YOU GUYS ARE FUCKED. A BUILDING GETTING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS AND A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GETTING ATTACKED HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT (FALL- OUTS) PUN INTENDED. ON BEING RADIATION THAT WILL KILL MILLIONS OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS. ASSHOLES. NUCLEAR IS A NEAT IDEA , BUT WAY TOO DANGEROUS. GLOBALLY
today Solar and Wind energy are cheaper than Nuclear, they would become cheaper than Coal with a few additional taxes for health and long term hazzards. I can not understand why these Liberal douches are soo fucking idiotic.
They have a personal war with Green Peace and Peta? They seem to spew shit like the right wing nuts.
PS the issue is If a Nuclear plant is attacked it would leave the area around it a wasteland for hundereds of years... they screwed his point and made a Moore type doku...
These 2 idiots point is "Anything can be attacked by terrorist, its pointless to build anything". My point is "Anything can be attacked by terrorists, BUT only Nuclear plants leave a RADIOACTIVE WASTELAND and RADIATION DUST CLOUDS across the globe"...
@dragoran yes, but nuclear plants are built to withstand. the reactor is surrounded by a concrete block., the reactor is made of metal that takes the heat. the containers that transport waste are practically indestructable.
MY point: you need a lot of juice to do serious harm to a plant.
@dragoran look, Fukushima was bad, but it wasn't the worst. in reality, the building should've COLLAPSED by the quake, and it wasn't a total meltdown.
It maybye was a terrible disaster but it could've been a lot worse.
Some of you guys are goddamn retarded. The G3+ nuclear reactors (the newest models we WOULD be building if you batshit hippies would stop getting in the way.) promise to be almost melt proof. And with the storage facility in Yucka Mt., we could safely store spent rods for decades. I live in New Jersey, and up here, we don't get much sun light in the winter, and late summer air can be almost stagnant. A few Nuke Plants could easily power our entire state if you fucks would step off.
Nuclear energy is cleaner and more efficient than any other method we can conceive of at the moment, aside from fusion. Solar power may be cleaner but it's nowhere near as efficient and the same goes for wind energy.
But something else: solar and wind power are also dirty. The components must be manufactured, afterall.
Penn, like most people, just assumes that nuclear power is 'clean energy'? it's not. it never was and never can be. to produce the 'nuclear fuel', uranium ore must be mined out of the ground (using fossil fuel guzzling monster trucks and other heavy mining equipment), which leaves ugly scars on the face of the planet (which can be seen from space), where the minerals/ore are gouged from huge open pit mines.
THEN the uranium ore (or thorium for today's 'modern' nuclear reactors) must be enriched into radioactive fuel pellets/rods. the processes involved just to mine, refine, enrich, manufacture, safely/securely store, and so on, is very costly, energy intensive, and it produces tons of lethal waste (spent fuel) which remains deadly forever, often ending up in the hands of military contractors and arms dealers, who use the radioactive waste to make depleted uranium bullets, bombs and other WMDs.
@fonkayzoa - and YOU are not 'biased'?? how about this tough guy... get your stupid ass to Japan and help those 50 brave men who are on a suicide mission as we speak, desperately trying to avert a widespread radioactive contamination.
@randomscience1 Yup. Even the Frenchies who likely have more disdain for the American system than any other nation on the planet aren't with the greenies on THIS bullshit. Nuclear power is mutually beneficial to the environmentalists AND the right. But they insist on bashing anything practical.
@MrUnicorn1995 You are so right. And did you notice that last russian completed an agreement with France so that the french would help them build several new nulear reactors.
Meanwhile we are still developing "alternatives" that aren't even needed. It's unreal.
Uranium is so much better than ANY other natural fuel. 1 Kilogram of Uranium has more power than 30 train cars of coal. Not to mention nuclear power only releases steam into the atmosphere while coal emits carbon dioxide. Yes the depleted stuff is bad, but that's why underground bunkers located in the desert with about 6 feet of concrete and titanium with the power to withstand a strategic missile strike are built to prevent it from running off into the soil.
yeah,this is bullshit!!! SAVE THE WORLD!!! no nuke plants!!! do something for the world!!! nuke plants r the reason for global worming!!! we all r gonna die because of some fucking nuke plants!!! fuck u all idiots! i go watch Jackass!!!
What? ofc nuke reactors are dangerus beccuse if terrorist blow it up people cant live there for 100 of years, makes no sense that they makeing fun of him....shut out a whole city? wtf?
@ThePannKaka1. Nuclear reactors are heavily reinforced so that it isn't going to be a very simple task. On the other hand, blowing up a refinery or hydrocarbon-based power plant would be just as disastrous. The anti-nuclear morons have been attacking this reliable form of energy that produces virtually no GHGs, and is the only form of energy that can realistically replace hydrocarbons.
@raptorkiller2k5 Nuclear reactors heavily reinforced ? not everyone man... if they succede to blow up a nucelar reactor then it a hugh disaster, but ofc its very unlikely but still possible
@ThePannKaka1. That means, by designed, they'll well fortified from actual physical attacks. Of course, things can go wrong, but nuclear energy is a very reliable and safe form of energy. None of these environmental jack offs are even considering nuclear energy over the more aggressive fossil fuel variety. Wind energy solutions has its dangers (vs wildlife), and renewable cannot independently supply global energy production.
I was speaking of lockdown procedures such as thick lead walls and such. Also, radiated waste can be stored in special dump sites. There are uninhabited deserts all across western U.S. Finding a patch of desert far away from population would be easy.
Only about 400 nuclear plants would be needed to fuel all of our home electric needs and there would be almost Co2 and other gasses will be reduced to almost nothing.
