Haha look up the design of any modern Nuclear powerplant, the reactor has to be located extremly close to the cooling towers. Nice try though. But I do find it amusing you can only gain self satisfaction by trying to bring down others on a website. I pity your life haha
@mmmbad As opposed to what? If you remove a nuclear powerstation because it is "unsightly", you need to replace it with something. Would it be less of a blemish to replace it with 1000 wind turbines, each ~100 meter in diameter? Would it be less of a blemish to bulldoze 50 square kilometers flat and pack them full of solar photovoltaics(yes, you really need that much to replace a single 1 GW nuclear plant).
Althougt in this case it looks like this is a nuclear power station, the "tower" is NOT nuclear. It is a "condensation tower" used also (at least in) fuel and coal power stations.
well it's not like they never collapse cooling towers, it happens quite alot and i suppose if you wikipedia "Trojan Nuclear power plant cooling tower" you'll be proved wrong....
why am i worrying look at all you americans comments then my australian comment is so different. like yous know whats going on i just watched it from a link of a chernobyl video
how come everytime people try to insult you they say ur amercian too. not all americans are dumb or assholes. oh and this is not fake, watch another vid about people sitting to watch it go down,
As a side note, there's no one-answer-fits-all solution to our energy crisis. In order to meet the energy demands of the future, we will practically need to use ALL the proposed alternative energy methods. Wind, water, nuclear, geothermal, solar, and tidal. Nuclear power is great at providing baseload power, but it doesn't scale well for peak power. The various other alternative power sources would be great for peakload power, but not baseload.
I agree completely. If we didnt need nuclear. it would be great.. as most of the other power sources are very clean. I want to get some solar panels on my house, and a wind turbine.. free power is just so interesting to me.
Chernoble happened because of an error in the operators.. they made a mistake. it wasnt just running fine one day and then a huge explosion went off and no one knew what happened..
It is very safe, and we would be dumb for not utilizing it
It wasn't just the error of the operators. The RBMK-1000 reactor used in the Chernobyl powerplant was a terribly designed reactor, and the operators were trying to perform some sort of low-power test. The safety monitoring equipment was actually warning the operators that the reactor was going critical, but the shift supervisor ordered the operators to turn off the safety equipment so they could conclude the test. The reactor was practically forced to melt down.
The most important decision was made by the man in charge to restart the reactor. The reactor was not designed to restart so quickly. He ordered the crew to turn off the reactor because of some safety feature failure but then realized that a lot of Ukraine (then part of the USSR) would be without power so he ordered them to start it back up. The reactor did not have enough time to cool down and so it melted.
By the way. The reactor did not go critical. Uranium used for power generation is only 19% enriched. Up to 90% enrichment is required for a critical reaction. I should know, we have an enrichment facility in Sydney near where I live and people were worried it would explode and flatten Sydney. I read the explanation in the paper.
well youre a fool if you beleive what the money hungry goveronment tells you, of course theyre gonna say its safe it makes them money, but i think chernobyl is a good example of just how unsafe it is
yeah but the point is that IT HAPPENED and could just as easily happen again when placed in the hands of the same kind of incompitent moron. youre calling everyone else ignorant but maybe you should learn to spell CHERNOBYL before you go running your mouth about what a minor tragedy it was or better yet maybe you should move your ass over there and see how it affects you
"If". You speak in terms of things that haven't happened.
Properly engineered and maintained NPP are totally safe. There is no record of fuel storage facilities causing injuries or cancer, and TMi caused but a handful of deaths due to increased cancer rates.
Compare that to the death rate from resp disease, smoking, black lung, etc.
It is no contest.
GW is just a front for global taxation of every transaction imaginable.
Actually, there were three accidents. USA - Three Mile Island (1979), UK - Windscale (1957), USSR - Chernoble (1986). But yes, it's very safe and clean power.
one accident is all it takes to ruin complete regions of the earth.one time of mutant babies and thousands and thousands of uninhabitable acres is enough to prove it to me. we can never know how many people that one accident affected, and is STILL affecting 23 years later. maybe its you who is the ignorant fool, or maybe its you who should have a mutant baby or be made to give up your entire life you built, i think that might change your narrowminded ways
The plant was actually in operation but only for a short time, it was not shutdown by treehuggers; The plant was closed due to several contruction flaws and the fact that it was found to be too close to a faultline.
I'm just saying: why would a Nuclear Power Plant tear down a cooling tower. Doesn't the reactor depend on that in the first place? And besides, you would think it would hit the nuclear reactor and cause it to explode.
and cleaner then oil and natrual gas plants as well.
People need to remember that Uranium is radioactive while it is in the earth. It doesn't create barrels of green nuclear sludge that is just a myth. The spent fuel rods are waste.
Nuclear power is actually environmentally friendly.
also i didn't know that the spent fuel rods are the waste, i knew it wasnt that glowing green stuff but wasnt quite sure what is was, eather way we still should be using wind power (no waste at all :D )
wind is not a viable source everywhere. It can only be used in places with consistent high winds. In Califorina they have tons of wind powered generators but still California has an energy crisis because they do not consistently produce electricity.
