There is where our energy is NOT nuclear check out the vid bellow 0 pollution yes totally 0 no pollution no waste in comparison to a nuclear power station price its cheaper as well.
I really don't think people understand the dangers of nuclear power. One small mistake can cause global catastrophe its not just an oil leak you can filter the pollution it pukes out. There will be mistakes don't be nieve. Nuclear is a reaction beyond anything we can control safely its physics. The heat output into our oceans will heat up our ocean melting the ice caps further. You don't get a second chance and on a commercial scale mistakes happen. Say no to nuclear.
Obama is probably knowingly, or unknowingly, setting up the next target for someone to fly a plane into...Think about how easy it would be to fly a plane into a nuclear power plant and destroy an entire area of the country...This is not a "Smarter Energy Grid" like Obama said, it is a bad move on the chess board and we are their pawns.....Just what we need more potential targets for people to crash planes into....Are you all ready for another Nuclear Meltdown like 3-Mile Island or Chernobyl???
@streetfightspdx Oddly enough the terrorists seem smarter than the American general public. They would not fly a plane into a nuclear power plant, because they could much much more people by flying it into a skyscraper. That's why they flew into a skyscraper and not a nuclear plant. Oftentimes, flying a plane into a nuclear power plant won't kill anyone until years later, nowhere near fast enough, where-as a skyscraper could kill thousands the same day.
9/11 was an inside job....How did building #7 collapse??.....The planes didn't take down the towers, it was an inside job...You are clearly an idiot that is spoonfed lies on a daily basis and now you believe them as truth....
@streetfightspdx I could debate that part to death but the fact is, whether it was an inside job is irrelevant. The fact is, whether the gov did it, or terrorists, you could kill more people blowing up a skyscraper then a nuclear power plant, and why, BTW, if you believe it was an inside job did you refer to planes crashing into nuclear power plants, once again, if you want to terrorize the public, you should probably kill a lot of people very quickly then a little amount very slowly.
Somebody needs to tell Obama that more potential terrorist targets and nuclear power plants won't save the economy..I'm not concerned with airplanes falling from the sky or making crash landings into skyscrapers, I'm more concerned about nuclear power and nuclear weapons..Skyscrapers don't usually fall by themselves or from plane crashes, it's been proven many times, 9/11 was an inside job...How did building #7 collapse??..The planes didn't take down the towers, it was an inside job.
@streetfightspdx Just FYI, the fuel in those planes was equivalent to 1.4 kilotons of TNT, the yield of a tactical nuke and far more energy than you could get from a nuclear power plant exploding. Even assuming crashing a plane into a skyscraper won't do anything to it, there are still far easier and more effective ways to kill people than letting a couple dozen people die of cancer a few years later from a nuclear meltdown.
@streetfightspdx Actually it's perfectly plausible. The only immediate deaths from Chernobyl were the unprotected firefighters. Modern day firefighters would know enough use radiation suits. Given that modern day plants cannot spread radiation the way Chernobyl can, one can expect 0 immediate deaths and a couple dozen, or about 0.04% of the local population would die from cancer, it could be larger, but requires higher concentrated radiation on larger population centers which is unlikely.
Do you got some uranium you want to sell me?? I heard that shit gives you the ultimate high--death....on second thought maybe i'll just stick to the sticky green buds.....Go sell your pro-nuclear crap to someone else..I'm not buying your bull$hit at all....Go sell it to some gullible college kids or something, I'm 39 years old and have been against nuclear power/nuclear weapons since I was a little kid...Maybe we can use your house as a nuclear waste dump for Obama's nuke plants..
@streetfightspdx So for 39 years calling opposing arguments bs while presenting no facts of your own has worked for you, ah, if only "gullible college kids" and for that matter, physicists could be so lucky. I'm not actually telling you to support nuclear power, I'm just presenting all the aspects of the situation to you. You're not listening and you don't have to. So if that's all, how 'bout we just respectfully disagree.
