor is also submerged in a vessel of water making overheating impossible in the event the reactor goes supercritical. Russian reactors were basically setup in a building with zero shielding. As of now, as long as the safety guidelines are met to the strictest standards,np.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
@BFGUITAR Oh - and what if there's a war? How safe do you think the reactors in some tin-pot third world country is going to be?
There are too many unknowns...
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade What third world country has a nuclear reactor? Iran isn't third world.
Anyone can play the "if" game. If there is a war a lot of bad shit will go down either way.
Really, if you are concerned with radiation leaking out to the public, look how much radioactive carbon coal plants spew out in to the atmosphere. C14 is unstable and anyone near a coal plant will be inhaling radioactive CO2. In fact, more radiation escapes from a coal plant than from a nuclear reactor to the public.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
Cuba? Egypt? North Korea? Lots of places in Eastern Europe? They had to shut down one in Latvia recently as it was a Chernobyl type design.
Thanks to President Bush's little mistake, every tinpot dictator on Earth wants a nuclear bomb. Do you trust them to follow the safety regs?
The "if" game? That's the point. Nukes are bloody dangerous and they don't stop being dangerous when they're switched off, unlike coal plants (which are pretty bad too)
Energy efficiency + renewable for my money!
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade Egypt isn't a third world country... not even close.
Also, the facilities to make a nuke is a lot different than to make a nuclear power plant. I wouldn't put the two on the same level at all.
Coal plants are more dangerous to the public and cause more pollution. Try living within 10km of a coal plant and see the mayhem. Go to a nuclear plant and the only thing youll see are plumes of steam (which is not radioactive btw).
BFGUITAR 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
badnewswade 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BFGUITAR The IAEA and several million shit-scared Israelis and South Koreans would beg to differ on that one. Did you know we British used to use our "civilian" reactors to make bomb material on the sly?
badnewswade 1 year ago
@badnewswade For every reason to do something you can find another 10 not to. Look at the alternatives and the growing demand for energy... you will see nuclear (fission or fusion) is the ONLY way to satisfy demands. Solar, once more developed can supplement a nuclear powered planet. We only have one Earth so using up all our fossil fuels for electric energy is the stupidest thing to do. A pellet of uranium can power a house for a month. Calculate the amount of oil you would need...
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
Sadly there may be a problem with peak uranium, that pellet doesn't come out of the ground that way. There are questions as to how much CO2 and other pollution is caused by the nuclear industry generally, the mining, shipping, building of power stations...
As for the facilities to make a bomb being different, well, some American politicians & diplomats seem to differ with you on that one. Proliferation is a worry.
Have you heard of the DESERTEC plan? Solar power from deserts- now thats cool.
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade Actually... go look up CANDU reactors. They use Uranium that went through zero enrichment. Of course it has to be purified, but there is no enrichment process. Essentially, the pellet "comes out of the ground" more or less ready to go.
There is no question that the CO2 produced from mining for Uranium is less than burning it for energy. That is obvious if you do the math. Go to the Canadian shield and rocks there are 50% Uranium by weight. Politicians are not scientists.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
@badnewswade The uranium enrichment difference between a nuclear reactor and a bomb is huge. CANDU reactors don't even need an enrichment facility. Just pick up a rock, do some purification chemistry and youre good to go.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
@BFGUITAR That's good, now how are we going to persuade the Iranians and all the other people who hate our collective guts to adopt them?
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade Well, that's probably not possible in my opinion. CANDU reactors are obviously more expensive and require large tanks heavy water... which means you need to build a heavy water facility. The initial start up costs for a CANDU reactor is higher but the fuel is a lot cheaper. It also depends on Uranium ore quality... who knows what the Iranians are using.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
As for the nuclear waste... here in Canada waste is buried over 2km down in extremely safe vessels. I often have conversations with the people who actually build those vessels and let me tell you, they are quite secure. After the seal it off there is no way anyone can get down there without explosives, manpower, and machinery.
BFGUITAR 2 years ago
@BFGUITAR How secure are they going to be after a couple of ice ages? What about the water table? What about earthquakes?