If you make sure there are certain lockdown procedures installed then even IF there is a meltdown then the amount of radiation released will be about the amount of a dozen x-rays at the absoulute worst.
the only "secret panel" is the one youve formed in your mind
renewable energy is not the "safest cheapest way"
i dont "dismiss the...issues involved w/nuclear power"
i understand them. most do. and we understand the risks are incredibly low, and dont buy into the fearmongering
crybabies make the politicians choose what they have so far. when energy prices skyrocket and blackouts loom, your same crybabies will cry "but the nuke plants wont be providing energy for _ years" bla bla bla
hey exciteable boy, just because your reading comprehension skills are on par with an untrained monkey doesnt mean you get to keep throwing poo against the wall hoping it sticks
your supposed point is destroyed by the fact that flying a plane IS dangerous, over decades resulting in thousands of deaths, much like you ASSUME nuke reactors to do (even though they havent)
by any standard nuke power IS THE SAFEST & cheapest way of providing americas power
oh, i guess with ALL the nuclear reactor accidents that have led to not only catastrophic destruction of life and the environment, we as Americans just havent learned how to build a better mousetrap....
oh... wait... there were catastrophic events at facilities besides Chernobyl???
It dosn't have to be a terrorist attack, nuclear energy are risky anyway. The waste needs proper handling or it would be dangerous to the enviornment, and a accsidents, wich has happended before, has catastrophic results.Why does it always have to be the terrorist treat that are brought up as a risk, there's also human error and broken equipment... meltdowns. The result is pretty much the same. To look for alternatives to nuclear energy is a positive effort... not just some tree huger bullshit.
I'd give them credit, 9/11 isn't a good thing to point out since Airports didn't have high security during the attack, a Nuclear reactor if build would probably have armed soldiers with military grade weapons protecting it. Cause you can bet they'd take almost no chances with one of those.
Once again, now we're falling into the "well in the most extreme circumstances it could be catastrophic" but so could a lot of things, we don't let that stop us from building missiles or nukes on a fairly consistent basis.
Anyways we can agree to disagree here, I'm not in denial that there's big risks I just don't think they're big enough to completely rebuke the possibility when we're headed to a no energy situation.
But it wasn't a single hole that caused the tragedy, in fact they couldn't specify what did cause it. They had 1. a building that wasn't up to par with what it should have been, 2. had been conduction unauthorized experiments, 3. then turned off the security systems FOR one of said experiments...
So yes, with an inadequate building and all the fail safes removed it is indeed a terrible idea.
As for the 9/11 thing it took them many attempts before it was finally pulled off, and to be fair it's somewhat like going around with kid gloves on for everything you do. Bad things can happen, they always can and always will, I just am not in agreement with living in utter fear that in turn causes denying "possibly" dangerous but not certainly dangerous solutions in favor for no solutions.
It's true? What testing or quotes do you have to back up that a single hole could cause the problems you described.
I disagree with Pen and Teller on several key facts but they have a good point here. We're coming to the point we're we will have no energy if the cycle continues, basing fears upon the very unlikely "what if" isn't very productive.
Assuming that all the sci-fi movies are true that is. You'd need quite the bomb to blow a nuclear power plant up high enough to kill millions as generaly they're quite far away, and with an explosion of that size it would seem much more logical to attack a prominent government building.
The big difference between a plane crash and a nuclear plant explosion is that the entire city would have to evacuate and relocate. When America can't even relocate any of the survivors of New Orleans, how can it possibly relocate ALL of New York city?
As for the sidewinder theories and other garbage, all that needs to happen is something that disrupts the cooling system, a simple bullet to the cooling tanks would cause a nuclear meltdown.
Unless your a specialist at how a Nuclear power plant works I'm going to have to bring into question whether at "single bullet" would cause a melt down.
I'm sure that working with something as dangerous as Nuclear energy is, that they'd have a bit or precautionary fail safes in place.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
your moms vagina is open for a terrorist attack. I dont know i just typed a search for bull shit because i wanted to send a clip of a bull shiting to illustrate a point i was making. but this fucker pissed me off. nuclear power plants are dangerous because of the shit that comes out of them when you blow them up and there close enough to a town or city to fuck a lot of people up.
they provide a a quarter of our energy, and in the entire history theres only been 2 minor fuck ups. both of which nobody died and people were exposed to the same amount of radiation as an simple x-ray. andrew grow a fucking dick.
Both of which nobody died? Perhaps you should go grow a brain. Every article about Chernobyl reports countless deaths from the nuclear meltdown as far away as the UK.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This show is appropriately named, as Penn and Teller utilize a fair amount of Bullshit to combat supposed Bullshit. While many don't find it necessary to tear down preexisting nuclear facilities because they are possible terrorist targets, it's still wise to consider building new facilities away from populous areas due to the increased probability of terrorism. Also, telling someone to "grow a fucking dick" is just a humorous ad homenim which distracts from valid points within the real argument
in 1820 a man named fredrick osloft one day he was working in his lab until a ghost came by and killed him the next morning fredrick was nowhere to be seen 100 years later two boys went in the lab as a dare the boys where never seen again where aparently murdered now that u have read this comment tonight when u go to sleep the two boys and fredrick will come and murder you but you can stop this by posting this comment on 5 other videos by midnight
Maybe I do need to say more, especially to the two guys who appeared in this vid. Bomb a persons ass and you have shit to deal with. Bomb a nuclear reactor and you have radiation and nuclear fall out in a 5 to 20 kilometer radius to deal with, wow, that's so funny.