Like it or not Nuclear power is one of the cleanest and safest power sources out there. It is a eco friendly technology despite what eco thugs think.
exactly and California has a ton of them but California is also in a huge energy crisis becasue they can not meet their energy demands and they have constant brown outs.
a brown out is when you have a drop in voltage and the lights don't go out but they dim and flicker. It is actually much worse for electiral equipment then a black out.
Yes we should defenlty go with nuclear power. Right now there are 104 nuclear plants in the US and Nuclear still has the highest safety rating even higher then Hydroelectirc.
There are tons of incidents of dams breaking and wiping out entire towns. Even in recents years.
i want you to find me three cases of one damn breaking down and leveling a town, and not only that but a real town like chernobyl, one with a high population, one that will never be inhabitable again.
you need to read ryguys comments. i have an idea, instead of nuclear power lets just have controlled population like china, thats bound to cut down on the enerhy crisis haha but no thats crazy right and putting unstable nuclear reactors on faultlines is an AWESOME idea right?
Ur using a control demotion of a cooling tower to demonzince nuclear power? Nuclear energy is safest, cleanest and most cost effective and sustainable form of energy we have. Endorsing Red China's totalitarian population control program is also evil. Maybe you were just being sarcastic though.
no man i'm not using the controled demolition of a nuclear tower to degrade nuclear power, i'm using nuclear power to degrade nuclear power. if youre for it then you should have them build it near your house, because one nuclear hollocost is enough to convince me its just not worth it. have you seen chernobyl anytime in the last 23 years? research it man. and also no i dont beleive in controlled population but sometimes i wonder if it wouldnt help filter out the morons
you and alot of other people need to realize one other thing, what do we do with nuclear waste? i heard one suggestion by the goveronment to ship it by trains, well a train runs right by my house and twice in the two years i have lived here they have had pretty notable accidents one of those being a major de-rail. think about that man, idk about you but i dont wanna live in chernobly or heroshima or i would fuckng move there. i like my life and i dont want it interupted by greed
come on man the waste is shipped in containers designed and tested to with stand impacts from trains and derails. You are in more danger from the normal trains going by your house than you are of a government escorted train. Worry about something you can change not something that is a biproduct of saving the earth.
yeah well they make meters that are designed and tested to detect ghosts, does that mean they work? does that mean casper is real? no. you say worry about something can change well for one i dont lose sleep over nuclear power, and for two there isnt much in this shit hole world one human can change alone. if i could start today it would be to rid our goveronment and country of certain idiots
They also make bullet proof vests that are designed and tested to stop bullets. Does that mean they work? Yes. Yes it does. And those detectors you mentioned can not be tested to detect ghosts if they can never be proven to actually having detected a ghost. Your argument here is idiotic at best. So I am going to agree with leftwich09 here about the safety of these containers.
yeah a guy named sloppy joey called me idiotic lol whatever you say man please go on beleiving everything the goveronment tells you, it needs more morons like yourself joe
I would still like to hear a valid argument on why you seem to believe that these containers are not capable of withstanding a train derailment. I don't think that "the government says so, so it must be a lie" can really count.
well i think i have like fourteen statements on here so maybe you should open your eyes and read or maybe even quite possibly try not being ignorant and use your reading comprehension. your only arguement is since the goveronment says they are they must be so i guess we are both wrong if you really think thats all i was getting at
Actually, my argument was that I agreed with leftwich09's argument that the containers are designed and tested to withstand the impacts. The government may set required standards for these things, but they do not do any of the designing or testing, so it is not the government I am believing. You mention reading, so why don't you read NUREG/CR-4829, on the NRC's website. This was the study done by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, not the government, about the safety of transportation.
You also said that Chernobyl could happen again but Chernobyl was a very poorly designed power plant, that had dangerous features like graphite tipped control rods. When these rods were inserted once things started to get out of control, it caused the energy to initially spike when inserted, which overheated the core and caused some fuel rods to crack and prevented the rods from being fully inserted, thus preventing them from shutting down the reactor. This feature is not found in any US reactor
Chernobyl also did not have a real containment structure. This is the concrete or steel building that every US reactor is required to have, which is built to not only contain any radiation leaks, but also withstand missile strikes and airplane crashes. So even if there was a steam and hydrogen explosion, which wouldn't have happened with proper control rods, these effects would have been contained in this building, and we would not have seen the large release of radiation seen in Chernobyl
one more thing what state do you live in? I am just asking because I would like to know what kind of power plant is near you. You might even get your power from nuclear and not even know it.
@Ackbar60 you really think i dont know what sort of power i use with such strong opinions towards nuclear power? duke energy created a whole lake in my county in the 60's so they could us HYDROGEN/STEAM plants. you take the nuclear i'll take the steam
duke energy huh.. You do know they are going to be one of the first companies to build a new nuclear power plant. They have been working on it for a few years now and it should come online in 2016
@Ackbar60 so actually no none of my power comes from a nuclear plant it comes from lake norman. i'm not exactly sure what youre trying to accomplish here or if youre trying to convert me into a goveronment drone too, but it wont work. nuclear anything is foolish, there are plenty of other options. also these plants are safe and reliable, is that the same sort of safe and reliable as the W.T.C. or the pentegon??? its all a figment of imagination i'm glad some of the country buys that shit though
umm McGuire Nuclear Station is part of Lake Norman so yes you do get your power from Nuclear energy. You directly get your power from nuclear power and it if you live close to Lake Norman you already have a nuclear plant in your backyard.