I just don't waste time arguing that much....especially on youtube...I got plenty of facts of my own, I used to publish a few underground newspapers so I definitely got plenty of info of my own to back up my anti-nuclear beliefs so go ram some uranium down some other persons throat...Just because you obviously buy into the theories of some well paid-off so-called "experts" doesn't mean you are informed....Go sell your pro-nuclear crap to someone else..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I can see that Chernobyl was not enough a lesson Mr. Obama. Perhaps is human nature to make the same mistake over and over. Consider though that Chernobyl could have wiped out most of Europe -- they were just lucky. Do you want that lesson in our land Mr Obama, so we can learn? By the way, fortunately we live in such peaceful times that there is no terrorism that could target a nuclear reactor, right Mr. Obama? We have many safe energy sources to choose from if we really commit to them.
Do you know how many people die A DAY in the US in coal mines? Chernobyl was a ONE TIME DEAL. There is much safer nuke technology just WAITING to be used out there, but isn't. Thanks to you hippie bastards. Plus, Chernobyl was in fucking russia, who had an unbelievably unstable footing in the world, and could barely figure out how to build a tractor. You think russian nuke plants are gonna be safe???
@BKsMassive watch that and tell me if we need nuclear answer NO it GM who made it as well. you want to kill the planet go ahead but nuclear will affect me even if i don't want it. so NO.
@Miabalzitch there are active reactors around the world which are causing cancer and birth defects to surrounding communities Chernobyl is not a one time its a warning shot to show how dangerous nuclear thermal reaction really is, its one to many. If we cant control a volcano what the hell makes you think we can control a nuclear reaction. Nuclear waste remains highly radioactive with a half life to over 200,000 years. it wont be a bake bean tin size of waste dumped and its plutonium
@Miabalzitch what newer technology oh you mean Microsoft windows and Dell computers controlling the reactor instead of push switches. Oh shit If its Dell and Microsoft windows on the job hey were all safe. Its still the same design using control rods. The reactor in the UK has had its moments including a few evacuations and as i said if its Microsoft OS for the control software god help us.
@fireicer ......just stop. you obviously have no idea what you're babbling about. No one would use WINDOWS OS or any computer OS we know about to operate a freaking nuclear reactor. I'm talking about advancements that have been made in the past 60 years, that allow spent plutonium rods to be reused up to 10 times more, better safety controls, etc etc. And in regards to your previous post: American quality controls will take care of 99% of your safety concerns.
@Miabalzitch sure sure everyone is entitled to there opinion but when someone does not want something weather high tech or no tech when it comes down to nuclear there is no choice. The UK has been affected very heavy due to radioactive contamination that has come from Chernobyl. we have saturated 50-100mile radius of countryside all around the 3 nuclear power plants we have in the UK in all fairness its all safe levels they say but what about he who don't want it. your nuclear affects everyone
@Miabalzitch I would also like to add here that freedom of choice. You might not mind using nuclear power but i don't want it so i use other power sources. If your nuclear power goes wrong well your fault but it effects me as well as you and that's just unfair and darn right selfish. nuclear can go to hell its caused enough hell on earth for thousands of people worldwide. The Microsoft windows thing was a joke lol. So do you think 100% of the radiation from Nuclear can be contained?
@fireicer same argument can be used against ANY other source of power. People don't want wind power because they're aesthetically unappealing. People don't want solar because it takes up a lot of space and isn't very efficient. People don't want COAL because it pollutes very heavily. coal and oil are very dirty. Look what's happening to the gulf coast right now! it's the WORST environmental disaster EVER. Nuclear energy is much safer than coal or oil in the long run.
The UK has been affected extremely lightly by chernobyl, when you consider what actual radioactive contamination can cause. There are almost no effects from it still present from it more than about 100 miles away. and even at that distance the area is mostly safe now. Also, that is the only recorded accident from a reactor of any magnitude greater than what happens in the boiler rooms of office buildings each day. It IS cheaper, safer, easy to sustain, and the only logical conclusion.