That must be why Aapeli made a game based solely on Finnish corruption. And certainly explains why the Finnish Ministry of Justice and HEUNI started a joint initiative to stem corruption on the Finnish-Russian Federation (Karelia) border.
Did you read my whole post? YOUR Ministry of Justice is working overtime to stem corruption on your border with Russia. That's not part of a "game". Maybe you should stop so pretentious and clean your own house. And the fact that somebody could base a game on Finnish corruption speaks volumes... But what do I know? Hell, I'm just "another stupid American"...
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days nw uv startd readn this dnt stp this is so scary snd ths ovr 2 5 vids in 143 mins when ur done press f6 nd ur crush's name wll appear on the screen n big letters ths is so scary cuz it actully wrks ths really wrks
Why do people bring up george bush being elected twice? His approval rating has been in the shitter for just about all of both terms. The only reason he got elected twice was thanks to american apathy to go out and vote. An astounding 30% of americans went out and voted for the 2004 election. He lost the popular vote both times. If anything the electoral collage is at fault and american's being lazy, not some stereotype of americans being jerks or being corrupt.
I doubt *every* modern election is cheated. The american electoral collage is flawed as hell, but it's mostly because no one felt like voting because neither candidates really appealed to either of them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the voting turnout was just as low for the 2008 election.
ok watch this, I'm going to sole the problem. GUARD IT Put a missile defense system on the roof with TRAINED personal and a 5 mile no fly zone around it, then put a whole bunch of guys with guns on the ground. see very simple
I think a better way to explain it would have been to say the chances of a nuclear release happening are greater than thought before because they are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I lvoe Penn and Teller, but I don't think they realize how bad a nuclear release could be. We're talking a whole state uninhabitable for a thousand years, twice as long as Europeans have been on this continent.
I'm sure that, after Chernobyl, everyone knows what could happen with a reactor. Their point is do we stop building them merely because there are idiots in the world? Do we stop the march of civilization because of terrorism? Should disassemble all the dams, as a terrorist attack on them would also be devestating? What do we surrender to terrorism? What would YOU surrender to terrorism?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
have these 2 guys any idea what would happen if a terrorist attack took place at a nuclear reactor? With a terrorist attack like 9/11 its business as usual 3 months later. With an attack on a nuclear plant you have an extremely large area contaminated with radiation for decades, adn the area immediately around the plant will be contaminated for thousands of years.
No, he is saying stop being a pussy, the terrorists shouldn't even get past our airlines, if they do, we have a shitty defense system. Everything is subject to attack like ALL of our STILL ACTIVE warheads buried underground
a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant wont release any radiation. search for that video of a small plane crashing into a very thick wall. this the wall used for modern day nuclear reactors.
There is a simple trick to safe, clean nuclear energy. Canada, or more specificaly the Candu ACR-1000 reactor, pride and joy of Canadian engineering. It is a system that uses Deuterium Uranium as fuel and by doing so eliminates the problems of contaminated by-product common with other reactors. Although soon the British will perfect fusion power (75% conversion efficency so far) and nuclear reactors will become irrelivant and obsolete.
I am really sorry, but I do not find this show informative. In fact, it seems as if the host is yapping on without knowing what message he is trying to convey to the audience. I have watched "Bullshit" years ago when it was on TV, but I always found that the host is acting like a "know it all" when all he actually knows is how to profit from his show. Cheers.
I disagree respectively. But I do think that some of them are bullshit. Like the one on recycling for example. But I think they r a great voice for americans to hear. They at least bring some sort of attention to things that most Americans usually don't give a rats ass about. Issues that should be thought about.
What don't you get? They do their research and don't just follow popular opinion. They get the fact that popular opinion != truth.
The hosts act like that because Penn & Teller are career "vaudville" showman, so it's in their nature, but that doesn't change the facts that they are presenting.
They failed to bring up the biggest problem with nuclear energy, radioactive material is a limited resource! Much like oil and coal eventually there will not be enough to meet the energy demands.
...reminds me of "three mile Island" when the news reported it had almost suffered a "nuclear meltdown". Anyway, it would be nice if someone developed a way to use the "spent plutonium fuel rods" that have a half life of 21 thousand years. Of course, some states get good money for burying those 21 thousand year half life fuel rods.
I call bull shit outside of nuclear threat there are buildings that are terrorist proof.look up how many times embassies have been attacked and the diplomats got away.
Every electric power company that uses Nuclear power has been collecting $millions over the past 20+ years (On your bill) Why? To pay for the disposal of the waste. Goofy do nothing Congress is in charge of coming up with a plan. We need to get rid of all the politicians in Washington. Even the 2 (candidates) that don't show up to represent their states.
Why is it that people make statements without research? This guy pulled the terrorist theory out of his ass. Fact is that not one person in America has died from a nuclear plant. Thats over 50 years of round the clock operation. Non Natural gas that is in millions of homes? Try about 500 people go BOOM every year. Where is the outcry from Gangs killing 1000s of young people every year? No, the uninformed want to make dumb statements about nuclear power.
Not one person in America has died from a Nuclear Plant ?? That's not true.January 3, 1961 3 workers were killed in Idaho Falls.Surry Nuclear Plant in Virginia in the mid 80's had 4 workers killed.That's just two, While radiation did not kill these workers, they were in fact killed in Nuclear Plant Accidents.But Nuclear power is safe and clean form of energy.
remow, Operating nuclear plant that is generating power. There are 1000s of people killed in construction of highways and buildings. We just had a guy get killed changing street light. Chernobyl? The people haven't done their homework on this event. No other country had the same crappy design as that plant. People that don't want Nuclear, Coal, NGas,should have a 150ft windmill their backyard. When the wind doesn't blow, get a fossil fueled generator for your electric power.