I have no reason to lie to you. Go and look Lake Norman up on wikipedia. You will see that McGuire Nuclear Station is on Lake Norman. Hell look McGuire Nuclear Station up anywhere on the web. Every website you will see says it is on Lake Norman
Do a google image search and you will see pictures of it
If you look on google maps you can see it is only a few miles to the east of the Dam
It is literally right off of 73
If you don't believe me then tell me where McGuire Nuclear Station is?
@bigbadbronco86 Your goggle-fu is sorely lacking. Lake Norman is a man-made lake; it created for the Cowans Ford hydroelectric dam and yes, there is a nuclear power plant with 2 1100 MW reactor, licenced to operate till 2041 and 2043 respectively.
@soylentgreenb yeah silly me what would i know about the state that i live in hahaha even if there was nuclear power on lake norman i can still rest assured its nowhere near me
@Ackbar60 now that you said the name you are right, but by the same token hwy 73 is 40 miles from my house and even i dont think a nuclear holocost can reach that far
well there is no way a nuclear power plant could cause a nuclear holocost. That is the point.
A nuclear power plant can't even create a nuclear explosion.
Nuclear power is safe people just like to blow it out of proportion and claim all sorts of shit.
But obviously you can now see the truth. Hell you even said yourself you have gone fishing in Lake Norman. That water is used to cool the reactor and it is 100% safe.
People are afraid of it but they don't even realize already live with it
they don't have to be shipped anywhere they can be stored at the nuclear power plant themselves. It's not hard storing spent fuel rods.
The nuclear waste is all solid material it can't leak out or anything. There is no such thing as barrels of glowing green radioactive waste
And yes I do live with in 5 miles of a nuclear power plant. Turkey Point power plant in Miami fl. If someone didn't tell me it was there I would have never known.
i agree coal is unclean but how is water turbines non-eco friendly, anyways all im saying is that we NEED to start putting some money in wind power. it's renewable and eco-friendly
im just saying damns that use water to power turbines that create electricity are less ecofriendly than nuclear power plants bc it alters whole ecosystems and stops fish from migrating up rivers
if it is so revolutionary and clean, which i don't disagree, wouldn't more conservatives with deep relations with oil companies and like interest groups shun nuclear power?
because really Oil plants are not as a huge consumer of oil as cars are. The big oil companies prefer selling to the consumer because they can control the price. When they sell to a Oil power plant they get a contract which restricts them from changing the price for x amount of years. If we just down all oil plants it won't both the oil companies at all just as long as we have gas guzzling cars.
agreed i think a bit of the radiation got as far as ireland because there is a lake somewhere thats badly radioactive and you arent allowed to swim or fish in it
I see implosions are another way to easily deconstruct a building. Can someone tell me how to compose a implosion. Do I need some time of c-4 or bomb. I don't want a bomb that explodes a huge radius, I just want one to vaporize a building completely without destroying any structures around it.
yeah but nuclear powerplants use plutonium rods or something which are highly radioactive and can meltdown easily and the effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic take chernobyl for example
Chernobyl was just a Russian playground for idiotic scientist who were handing out Nukes for terrorists. i still see some funny stuff in the Chernobyl accident.
Yeah that's true. They at Chernobyl didn't know the reactor as well as they think. There is nothing wrong with a graphite moderated reactor, but if you know it's unstable at low power and you start the test at low power anyways, then there is a big problem; a problem Chernobyl had.
The new "Implosion Bird" in Angry Birds lol.
Zacguy22Reborn 7 months ago 4
Chuck Norris
rolex522 8 months ago
Haha I remember this! I live 10 miles from there in St. Helens Oregon! they had news crews there and everything!
100donoman 8 months ago
Who divided by zero...
DontEatMyCat 10 months ago
why were they counting down? did they blow up the building
makenzie4711 11 months ago
@makenzie4711 NO, THE TOWER JUST EXPLODED WITHOUT A REASON. retard...
Jaeger2011 4 months ago
Nuclear towers always remind me of the Beanbean Kingdom for some reason... Why did they have to build it like that?
ronniegranillo 11 months ago
@ronniegranillo do a course in thermodynamics/heat transfer and you will be set.
Shawkins49 8 months ago
Gahh, this isnt the one I was looking for, I was looking for the one on the way to Seattle, from Vancouver area...
KridikJones 1 year ago
@KridikJones Maybe it is...
KridikJones 1 year ago
At 0:16
"Tell the Cameraman to get out of there"
"Ok"
"What channel is he on?"
Croud: 3...2...1...
"He is out right?"
"Woops I forgot"
cchristensen12 1 year ago
Did he die?
Shinzu92 1 year ago
was this in Grays Harbor County? i used to live not too far from a shutdown plant in southern washington. just curious to the times changing.
beabuls 1 year ago
DOH!
enterthafatass 1 year ago
Dunno why, but that one bit of concrete hitting the camera with a "tink" kinda makes me laugh.
darkyoda 1 year ago 2
Who blew up that cooling tower?