@Miabalzitch You have truly been proven wrong, Nuclear power is a fraud and equals death,.....do you want to apologize for your ignorant and idiotic comment? Chernobyl a one time deal, yhea that will last for several hundreds of years you dip shit obama choad lover!!!!! oh and here came fukyoushim too.... I LMFAO to morons like you!!!
Although I know where you're coming from... a lot of University research is government funded. I don't think all (or even most) University research is as "directed" as you suggest.
wrong. Government funded research never works. Because the only scientists that get the money are the ones who promise the politicians they will find the answer they want to the thing they are researching. They dont "research" they just find ways to support the answer they want to find for the government.
hes such an idiot i dont care what u think
shadowclan1993 1 year ago
There is where our energy is NOT nuclear check out the vid bellow 0 pollution yes totally 0 no pollution no waste in comparison to a nuclear power station price its cheaper as well.
watch?v=6kj-aqd18JY
fireicer 1 year ago
I really don't think people understand the dangers of nuclear power. One small mistake can cause global catastrophe its not just an oil leak you can filter the pollution it pukes out. There will be mistakes don't be nieve. Nuclear is a reaction beyond anything we can control safely its physics. The heat output into our oceans will heat up our ocean melting the ice caps further. You don't get a second chance and on a commercial scale mistakes happen. Say no to nuclear.
fireicer 1 year ago
They re-use nuclear waste in various ways already >>> Irradiating the Food Supplies
>>> there is also Nuclear Waste in almost every Smoke Detector on the market these days....
Are you ready for more useful Nuclear Waste Recycle Tips from the New World Order Scum like Obama???
streetfightspdx 2 years ago
Obama is probably knowingly, or unknowingly, setting up the next target for someone to fly a plane into...Think about how easy it would be to fly a plane into a nuclear power plant and destroy an entire area of the country...This is not a "Smarter Energy Grid" like Obama said, it is a bad move on the chess board and we are their pawns.....Just what we need more potential targets for people to crash planes into....Are you all ready for another Nuclear Meltdown like 3-Mile Island or Chernobyl???
streetfightspdx 2 years ago
@streetfightspdx Oddly enough the terrorists seem smarter than the American general public. They would not fly a plane into a nuclear power plant, because they could much much more people by flying it into a skyscraper. That's why they flew into a skyscraper and not a nuclear plant. Oftentimes, flying a plane into a nuclear power plant won't kill anyone until years later, nowhere near fast enough, where-as a skyscraper could kill thousands the same day.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
9/11 was an inside job....How did building #7 collapse??.....The planes didn't take down the towers, it was an inside job...You are clearly an idiot that is spoonfed lies on a daily basis and now you believe them as truth....
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx I could debate that part to death but the fact is, whether it was an inside job is irrelevant. The fact is, whether the gov did it, or terrorists, you could kill more people blowing up a skyscraper then a nuclear power plant, and why, BTW, if you believe it was an inside job did you refer to planes crashing into nuclear power plants, once again, if you want to terrorize the public, you should probably kill a lot of people very quickly then a little amount very slowly.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
Somebody needs to tell Obama that more potential terrorist targets and nuclear power plants won't save the economy..I'm not concerned with airplanes falling from the sky or making crash landings into skyscrapers, I'm more concerned about nuclear power and nuclear weapons..Skyscrapers don't usually fall by themselves or from plane crashes, it's been proven many times, 9/11 was an inside job...How did building #7 collapse??..The planes didn't take down the towers, it was an inside job.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx Just FYI, the fuel in those planes was equivalent to 1.4 kilotons of TNT, the yield of a tactical nuke and far more energy than you could get from a nuclear power plant exploding. Even assuming crashing a plane into a skyscraper won't do anything to it, there are still far easier and more effective ways to kill people than letting a couple dozen people die of cancer a few years later from a nuclear meltdown.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
a couple dozen people....hahaha....you gotta be kidding....stop smoking crack....