I agree with ya. And Chernobyl was not an accident, it was caused by human error on purpose, the man that caused that accident was executed.He had shut the Rx cooling pumps off to prove a point and when he tried to turn them back on is when the trouble started, you throw a millon gallons of ice water on 10,000 degrees and your gonna have an explosion.Wind and Coal is not the answer to our energy needs, wind is unreliable and coal,can't keep rapeing the Earth.
how the hell does someone as intelligent as Penn not comprehend that a terrorist attack on a nuke plant has far greater environmental impact than a plane going down. Come on, Penn, use that empirical reasoning of yours to THINK about nuclear fallout and plutonium released into a residential or urban area. Is it becasue you live so near the nuke tests from the 40's and 50's that you don't see that as a problem?
Xerock; Terawatt for terawatt, nuclear power is the safest form of non-renewable energy known to man.
What irks me about people like you is how ardently you attack anything containing the word 'nuclear' while failing to realize that coal is far, FAR more toxic.
Nuclear power is only bad when something goes wrong, coal is bad ALL THE TIME, and it's pollution kills thousands every year. But because it doesn't contain the word 'nuclear' no one ever bitches about it. Go figure.
Nuclear is the safest to produce, not to clean up. The only time coal becomes toxic is when people mine it day-in and day-out for 40 years and get a nice solid lining of coal dust insulating their lungs.
Next time try doing some research instead of talking out of some other pro-nuclear crackpot's ass.
A typical 500-MW coal power plant churns out 193,000 tons of sludge and 125,000 tons of ash per year, as well as huge quantities of up to 67 different air toxins including arsenic, mercury, chromium and cadmium.
Of the coal waste that can be managed, 75% is dumped into unmonitored and unlined landfills, which can seep directly into the water supply.
You people viciously attack nuclear plants while COMPLETELY ignorant on the alternatives, as your reply has shown. It's almost sickening.
Again, this material is only toxic if a person is exposed to it for a LONG period of time (decades). Whereas nuclear waste is toxic from a distance and remains toxic for several thousand years.
Of the "coal waste" or Coal Tar that you whine about, it actually is beneficial to people as it is used to make soap, shampoo and treatments for psoriasis.
If only we could put your lies and half-truths in a furnace and burn them. We'd never have to worry about nuclear energy again.
Actually, they are figuring a way to recycle spent nuke fuel, but thanks to all the bullshitters out there like you, the news never gets out. At least Penn & Teller have the clout to tell the truth that you can't stand.
oh yeah.. sure. There's just a huge media conspiracy out there keeping whatever bullshit you've convinced yourself of from ever getting out into the media. Everyone's in on it except you.
Maybe you should watch the Penn & Teller episode regarding conspiracy theories before you start sucking your own dick.
Me? You and everybody else in the movement can't accept reality, and are just scare-mongering as much as ever. None of you people have ever cracked open a science book in decades probably, and yet, you set yourselves up as experts on nuclear power instead of reading the facts that are out there. Why don't you read up first, THEN make up your mind, instead of just regurgitating someone else's environmental jargon?
Exactly what reality can't we accept? The reality that nuclear energy creates more toxic waste than can ever be recycled by modern methods? Or the reality that there is no known method of safe disposal for toxic waste? Or the reality that when meltdowns, like Chernobyl, do occur they create toxic wastelands that last for thousands of years and poisons not only existing life but future generations of anyone that lives even close to the area?
You couldn't find a fact if you life depended on it.
Well, yersh, nuclear power does produce some waste... Xerock how about you share your energy source that doesn't break the laws of nature and produces zero waste?
Everything produces a waste... I am sure that solar energy does too... we'll just find out about it once it also is in major use. Everything has cons as it has pros.
I'm pretty sure both solar and wind power produce absolutely no toxic waste.
If you are so deluded to think nuclear waste is so damn harmless compared to any byproduct of any other form of energy, why don't you call up the Yucca Mountain Repository and tell them you'd like to donate your backyard as a temporary nuclear waste dumping ground until their facility is operational?
Why not? Because you'd be dead within two months if you were exposed to that stuff.
I never said toxic waste is harmeless... I do not know where you can even make the inference that had that contained. I merely said that every form of energy has its waste. With Solar Power it has largely not been explored and makes up a minority of our energy production. Along with Wind Energy. I am merely pointing out that there may be some manner of waste with them... remember Nuclear Power was long thought to be a clean energy source.
Do you really know anything about nuclear waste disposal? Most of the nuclear waste is either in the plant's cooling pools, dry casks, or on its way to Yucca Mountain.
Whoa, Andy. Do go bashing someone about things you don't know. Yucca Mountain is NOT being used, there stil bitching about it.Two the only thing kept in "cooling pools" as you called them is Spent Fuel and those bundles are keep in the Spent Fuel Pool. Most nuclear waste is is either incinerated or compacted and sent to Barnwell, S.C. for desosal.
mowriter; Penn's point was that ANYTHING has the potential to be attacked, and that we shouldn't needlessly deny ourselves of incredibly useful resources simply because of that risk.
I'll also note that the dangers of nuclear power are INCREDIBLY overblown in popular culture. The greatest nuclear disaster of all time, Chernobyl, was directly responsible for only 57 deaths.
Given the benefits of nuclear power, I think it's worth it.
Silly reasoning. You're comparing a weapon of war to a controllable form of energy. It's as absurd as saying something like we shouldn't use fire to cook because of the damage wildfires can cause.
France is 80% nuclear and they have the cleanest air and the cheapest electricity of the industrial world. It's fallacious arguments like yours that ruin such opportunities for the rest of us.