Uh, Homer Simpson sir. One of your living blobs in Sector 7G.
R8erNation636 2 years ago 55
south side of the columbia river its oregon:P
betterdenu452 2 years ago
It's kool how when it fell it when down and the smoke was shaped
mb2joe56 2 years ago
implosion my ass implosion is when something goes in on itself ¬.¬
josephsulse4 2 years ago 2
@josephsulse4 .............wow
mtdoonut 1 year ago
ive eaten at the restuarnt across the highway before it they blew it up
alandi101 2 years ago
epic
killerbiller35 2 years ago
Titties?!?
octaves4 2 years ago
O_O wow sumthing so big 6 bombs and its gone O_o
cotton509 2 years ago
0:17 poor camera lol =D
Nix1794 2 years ago
0:31 It was a beautiful day in the Washington Trojan Nuclear Power Plant until......"BOOM"
lamoboy 2 years ago
uog que maravilha
AdrianKurosaki 2 years ago
" Bob you rememered to remove the uranium...right"
"Oh shit"
damonH24 2 years ago 31
xD funny shit
keatonomore 2 years ago
Its a cooling tower not a reactor. lol
Allante715 2 years ago
hahaha lol =D
Nix1794 2 years ago
@damonH24 Uranium, in a cooling tower? You don't know what a cooling tower does do you(although one would think it obvious from the name)?
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb
Haha look up the design of any modern Nuclear powerplant, the reactor has to be located extremly close to the cooling towers. Nice try though. But I do find it amusing you can only gain self satisfaction by trying to bring down others on a website. I pity your life haha
damonH24 1 year ago
@damonH24 he didnt remove the uranium because he died
flamingarse1 9 months ago
Comment removed
kaandogan12 2 years ago
so you think they should destroy the thing that cools the reactor and keeps everything safe
dam i hate how stupid people are these days!
honse246 2 years ago
@honse246 your an asssssssssssssssss
kaandogan12 2 years ago
iknorite
honse246 2 years ago
The landscape will certainly look prettier without that ugly thing!
mmmbad 2 years ago
@mmmbad As opposed to what? If you remove a nuclear powerstation because it is "unsightly", you need to replace it with something. Would it be less of a blemish to replace it with 1000 wind turbines, each ~100 meter in diameter? Would it be less of a blemish to bulldoze 50 square kilometers flat and pack them full of solar photovoltaics(yes, you really need that much to replace a single 1 GW nuclear plant).
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
so that's where they make the trojan condoms... that shit is nuclear
stprimeflyer 2 years ago
see the youtube trolls are out in force here
trashers4cashers 2 years ago
meh.
Mrxb0x 2 years ago
dove e?
MrDaewonsDonuts 2 years ago
holy crap
awesomeness018 2 years ago
Comment removed
leftwich09 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
911 WTC AND WTC 7 = COONTROLED MANIPULATED DEMOLITION
THX GOD TO KICK OUT ALL SATAN WORSHIPER FROM THE EARTH
PLEASE IF YOU STILL ALIVE of course
BRRUUUAAHHable 2 years ago
aww
MissXQatar 2 years ago
Eh, Let them fear it, its kind of amusing to hear the comments such as "Oh the plant is going to blow up like a bomb" kind of deal haha.
Ive been working a control room operator in Indian Point Nuclear Power Center for 17 years now, Id like to hear what people have to say haha
Laros 2 years ago
Have you got any ill health or anything from working in there
LordEthan2 2 years ago
Not once haha
Laros 2 years ago
nuclear power is beautiful only people who dont understand it fear it
lukevash 2 years ago
I believe nuclear power is for Men who cannot fight battles on theyre own, men who fear others enough to use nuclear power to hide behind.
Ashenfly 2 years ago
hey dumbfuck you talking about nukes im talking about nuclear power you know the thing that runs the world :O
lukevash 2 years ago
whaat kind of implosion was that. hat was pussy.
Shenwolf 2 years ago
that is so cool to have a camera inside
thaboinger 2 years ago 2
haha someone rared my comment down but like it or not its kinda true dillweeds
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
Althougt in this case it looks like this is a nuclear power station, the "tower" is NOT nuclear. It is a "condensation tower" used also (at least in) fuel and coal power stations.
pgarciab 2 years ago
That's the only thing they destroyed, but not the reactor.
CommanderLightning 2 years ago
I think Implode means to explode inwards...
pilotz23 2 years ago
correct essentially.
explosion is the breaking apart of something
implosion is when it breaks into itself
GoldenIgnorance 2 years ago
hahahah its like chernobyl on purpose
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
lol...
clawbog 2 years ago
made an I shape
nickolasbbtt 2 years ago
I would like to see more of these in the near future.
bustitution 2 years ago
Extra montage..!
fredmentor 2 years ago
nos vemos en el infierno malditos pecadores,+. buuuuuuum, kabuuuuuummmmm,+. damns.+.
mikoel7 2 years ago
I was there when it happened. My grandma lives bout a half hour away and i was at her house the day of.