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx Actually it's perfectly plausible. The only immediate deaths from Chernobyl were the unprotected firefighters. Modern day firefighters would know enough use radiation suits. Given that modern day plants cannot spread radiation the way Chernobyl can, one can expect 0 immediate deaths and a couple dozen, or about 0.04% of the local population would die from cancer, it could be larger, but requires higher concentrated radiation on larger population centers which is unlikely.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
Do you got some uranium you want to sell me?? I heard that shit gives you the ultimate high--death....on second thought maybe i'll just stick to the sticky green buds.....Go sell your pro-nuclear crap to someone else..I'm not buying your bull$hit at all....Go sell it to some gullible college kids or something, I'm 39 years old and have been against nuclear power/nuclear weapons since I was a little kid...Maybe we can use your house as a nuclear waste dump for Obama's nuke plants..
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx So for 39 years calling opposing arguments bs while presenting no facts of your own has worked for you, ah, if only "gullible college kids" and for that matter, physicists could be so lucky. I'm not actually telling you to support nuclear power, I'm just presenting all the aspects of the situation to you. You're not listening and you don't have to. So if that's all, how 'bout we just respectfully disagree.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
I just don't waste time arguing that much....especially on youtube...I got plenty of facts of my own, I used to publish a few underground newspapers so I definitely got plenty of info of my own to back up my anti-nuclear beliefs so go ram some uranium down some other persons throat...Just because you obviously buy into the theories of some well paid-off so-called "experts" doesn't mean you are informed....Go sell your pro-nuclear crap to someone else..
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx I'll take that as a yes.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
you got it...respectfully yours
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
one day there will be no more useful stuff on earth but rocks and sand! do we want this? NO
TheGoldenBlackTiger 2 years ago
What dp you do if you run out of Uranium?
Think twice.
schusterlehrling 2 years ago
global radioactive waste site near chernobyl, create revenue for area
blackle4ps3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can see that Chernobyl was not enough a lesson Mr. Obama. Perhaps is human nature to make the same mistake over and over. Consider though that Chernobyl could have wiped out most of Europe -- they were just lucky. Do you want that lesson in our land Mr Obama, so we can learn? By the way, fortunately we live in such peaceful times that there is no terrorism that could target a nuclear reactor, right Mr. Obama? We have many safe energy sources to choose from if we really commit to them.
healtheplanetfirst 3 years ago
how fucking dumb are you? HOW DUMB?
Do you know how many people die A DAY in the US in coal mines? Chernobyl was a ONE TIME DEAL. There is much safer nuke technology just WAITING to be used out there, but isn't. Thanks to you hippie bastards. Plus, Chernobyl was in fucking russia, who had an unbelievably unstable footing in the world, and could barely figure out how to build a tractor. You think russian nuke plants are gonna be safe???
god-ignorant hippies like you just disgust me.
Miabalzitch 2 years ago 8
@Miabalzitch fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck yeessssss lmao!!!! right on the money homeboy! lol WE NEED NUCLEAR ENERGY!!!
ceasewon 1 year ago
@Miabalzitch
actually in Chernobyl the russians were playing with the reactors.
they were actually messing around with them.
i live 50 miles from 2 nuclear power station and i dont care. i know im 100% safe :)
and a 3rd one will be built in the next 10 years.
1KG of plutonium gives off the same amount of energy as 500 million tons of coal. FACT.
tbh i would rather put 1KG back into the ground than burn 500 million tons of coal.
BKsMassive 1 year ago
@BKsMassive you may want to watch this vid might change your opinion a bit.
watch?v=MqhISssMxnY
fireicer 1 year ago
@fireicer
lol!
your power plants leak xD
and it was below dangerous levels.
it doesnt matter.