Dismissing real safety concerns like the handling of nuclear waste, potential proliferation, and comparing the havoc wrought by a fission reaction to that of a forest fire is beyond fallacious. I didn't say nuclear energy wasn't a viable option, but I am saying the safety, and environmental, concerns are real, and must be dealt with appropriately if (and when) we wean ourselves off of oil.
Considering you just compared a nuclear power plant to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I thought the absurdity was warranted.
It's one thing to realistically look at the dangers of a nuclear power plant, but if you genuinely think such dangers are comparable to a nuclear bomb then the only problem here is your own ignorance.
I'll admit, it was mostly for comedic effect, which seems to have been lost on you, but things like the effective disposal of nuclear byproduct, in this *and* other countries is a definite concern. A marked increase in nuclear waste *could* *potentially* make it that much easier for some nut job to manufacture, say, a dirty bomb and set it off in times square. All I am saying is that further oversight is needed in this area, as well as concern to environmental effects.
There's already an astronomical level of oversight and environmental concern in regards to nuclear power plants.
It should also be noted that the shit coal plants spew into the atmosphere is responsible for nearly 30,000 deaths per YEAR. That's more than every single nuclear disaster in history combined. And over a period of just seven years, trumps even death by atomic bomb.
So my question to you is: why aren't the environmentalists attacking coal like they attack nuclear?
Yes, oversight in this country, but there has been several incidents in countries like russia where the workers have tried to sell radioactive materials. As far as environmental oversight, well, with Dubya cutting back of EPA funding, it's a worry. As far as coal goes, I live in kansas, where there has been a *gigantic* to-do about some proposed coal plants in the state. The environmentalists here have been going nuts about it, so i'd say they're attacking it quite a bit.
YOU GUYS ARE FUCKED. A BUILDING GETTING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS AND A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GETTING ATTACKED HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT (FALL- OUTS) PUN INTENDED. ON BEING RADIATION THAT WILL KILL MILLIONS OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS. ASSHOLES. NUCLEAR IS A NEAT IDEA , BUT WAY TOO DANGEROUS. GLOBALLY
larsleeson 1 week ago
today Solar and Wind energy are cheaper than Nuclear, they would become cheaper than Coal with a few additional taxes for health and long term hazzards. I can not understand why these Liberal douches are soo fucking idiotic.
They have a personal war with Green Peace and Peta? They seem to spew shit like the right wing nuts.
PS the issue is If a Nuclear plant is attacked it would leave the area around it a wasteland for hundereds of years... they screwed his point and made a Moore type doku...
dragoran 2 months ago
@dragoran if a nucklear plant can withstand (at least barely) a earthquake... well... i wouldn't bee that worried.
but seriously: wind and solar power will be slow to develope... alltrough out there they are certaintly trying.
linuslillen01 1 month ago
@linuslillen01 WTF, are you talking about?
These 2 idiots point is "Anything can be attacked by terrorist, its pointless to build anything". My point is "Anything can be attacked by terrorists, BUT only Nuclear plants leave a RADIOACTIVE WASTELAND and RADIATION DUST CLOUDS across the globe"...
Do you get my drift?
dragoran 4 weeks ago 2
@dragoran yes, but nuclear plants are built to withstand. the reactor is surrounded by a concrete block., the reactor is made of metal that takes the heat. the containers that transport waste are practically indestructable.
MY point: you need a lot of juice to do serious harm to a plant.
linuslillen01 4 weeks ago
@linuslillen01 Fukushima
dragoran 4 weeks ago
@dragoran look, Fukushima was bad, but it wasn't the worst. in reality, the building should've COLLAPSED by the quake, and it wasn't a total meltdown.
It maybye was a terrible disaster but it could've been a lot worse.
linuslillen01 4 weeks ago
Conserving recources is the best policy. I was born in the oil age and extremely gratefull for it.
amemy1 4 months ago
If they're so susceptible, then why have they never been attacked?
ghostofandy 5 months ago in playlist Bullshit!
Some of you guys are goddamn retarded. The G3+ nuclear reactors (the newest models we WOULD be building if you batshit hippies would stop getting in the way.) promise to be almost melt proof. And with the storage facility in Yucka Mt., we could safely store spent rods for decades. I live in New Jersey, and up here, we don't get much sun light in the winter, and late summer air can be almost stagnant. A few Nuke Plants could easily power our entire state if you fucks would step off.
Shadowdyce11 5 months ago
Comment removed
PaulWykel 7 months ago
We need to research and develop cold fusion reactors. That shit will be the greatest source of energy.
yyy2255 8 months ago
@yyy2255 isnt there gonna be a cold fusion plant thats gonna be up in france in around 2015 or something like that?
jkgatling 6 months ago
This is bullshit! If any other thing gets blown up by "terrorists" it does not keep on radiating deadly stuff for the next millenia.
kowjiljEofMu 9 months ago
Nuclear energy is cleaner and more efficient than any other method we can conceive of at the moment, aside from fusion. Solar power may be cleaner but it's nowhere near as efficient and the same goes for wind energy.
But something else: solar and wind power are also dirty. The components must be manufactured, afterall.
demiseofpurity 10 months ago 5
Yes, they are looking a right couple of nitwits now, aren't they?