Gummybear4444 2 years ago
wasent this on tv?
bombercat123 2 years ago
Weapon X make better
samuelcorradiCOM 2 years ago
refering to ripstick and nattacus, people arn't racist anymore, they're clearly nationalistic
mandboy16 2 years ago
lol fake and also epic fail
RiPsTiK3R11 2 years ago
would you share with us how you came to the conclusion that this is fake?
Nattacus 2 years ago 2
well just look at it. im not saying its fake it looks fake dont you think? like dude animation it just looks animated to me. lol
RiPsTiK3R11 2 years ago
well it's not like they never collapse cooling towers, it happens quite alot and i suppose if you wikipedia "Trojan Nuclear power plant cooling tower" you'll be proved wrong....
Nattacus 2 years ago 2
why am i worrying look at all you americans comments then my australian comment is so different. like yous know whats going on i just watched it from a link of a chernobyl video
RiPsTiK3R11 2 years ago
why do you just assume i'm american? i'm from England -.-
Nattacus 2 years ago 4
yer i figured that out once i looked at ur channel and i was like aw shit hahaha
RiPsTiK3R11 2 years ago
how come everytime people try to insult you they say ur amercian too. not all americans are dumb or assholes. oh and this is not fake, watch another vid about people sitting to watch it go down,
ECSit 2 years ago 3
cause yous put some stupid time wasting videos of yourselfs on youtube hahaha
RiPsTiK3R11 2 years ago
clever
DarianTrevinoUndone 2 years ago
than what are u doing?
LandonG08 2 years ago
As a side note, there's no one-answer-fits-all solution to our energy crisis. In order to meet the energy demands of the future, we will practically need to use ALL the proposed alternative energy methods. Wind, water, nuclear, geothermal, solar, and tidal. Nuclear power is great at providing baseload power, but it doesn't scale well for peak power. The various other alternative power sources would be great for peakload power, but not baseload.
fuckshoestheclown 2 years ago
I agree completely. If we didnt need nuclear. it would be great.. as most of the other power sources are very clean. I want to get some solar panels on my house, and a wind turbine.. free power is just so interesting to me.
sidstille 2 years ago
Ye, and the price is in my range of $ too lol.
pimpster122 2 years ago
was this the one on nat geo a few weeks ago?
djfrogfm 2 years ago
Very nice. Just as awesome as watching the Kingdome. But I have to point out in your comments that it's Washington. Not Oregon.
Apollo580 2 years ago
i hate nuclear power all they do is cause more chernobly cases look it up if u dont know
SuperHeroMan411 2 years ago
that why they took it down...
zea6thayec 2 years ago
1 accident in the history of nuclear power. you're an ignorant fool.
Nuclear power is very safe. and you obviously dont know the first thing about it..
sidstille 2 years ago 2
yea its very safe but if one blows up the land is a danger zone for like 300 years thats sounds safe
SuperHeroMan411 2 years ago
Chernoble happened because of an error in the operators.. they made a mistake. it wasnt just running fine one day and then a huge explosion went off and no one knew what happened..
It is very safe, and we would be dumb for not utilizing it
sidstille 2 years ago
It wasn't just the error of the operators. The RBMK-1000 reactor used in the Chernobyl powerplant was a terribly designed reactor, and the operators were trying to perform some sort of low-power test. The safety monitoring equipment was actually warning the operators that the reactor was going critical, but the shift supervisor ordered the operators to turn off the safety equipment so they could conclude the test. The reactor was practically forced to melt down.
fuckshoestheclown 2 years ago
The most important decision was made by the man in charge to restart the reactor. The reactor was not designed to restart so quickly. He ordered the crew to turn off the reactor because of some safety feature failure but then realized that a lot of Ukraine (then part of the USSR) would be without power so he ordered them to start it back up. The reactor did not have enough time to cool down and so it melted.
Q3HackerPolice 2 years ago
By the way. The reactor did not go critical. Uranium used for power generation is only 19% enriched. Up to 90% enrichment is required for a critical reaction. I should know, we have an enrichment facility in Sydney near where I live and people were worried it would explode and flatten Sydney. I read the explanation in the paper.
Q3HackerPolice 2 years ago
well youre a fool if you beleive what the money hungry goveronment tells you, of course theyre gonna say its safe it makes them money, but i think chernobyl is a good example of just how unsafe it is
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
yeah but the point is that IT HAPPENED and could just as easily happen again when placed in the hands of the same kind of incompitent moron. youre calling everyone else ignorant but maybe you should learn to spell CHERNOBYL before you go running your mouth about what a minor tragedy it was or better yet maybe you should move your ass over there and see how it affects you
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
"If". You speak in terms of things that haven't happened.
Properly engineered and maintained NPP are totally safe. There is no record of fuel storage facilities causing injuries or cancer, and TMi caused but a handful of deaths due to increased cancer rates.
Compare that to the death rate from resp disease, smoking, black lung, etc.
It is no contest.
GW is just a front for global taxation of every transaction imaginable.
leracoleraco 2 years ago
Actually, there were three accidents. USA - Three Mile Island (1979), UK - Windscale (1957), USSR - Chernoble (1986). But yes, it's very safe and clean power.