Nuclear Power <3
BKsMassive 1 year ago
@BKsMassive watch that and tell me if we need nuclear answer NO it GM who made it as well. you want to kill the planet go ahead but nuclear will affect me even if i don't want it. so NO.
watch?v=6kj-aqd18JY
fireicer 1 year ago
@Miabalzitch there are active reactors around the world which are causing cancer and birth defects to surrounding communities Chernobyl is not a one time its a warning shot to show how dangerous nuclear thermal reaction really is, its one to many. If we cant control a volcano what the hell makes you think we can control a nuclear reaction. Nuclear waste remains highly radioactive with a half life to over 200,000 years. it wont be a bake bean tin size of waste dumped and its plutonium
fireicer 1 year ago
@Miabalzitch what newer technology oh you mean Microsoft windows and Dell computers controlling the reactor instead of push switches. Oh shit If its Dell and Microsoft windows on the job hey were all safe. Its still the same design using control rods. The reactor in the UK has had its moments including a few evacuations and as i said if its Microsoft OS for the control software god help us.
fireicer 1 year ago
@fireicer ......just stop. you obviously have no idea what you're babbling about. No one would use WINDOWS OS or any computer OS we know about to operate a freaking nuclear reactor. I'm talking about advancements that have been made in the past 60 years, that allow spent plutonium rods to be reused up to 10 times more, better safety controls, etc etc. And in regards to your previous post: American quality controls will take care of 99% of your safety concerns.
Miabalzitch 1 year ago
@Miabalzitch sure sure everyone is entitled to there opinion but when someone does not want something weather high tech or no tech when it comes down to nuclear there is no choice. The UK has been affected very heavy due to radioactive contamination that has come from Chernobyl. we have saturated 50-100mile radius of countryside all around the 3 nuclear power plants we have in the UK in all fairness its all safe levels they say but what about he who don't want it. your nuclear affects everyone
fireicer 1 year ago
@Miabalzitch I would also like to add here that freedom of choice. You might not mind using nuclear power but i don't want it so i use other power sources. If your nuclear power goes wrong well your fault but it effects me as well as you and that's just unfair and darn right selfish. nuclear can go to hell its caused enough hell on earth for thousands of people worldwide. The Microsoft windows thing was a joke lol. So do you think 100% of the radiation from Nuclear can be contained?
fireicer 1 year ago
@fireicer same argument can be used against ANY other source of power. People don't want wind power because they're aesthetically unappealing. People don't want solar because it takes up a lot of space and isn't very efficient. People don't want COAL because it pollutes very heavily. coal and oil are very dirty. Look what's happening to the gulf coast right now! it's the WORST environmental disaster EVER. Nuclear energy is much safer than coal or oil in the long run.
Miabalzitch 1 year ago
@fireicer
The UK has been affected extremely lightly by chernobyl, when you consider what actual radioactive contamination can cause. There are almost no effects from it still present from it more than about 100 miles away. and even at that distance the area is mostly safe now. Also, that is the only recorded accident from a reactor of any magnitude greater than what happens in the boiler rooms of office buildings each day. It IS cheaper, safer, easy to sustain, and the only logical conclusion.
marchingtrojans 1 year ago
@Miabalzitch
So what are you actually making a point about (bitching)?
Andrew32488 11 months ago
@Miabalzitch You have truly been proven wrong, Nuclear power is a fraud and equals death,.....do you want to apologize for your ignorant and idiotic comment? Chernobyl a one time deal, yhea that will last for several hundreds of years you dip shit obama choad lover!!!!! oh and here came fukyoushim too.... I LMFAO to morons like you!!!
SpritMatterMan 8 months ago
Although I know where you're coming from... a lot of University research is government funded. I don't think all (or even most) University research is as "directed" as you suggest.
AimItAtTheSun 3 years ago
wrong. Government funded research never works. Because the only scientists that get the money are the ones who promise the politicians they will find the answer they want to the thing they are researching. They dont "research" they just find ways to support the answer they want to find for the government.
Twiggy269 3 years ago