Jcolinsol 10 months ago
Penn, like most people, just assumes that nuclear power is 'clean energy'? it's not. it never was and never can be. to produce the 'nuclear fuel', uranium ore must be mined out of the ground (using fossil fuel guzzling monster trucks and other heavy mining equipment), which leaves ugly scars on the face of the planet (which can be seen from space), where the minerals/ore are gouged from huge open pit mines.
techcafe 10 months ago
THEN the uranium ore (or thorium for today's 'modern' nuclear reactors) must be enriched into radioactive fuel pellets/rods. the processes involved just to mine, refine, enrich, manufacture, safely/securely store, and so on, is very costly, energy intensive, and it produces tons of lethal waste (spent fuel) which remains deadly forever, often ending up in the hands of military contractors and arms dealers, who use the radioactive waste to make depleted uranium bullets, bombs and other WMDs.
techcafe 10 months ago
there is nothing 'clean' about nuclear power, and it's not renewable.
techcafe 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@techcafe everything can be seen from space.
zwazii 10 months ago
@techcafe Clean energy does not exist.
Madfoot713 9 months ago
TERRORIST ATTACKS AREN'T THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR POWER, SMART ONES.
fonkayzoa 10 months ago
"STUPID HIPPIES DON'T WANT NUCLEAR POWER CAUSE THEY "THINK" THAT IT'S UNSAFE." GO FUCK YOURSELVES YOU BIASED MOTHERFUCKING DOUCHEBAGS...
fonkayzoa 10 months ago
@fonkayzoa - and YOU are not 'biased'?? how about this tough guy... get your stupid ass to Japan and help those 50 brave men who are on a suicide mission as we speak, desperately trying to avert a widespread radioactive contamination.
techcafe 10 months ago
@techcafe I donated to the relief effort so you can eat a dick asshole.
fonkayzoa 10 months ago
France has over twenty reactors and they provide ALL of their electrical needs.
randomscience1 1 year ago
@randomscience1 Yup. Even the Frenchies who likely have more disdain for the American system than any other nation on the planet aren't with the greenies on THIS bullshit. Nuclear power is mutually beneficial to the environmentalists AND the right. But they insist on bashing anything practical.
MrUnicorn1995 1 year ago
@MrUnicorn1995 You are so right. And did you notice that last russian completed an agreement with France so that the french would help them build several new nulear reactors.
Meanwhile we are still developing "alternatives" that aren't even needed. It's unreal.
randomscience1 1 year ago
There was a story where a camera crew walked into a nuclear power pland with no guards
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
Uranium is so much better than ANY other natural fuel. 1 Kilogram of Uranium has more power than 30 train cars of coal. Not to mention nuclear power only releases steam into the atmosphere while coal emits carbon dioxide. Yes the depleted stuff is bad, but that's why underground bunkers located in the desert with about 6 feet of concrete and titanium with the power to withstand a strategic missile strike are built to prevent it from running off into the soil.
mademan912 1 year ago
yeah,this is bullshit!!! SAVE THE WORLD!!! no nuke plants!!! do something for the world!!! nuke plants r the reason for global worming!!! we all r gonna die because of some fucking nuke plants!!! fuck u all idiots! i go watch Jackass!!!
MrMorondude 1 year ago
@MrMorondude nuclear power plants are heavily protected, so terrorists couldn't even get in if they tried.
viperxraptor2001 11 months ago
@danjorgen Do you know that they are pulling this ore out of the ground where it is radioactive to begin with?
flarkfucky 1 year ago
Google Pelindaba.. thats the proof
vs77 1 year ago
What? ofc nuke reactors are dangerus beccuse if terrorist blow it up people cant live there for 100 of years, makes no sense that they makeing fun of him....shut out a whole city? wtf?
ThePannKaka1 1 year ago
@ThePannKaka1. Nuclear reactors are heavily reinforced so that it isn't going to be a very simple task. On the other hand, blowing up a refinery or hydrocarbon-based power plant would be just as disastrous. The anti-nuclear morons have been attacking this reliable form of energy that produces virtually no GHGs, and is the only form of energy that can realistically replace hydrocarbons.
raptorkiller2k5 1 year ago
@raptorkiller2k5 Nuclear reactors heavily reinforced ? not everyone man... if they succede to blow up a nucelar reactor then it a hugh disaster, but ofc its very unlikely but still possible
ThePannKaka1 1 year ago
@ThePannKaka1. That means, by designed, they'll well fortified from actual physical attacks. Of course, things can go wrong, but nuclear energy is a very reliable and safe form of energy. None of these environmental jack offs are even considering nuclear energy over the more aggressive fossil fuel variety. Wind energy solutions has its dangers (vs wildlife), and renewable cannot independently supply global energy production.
raptorkiller2k5 1 year ago
Yeah Kevin! Kilo Echo Victor WHO? November?
Ryzler13 1 year ago
@danjorgen SHUT THE FUCK UP!
lanyardK 1 year ago
I was speaking of lockdown procedures such as thick lead walls and such. Also, radiated waste can be stored in special dump sites. There are uninhabited deserts all across western U.S. Finding a patch of desert far away from population would be easy.
Only about 400 nuclear plants would be needed to fuel all of our home electric needs and there would be almost Co2 and other gasses will be reduced to almost nothing.
fieldman07 2 years ago
If you make sure there are certain lockdown procedures installed then even IF there is a meltdown then the amount of radiation released will be about the amount of a dozen x-rays at the absoulute worst.