Kabziu 2 years ago
one accident is all it takes to ruin complete regions of the earth.one time of mutant babies and thousands and thousands of uninhabitable acres is enough to prove it to me. we can never know how many people that one accident affected, and is STILL affecting 23 years later. maybe its you who is the ignorant fool, or maybe its you who should have a mutant baby or be made to give up your entire life you built, i think that might change your narrowminded ways
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
nucular
CaptMARNEY 2 years ago
The plant was actually in operation but only for a short time, it was not shutdown by treehuggers; The plant was closed due to several contruction flaws and the fact that it was found to be too close to a faultline.
ryguy214 2 years ago
I'm just saying: why would a Nuclear Power Plant tear down a cooling tower. Doesn't the reactor depend on that in the first place? And besides, you would think it would hit the nuclear reactor and cause it to explode.
ethanswish123 2 years ago
This plant never was in operation. Tree huggers shut it down before it could ever be fueled. Google it yourself and see.
So after building it and maintaining it for 30 years DOE tears it down
mdmf007 2 years ago
oh my god!!! btw great video and the angles are great!
Petermaliha 2 years ago
зачем американцы взорвали близнецов самолетами??? Заложили бы просто взрывчатку.... Но им же надо чтобы красиво - что впрочем удалось
kostiushako 3 years ago
nice day outside... BOOM!!!
would scare the shit outta me...
warpig34 3 years ago
lol
hello1221335 3 years ago
**dead** Lmao!!!
keepthapinit 2 years ago
i dont get it why is it like a desert then a bunch of trees around a giant nuclear cyclnder?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
lowriderboy06 3 years ago
because that is just a cooling tower there is nothing radioactive anywhere near that tower.
blowme23 3 years ago
i love all the liberal fags who are against nuclear power
its cheap and clean
stop this chernobyl bs
p8ntballa4life69 3 years ago
clean are you kidding me?
randomosis 3 years ago
a lot cleaner and more eco friendly then what im about to list
1. coal= very dirty (i support bc its cheap and we have a lot of it)
2. water turbines powered from water from dams= un eco friendly and are causing the reduction of fish in may rivers
3. right now i cant think of anymore so i will stop here :)
p8ntballa4life69 3 years ago
and cleaner then oil and natrual gas plants as well.
People need to remember that Uranium is radioactive while it is in the earth. It doesn't create barrels of green nuclear sludge that is just a myth. The spent fuel rods are waste.
Nuclear power is actually environmentally friendly.
blowme23 3 years ago
yeah
i dont know why i got a minus 3 lol
p8ntballa4life69 3 years ago
also i didn't know that the spent fuel rods are the waste, i knew it wasnt that glowing green stuff but wasnt quite sure what is was, eather way we still should be using wind power (no waste at all :D )
randomosis 3 years ago
wind is not a viable source everywhere. It can only be used in places with consistent high winds. In Califorina they have tons of wind powered generators but still California has an energy crisis because they do not consistently produce electricity.
Like it or not Nuclear power is one of the cleanest and safest power sources out there. It is a eco friendly technology despite what eco thugs think.
blowme23 3 years ago
California, Arizona, and Oklahoma has those wind power generators...
keepthapinit 2 years ago
exactly and California has a ton of them but California is also in a huge energy crisis becasue they can not meet their energy demands and they have constant brown outs.
blowme23 2 years ago
Not to sound crazy, but what is a "brown out"?
And to meet these demands, you think they should go with Nuclear power as well??
keepthapinit 2 years ago
a brown out is when you have a drop in voltage and the lights don't go out but they dim and flicker. It is actually much worse for electiral equipment then a black out.
Yes we should defenlty go with nuclear power. Right now there are 104 nuclear plants in the US and Nuclear still has the highest safety rating even higher then Hydroelectirc.
There are tons of incidents of dams breaking and wiping out entire towns. Even in recents years.
blowme23 2 years ago
Duh!!! I should've known what it was...
Damn you really know your shit man.
keepthapinit 2 years ago
i want you to find me three cases of one damn breaking down and leveling a town, and not only that but a real town like chernobyl, one with a high population, one that will never be inhabitable again.
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
you need to read ryguys comments. i have an idea, instead of nuclear power lets just have controlled population like china, thats bound to cut down on the enerhy crisis haha but no thats crazy right and putting unstable nuclear reactors on faultlines is an AWESOME idea right?
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
lmao on faultlines? What kind of idiot would do that XD
a7xfreIk 2 years ago
it has happened before thats all i do know
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
Ur using a control demotion of a cooling tower to demonzince nuclear power? Nuclear energy is safest, cleanest and most cost effective and sustainable form of energy we have. Endorsing Red China's totalitarian population control program is also evil. Maybe you were just being sarcastic though.
spacewurm 2 years ago
no man i'm not using the controled demolition of a nuclear tower to degrade nuclear power, i'm using nuclear power to degrade nuclear power. if youre for it then you should have them build it near your house, because one nuclear hollocost is enough to convince me its just not worth it. have you seen chernobyl anytime in the last 23 years? research it man. and also no i dont beleive in controlled population but sometimes i wonder if it wouldnt help filter out the morons
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
as far as Chernobyl it is impossible to happen again since Chernobyl was a positive void coefficient plant.