How many millions of years is that stuff active for, anyway?
badnewswade 2 years ago
@badnewswade It depends. Some radioactive substances have a half life of a few thousand years, up to something like radium, which has a half life of 14.5 billion years.
SmokeWeedEveryHour 1 year ago
@SmokeWeedEveryHour
Yeah that bullshit, radium is 1601 years. The longer the half life the less dangerous the material is radiologically. Because of the less energy it gives off per second. Take Bismuth with a half-life of 19 million trillion years (10^18) they did not even know it had a half-life until recently because of how extremely small and difficult to detect radiation it gave off was. Bismuth is us in such things a cosmetics and pharmaceuticals!
frbe0101 11 months ago
@badnewswade ever considered lithium for your paranoia?...I am no psychiatrist but I know several paranoid people whom lithium and Seroquel have worked wonders in eliminating these delusions that you also seem to share with them. cheers, hope this helps out ;)
slovakmath 1 year ago
i just played fallout 3 and i'm all about nuclear shit now, so creepy and fascinating.
lowfiwhiteguy 2 years ago 23
i feel the same... fantastic game though :)
GuitarerPaul 2 years ago
@lowfiwhiteguy Does that mean you're a Nazi? They were interested in stuff like this.
superussia 8 months ago
Perhaps the idiots protesting nuclear power should learn exactly what advances have been made in that area before they fly off the handle.
With the new High heat metal salt cooled reactors, you could completely shut down the cooling system and be fine for about an hour. Thats why the US is talking about building 20 - 45 new power plants based on the design.
Baronstone 3 years ago 5
"Perhaps the idiots protesting nuclear power should learn exactly what advances have been made in that area before they fly off the handle."
Don't get your hopes up. They have yet to get a solid understanding of 50 year old nuclear tech.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago 12
@soylentgreenb to what do you refer? I spent 6 years studying modern physics in Prague, I assure you physicists have a very good understand of QP, QED, & areas utilizing these subjects on a theoretical &applied basis. I really want to know what you refer to when you say "They have yet to get a solid understanding..." This is a silly remark made by silly, lay person who is ignorant & possibly paranoid, never receiving even the most basic, most minimal education in physics & applied maths.
slovakmath 1 year ago
@slovakmath If your english is that shaky you would do well by reading a bit more carefully before flying off the handle. It should be fairly clear from what I'm responding to, quoted right there in my post, that I'm refering to anti-nuclear protesters.
You've seen those radioluminescent tritium keyfobs right? They contain about a curie of tritium. The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant leaked about a keyfobs worth of tritium and the anti-nuclear people nearly had an apoplectic fit.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb please you didn't even attempt my question. i put it to you again: what do physicists not understand about nuclear energy? it is curious to me that you assume that just because I ask for this you think I'm flying off handle...VERY curious no? I'm inclined to draw conclusions as to why certain demographics whom I wont name cant stand their dogmas being questioned, they think asking for verification &examples isnt necessary for learning but rather a response to "flying of handle[s]"
slovakmath 1 year ago
@slovakmath I have never made the claim that you attribute to me. I have not said that physicists do not understand nuclear energy. I have not implied that physicists don't understand nuclear energy. You cannot force me to defend a position I do not actually hold, no matter how many times you persist in posting the same strawman. You're either not reading my comment or not comprehending english.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb Wow! That over-educated dolt didn't even READ your comment, because the two of you both agree!
"Never let agreement get in the way of a good argument," I guess...
To your point... I saw a Youtuve video the other day by someone claiming that B52's were "stealth bombers."
Your point being that producers of Youtube videos have no idea what they are talking about. Their fear of radiation is no different.
These people have no problem sticking a phone in their ear.
JPDisme 1 year ago
nice to see some one else who likes nuclear power
octobubble 2 years ago
Where are the nuclear industry planning to store all the long lived waste produced by these completely safe nuclear reactors again?
badnewswade 2 years ago
@Baronstone Wow a whole hour in which to write to my loved ones telling them of my impending radioactive doom! Thanks guys!
badnewswade 1 year ago