fieldman07 2 years ago 2
the only "secret panel" is the one youve formed in your mind
renewable energy is not the "safest cheapest way"
i dont "dismiss the...issues involved w/nuclear power"
i understand them. most do. and we understand the risks are incredibly low, and dont buy into the fearmongering
crybabies make the politicians choose what they have so far. when energy prices skyrocket and blackouts loom, your same crybabies will cry "but the nuke plants wont be providing energy for _ years" bla bla bla
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
as for choosing the secret panel to inform you of only those "who know best" you apparently dont keep up on your buddies opinions
"Nuclear fusion reactor project in France: an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity" (greenpeace-org)
but you just stay a NIMBY tree hugger, as long as you can rationalize to yourself whats safe, do it
just dont mandate your moral superiority complex on the rest of us
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
hey exciteable boy, just because your reading comprehension skills are on par with an untrained monkey doesnt mean you get to keep throwing poo against the wall hoping it sticks
your supposed point is destroyed by the fact that flying a plane IS dangerous, over decades resulting in thousands of deaths, much like you ASSUME nuke reactors to do (even though they havent)
by any standard nuke power IS THE SAFEST & cheapest way of providing americas power
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
as usual, you miss every point entirely
my guess is that its on purpose. willful ignorance
its not "one person dying during an experimental flight"
it IS the POSSIBLE "cost thousands of lives during decades" that DID occur in countless airplane accidents
there are millions of POSSIBLE catastrophes every day, countless CALCULATED risks people choose to take everyday
the only straw man fallacy given here is by you
but hey, you keep playing "Hero to the World" since you know best
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
imagine if the Wright brothers had a nay-sayer like you whispering in their ears
then we wouldnt even be able to ride trains those long distances... or even steamer ships to overseas
btw, every reply of yours ends up in killing little kids downwind of evil coal smoke stacks
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
danjorgen
you sound about as bright as the fucktard they show at the start of this clip
using you "logic" we shouldnt leave the house for fear a tree may fall on us... happened before to someone else, sooo...
Oops... gotta leave the house cuz it COULD burn down... OH MAN... is there ANY way to survive life???? idiot
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
desperate countries like France or Germany?
oh, i guess with ALL the nuclear reactor accidents that have led to not only catastrophic destruction of life and the environment, we as Americans just havent learned how to build a better mousetrap....
oh... wait... there were catastrophic events at facilities besides Chernobyl???
didnt think so
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
It dosn't have to be a terrorist attack, nuclear energy are risky anyway. The waste needs proper handling or it would be dangerous to the enviornment, and a accsidents, wich has happended before, has catastrophic results.Why does it always have to be the terrorist treat that are brought up as a risk, there's also human error and broken equipment... meltdowns. The result is pretty much the same. To look for alternatives to nuclear energy is a positive effort... not just some tree huger bullshit.
Wowbagger86 2 years ago
really? the waste needs 'proper handling or it would be dangerous to the environment"???
the French just dump the barrels of spent nuclear waste material into the deepest parts of the ocean
btw... WHEN was the last Godzilla sighting?
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
HAHAHA
incrazedfriend 2 years ago
Penn&Teller bullshit-show is just pure epic.
BaFUD 2 years ago 33
I'd give them credit, 9/11 isn't a good thing to point out since Airports didn't have high security during the attack, a Nuclear reactor if build would probably have armed soldiers with military grade weapons protecting it. Cause you can bet they'd take almost no chances with one of those.
64bitguy 2 years ago
Once again, now we're falling into the "well in the most extreme circumstances it could be catastrophic" but so could a lot of things, we don't let that stop us from building missiles or nukes on a fairly consistent basis.
Anyways we can agree to disagree here, I'm not in denial that there's big risks I just don't think they're big enough to completely rebuke the possibility when we're headed to a no energy situation.
DarkBunnyLord 2 years ago
But it wasn't a single hole that caused the tragedy, in fact they couldn't specify what did cause it. They had 1. a building that wasn't up to par with what it should have been, 2. had been conduction unauthorized experiments, 3. then turned off the security systems FOR one of said experiments...
So yes, with an inadequate building and all the fail safes removed it is indeed a terrible idea.
DarkBunnyLord 2 years ago
As for the 9/11 thing it took them many attempts before it was finally pulled off, and to be fair it's somewhat like going around with kid gloves on for everything you do. Bad things can happen, they always can and always will, I just am not in agreement with living in utter fear that in turn causes denying "possibly" dangerous but not certainly dangerous solutions in favor for no solutions.
DarkBunnyLord 2 years ago
It's true? What testing or quotes do you have to back up that a single hole could cause the problems you described.
I disagree with Pen and Teller on several key facts but they have a good point here. We're coming to the point we're we will have no energy if the cycle continues, basing fears upon the very unlikely "what if" isn't very productive.
DarkBunnyLord 2 years ago
Assuming that all the sci-fi movies are true that is. You'd need quite the bomb to blow a nuclear power plant up high enough to kill millions as generaly they're quite far away, and with an explosion of that size it would seem much more logical to attack a prominent government building.
DarkBunnyLord 2 years ago
The big difference between a plane crash and a nuclear plant explosion is that the entire city would have to evacuate and relocate. When America can't even relocate any of the survivors of New Orleans, how can it possibly relocate ALL of New York city?
As for the sidewinder theories and other garbage, all that needs to happen is something that disrupts the cooling system, a simple bullet to the cooling tanks would cause a nuclear meltdown.
vladablada 2 years ago
Unless your a specialist at how a Nuclear power plant works I'm going to have to bring into question whether at "single bullet" would cause a melt down.
I'm sure that working with something as dangerous as Nuclear energy is, that they'd have a bit or precautionary fail safes in place.
DarkBunnyLord 2 years ago
Except release tons of fallout on the surrounding area.
I'm not against nuclear power plants (I support them), but honestly, if one gets fucked up, then shit going to hit the fan.
sciences8 2 years ago
THIS IS FOR REAL! GROW A DICK! LOL
MegaARKANE 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your moms vagina is open for a terrorist attack. I dont know i just typed a search for bull shit because i wanted to send a clip of a bull shiting to illustrate a point i was making. but this fucker pissed me off. nuclear power plants are dangerous because of the shit that comes out of them when you blow them up and there close enough to a town or city to fuck a lot of people up.