Which basicly means that it was designed in a way that if it was a car and it lost control of the brakes it would increase speed. Sounds stupid right
Modern plants ie any plant after 1960 are negative void coefficient which means if they lose all cooling they will shut down
If you did research on Chernobyl you would know this.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
you and alot of other people need to realize one other thing, what do we do with nuclear waste? i heard one suggestion by the goveronment to ship it by trains, well a train runs right by my house and twice in the two years i have lived here they have had pretty notable accidents one of those being a major de-rail. think about that man, idk about you but i dont wanna live in chernobly or heroshima or i would fuckng move there. i like my life and i dont want it interupted by greed
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
come on man the waste is shipped in containers designed and tested to with stand impacts from trains and derails. You are in more danger from the normal trains going by your house than you are of a government escorted train. Worry about something you can change not something that is a biproduct of saving the earth.
leftwich09 2 years ago
yeah well they make meters that are designed and tested to detect ghosts, does that mean they work? does that mean casper is real? no. you say worry about something can change well for one i dont lose sleep over nuclear power, and for two there isnt much in this shit hole world one human can change alone. if i could start today it would be to rid our goveronment and country of certain idiots
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
They also make bullet proof vests that are designed and tested to stop bullets. Does that mean they work? Yes. Yes it does. And those detectors you mentioned can not be tested to detect ghosts if they can never be proven to actually having detected a ghost. Your argument here is idiotic at best. So I am going to agree with leftwich09 here about the safety of these containers.
sloppyjoey 2 years ago
yeah a guy named sloppy joey called me idiotic lol whatever you say man please go on beleiving everything the goveronment tells you, it needs more morons like yourself joe
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
I would still like to hear a valid argument on why you seem to believe that these containers are not capable of withstanding a train derailment. I don't think that "the government says so, so it must be a lie" can really count.
sloppyjoey 2 years ago
well i think i have like fourteen statements on here so maybe you should open your eyes and read or maybe even quite possibly try not being ignorant and use your reading comprehension. your only arguement is since the goveronment says they are they must be so i guess we are both wrong if you really think thats all i was getting at
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
Actually, my argument was that I agreed with leftwich09's argument that the containers are designed and tested to withstand the impacts. The government may set required standards for these things, but they do not do any of the designing or testing, so it is not the government I am believing. You mention reading, so why don't you read NUREG/CR-4829, on the NRC's website. This was the study done by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, not the government, about the safety of transportation.
sloppyjoey 2 years ago
You also said that Chernobyl could happen again but Chernobyl was a very poorly designed power plant, that had dangerous features like graphite tipped control rods. When these rods were inserted once things started to get out of control, it caused the energy to initially spike when inserted, which overheated the core and caused some fuel rods to crack and prevented the rods from being fully inserted, thus preventing them from shutting down the reactor. This feature is not found in any US reactor
sloppyjoey 2 years ago
Chernobyl also did not have a real containment structure. This is the concrete or steel building that every US reactor is required to have, which is built to not only contain any radiation leaks, but also withstand missile strikes and airplane crashes. So even if there was a steam and hydrogen explosion, which wouldn't have happened with proper control rods, these effects would have been contained in this building, and we would not have seen the large release of radiation seen in Chernobyl
sloppyjoey 2 years ago
one more thing what state do you live in? I am just asking because I would like to know what kind of power plant is near you. You might even get your power from nuclear and not even know it.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@Ackbar60 you really think i dont know what sort of power i use with such strong opinions towards nuclear power? duke energy created a whole lake in my county in the 60's so they could us HYDROGEN/STEAM plants. you take the nuclear i'll take the steam
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
duke energy huh.. You do know they are going to be one of the first companies to build a new nuclear power plant. They have been working on it for a few years now and it should come online in 2016
Ackbar60 2 years ago
and they currently operate 3 other nuclear plants across North and South Carolina so yeah you do get some of your power from Nuclear.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@Ackbar60 so actually no none of my power comes from a nuclear plant it comes from lake norman. i'm not exactly sure what youre trying to accomplish here or if youre trying to convert me into a goveronment drone too, but it wont work. nuclear anything is foolish, there are plenty of other options. also these plants are safe and reliable, is that the same sort of safe and reliable as the W.T.C. or the pentegon??? its all a figment of imagination i'm glad some of the country buys that shit though
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
umm McGuire Nuclear Station is part of Lake Norman so yes you do get your power from Nuclear energy. You directly get your power from nuclear power and it if you live close to Lake Norman you already have a nuclear plant in your backyard.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
also what are you talking hydrogen steam plant? All they have on Lake Norman is a hydroelectric plant, a nuclear and a coal plant.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@Ackbar60 there are no nuclear plants on lake norman but what do i know i only go boating there every summer lol you need a life man
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
I have no reason to lie to you. Go and look Lake Norman up on wikipedia. You will see that McGuire Nuclear Station is on Lake Norman. Hell look McGuire Nuclear Station up anywhere on the web. Every website you will see says it is on Lake Norman
Do a google image search and you will see pictures of it
If you look on google maps you can see it is only a few miles to the east of the Dam
It is literally right off of 73
If you don't believe me then tell me where McGuire Nuclear Station is?
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@bigbadbronco86 Your goggle-fu is sorely lacking. Lake Norman is a man-made lake; it created for the Cowans Ford hydroelectric dam and yes, there is a nuclear power plant with 2 1100 MW reactor, licenced to operate till 2041 and 2043 respectively.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb yeah silly me what would i know about the state that i live in hahaha even if there was nuclear power on lake norman i can still rest assured its nowhere near me
bigbadbronco86 1 year ago
@Ackbar60 now that you said the name you are right, but by the same token hwy 73 is 40 miles from my house and even i dont think a nuclear holocost can reach that far
bigbadbronco86 2 years ago
well there is no way a nuclear power plant could cause a nuclear holocost. That is the point.
A nuclear power plant can't even create a nuclear explosion.
Nuclear power is safe people just like to blow it out of proportion and claim all sorts of shit.
But obviously you can now see the truth. Hell you even said yourself you have gone fishing in Lake Norman. That water is used to cool the reactor and it is 100% safe.
People are afraid of it but they don't even realize already live with it
Ackbar60 2 years ago
thats true but it would have ton of radiation if there was still nuclear stuff in it
wolterproductionz 2 years ago
@wolterproductionz ,there was never nuclear stuff in it ,its water vapor thats coming out of that tower
marioc65 2 years ago
they don't have to be shipped anywhere they can be stored at the nuclear power plant themselves. It's not hard storing spent fuel rods.
The nuclear waste is all solid material it can't leak out or anything. There is no such thing as barrels of glowing green radioactive waste
And yes I do live with in 5 miles of a nuclear power plant. Turkey Point power plant in Miami fl. If someone didn't tell me it was there I would have never known.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
I agree....Those wind power generators could be used in the primarly in the midwest (Kansas, Mizzou, Iowa, Louisiana etc).
Places where there's plenty of open field at...
keepthapinit 2 years ago
i agree coal is unclean but how is water turbines non-eco friendly, anyways all im saying is that we NEED to start putting some money in wind power. it's renewable and eco-friendly
randomosis 3 years ago
im just saying damns that use water to power turbines that create electricity are less ecofriendly than nuclear power plants bc it alters whole ecosystems and stops fish from migrating up rivers
but just keep that on the DL lol
p8ntballa4life69 3 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal"
if it is so revolutionary and clean, which i don't disagree, wouldn't more conservatives with deep relations with oil companies and like interest groups shun nuclear power?
tootsie400 3 years ago
because really Oil plants are not as a huge consumer of oil as cars are. The big oil companies prefer selling to the consumer because they can control the price. When they sell to a Oil power plant they get a contract which restricts them from changing the price for x amount of years. If we just down all oil plants it won't both the oil companies at all just as long as we have gas guzzling cars.
blowme23 3 years ago
Chernobyl was horrible! Didn't you see what it did to Pripyat in Ukraine? Over 50,000 people used to live there. Now its empty!
girandwogpig 3 years ago
agreed i think a bit of the radiation got as far as ireland because there is a lake somewhere thats badly radioactive and you arent allowed to swim or fish in it
bogieman987 3 years ago
yeah over 33 countries across the world affected INCLUDING the UK
girandwogpig 3 years ago
50,000 people use to live there, now its a ghost town. -cod4
lancekortesoja 3 years ago
Chernobyl is returned to nature. It is now one of the most pristene wildernesses on earth, Every containment failure has a silver linning?
cornskid 3 years ago
I see implosions are another way to easily deconstruct a building. Can someone tell me how to compose a implosion. Do I need some time of c-4 or bomb. I don't want a bomb that explodes a huge radius, I just want one to vaporize a building completely without destroying any structures around it.
3dsmaxuser7 3 years ago
the factory was decommissioned and all the uranium was taken out. all that was left to do was blow up the towers :)
wirewire1234567 3 years ago
that was cool
sean93101 3 years ago
why are we blowing nuclear powerplants up there safer, and cleaner than coal which we use for 60% of the energy in the united states
/end rant
mrmo3244 3 years ago 3
yeah but nuclear powerplants use plutonium rods or something which are highly radioactive and can meltdown easily and the effects of a meltdown can be catastrophic take chernobyl for example
bogieman987 3 years ago
Chernobyl was just a Russian playground for idiotic scientist who were handing out Nukes for terrorists. i still see some funny stuff in the Chernobyl accident.
TREliteToast 3 years ago
not even close.
Cernobly was a combination of several people being stupid.
1. they where using a graphite moderator
2. they wanted to know what would happen if their fail safes failed.
Basically it was like they wanted to see if seat belts would work if you weren't wearing them and crashed into a brick wall.
The rest of the world has continued to use nuclear power. Japan, France, Sweeden and many others have long passed us in nuclear technolgy.
blowme23 3 years ago
Yeah that's true. They at Chernobyl didn't know the reactor as well as they think. There is nothing wrong with a graphite moderated reactor, but if you know it's unstable at low power and you start the test at low power anyways, then there is a big problem; a problem Chernobyl had.
ethanswish123 2 years ago
nuclear is not clear
go impolsion
micmivf 3 years ago
Love it!!!!!
sojoyful 3 years ago 2
Cool
corwin11412 3 years ago
why WHY!!! that was my house
desertegle81 3 years ago
YEEEEEEEEAH! XD
copebch 3 years ago