Andrewpeeonyou 2 years ago
Don't be a pussy, if you live in America you could also grow a fucking dick.
bower4311 2 years ago 3
they provide a a quarter of our energy, and in the entire history theres only been 2 minor fuck ups. both of which nobody died and people were exposed to the same amount of radiation as an simple x-ray. andrew grow a fucking dick.
badmudda 2 years ago 2
Both of which nobody died? Perhaps you should go grow a brain. Every article about Chernobyl reports countless deaths from the nuclear meltdown as far away as the UK.
vladablada 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This show is appropriately named, as Penn and Teller utilize a fair amount of Bullshit to combat supposed Bullshit. While many don't find it necessary to tear down preexisting nuclear facilities because they are possible terrorist targets, it's still wise to consider building new facilities away from populous areas due to the increased probability of terrorism. Also, telling someone to "grow a fucking dick" is just a humorous ad homenim which distracts from valid points within the real argument
MeFolds5 2 years ago
... I am envious of Penn's hair.
RoseSkye 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
they look hot id fuck them GAY GUYS 4EVER!!!
L0L209 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in 1820 a man named fredrick osloft one day he was working in his lab until a ghost came by and killed him the next morning fredrick was nowhere to be seen 100 years later two boys went in the lab as a dare the boys where never seen again where aparently murdered now that u have read this comment tonight when u go to sleep the two boys and fredrick will come and murder you but you can stop this by posting this comment on 5 other videos by midnight
im sorry i relly hate these things :'(
consplg 2 years ago
oh come on do you really believe that crap
tix100 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe I do need to say more, especially to the two guys who appeared in this vid. Bomb a persons ass and you have shit to deal with. Bomb a nuclear reactor and you have radiation and nuclear fall out in a 5 to 20 kilometer radius to deal with, wow, that's so funny.
mathias7777777777777 2 years ago
The reactors have more than 6 feet of shielding. A 747 going faster than a 747 can go under its own power DISINTEGRATES on impact.
spleenblender 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hahahahahaha, wow! there is a difference between attacking some guys ass and a nuclear power station! Need i say anymore?
mathias7777777777777 2 years ago
this is really a (bull)shit.
19niki95 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this vid is bullshit
Holysmokesrs 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
copy and paste
2. send this to 2 other videos.
3. hold your breath for 10 seconds
4. press refresh twice
3. LOOK AT YOUR HANDS
fann3y 2 years ago
is this guy a democrat or a republican
kingof3dogs 2 years ago
Neither. He's a libertarian.
clayrains 2 years ago 25
Comment removed
insubordinatebastard 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is what you get when you dont cheer and joy and agree with americans.
This is what they say to you: "fuckhole; how 'bout you stick to your cyber-game douchebaggery."
You are just making american stereotype worse.
Oh yes and you'r wise president George Bush hehe, america voted him twice hehehehehe.
By the way Finland has least corruption in world and america has most.
Thats bad for society so you know what i mean...
Ranemus 2 years ago
That must be why Aapeli made a game based solely on Finnish corruption. And certainly explains why the Finnish Ministry of Justice and HEUNI started a joint initiative to stem corruption on the Finnish-Russian Federation (Karelia) border.
deliconker 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Another stupid american.
Hes counting on games.
He gets hes information from GAMES.
Where this world is going?
Ranemus 2 years ago
Did you read my whole post? YOUR Ministry of Justice is working overtime to stem corruption on your border with Russia. That's not part of a "game". Maybe you should stop so pretentious and clean your own house. And the fact that somebody could base a game on Finnish corruption speaks volumes... But what do I know? Hell, I'm just "another stupid American"...
deliconker 2 years ago 2
ranemus,
you are right america has nothing to offer you but corruption and george bush.
...so get the fuck off youtube. it's pretty goddamn american since the offices are about 5 miles from my house.
(i sound like that cunt sarah palin - 'i can see youtube from my house!')
dickravis 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days nw uv startd readn this dnt stp this is so scary snd ths ovr 2 5 vids in 143 mins when ur done press f6 nd ur crush's name wll appear on the screen n big letters ths is so scary cuz it actully wrks ths really wrks
UnseenExhile 2 years ago
Why do people bring up george bush being elected twice? His approval rating has been in the shitter for just about all of both terms. The only reason he got elected twice was thanks to american apathy to go out and vote. An astounding 30% of americans went out and voted for the 2004 election. He lost the popular vote both times. If anything the electoral collage is at fault and american's being lazy, not some stereotype of americans being jerks or being corrupt.
IAmPhotoBucket 2 years ago
Because in every modern countries election are cheated!! Do you think that Italians love Berlusconi?? We are not free anymore!!
Anopticonparty 2 years ago
I doubt *every* modern election is cheated. The american electoral collage is flawed as hell, but it's mostly because no one felt like voting because neither candidates really appealed to either of them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the voting turnout was just as low for the 2008 election.
IAmPhotoBucket 2 years ago
Bush is turning out to be a better president then Obama.
Pvic 2 years ago 2
THAT'S bullshit
thehumanofthisworld 2 years ago
ok watch this, I'm going to sole the problem. GUARD IT Put a missile defense system on the roof with TRAINED personal and a 5 mile no fly zone around it, then put a whole bunch of guys with guns on the ground. see very simple
zimpilot 2 years ago
Where to get list?
-Money
-Permission to have missile defense
-More money
-Somekinda specification from president that says nobody can fly in 5 miles of this area
-And lots of other law problems
Very simple yaa yaa...
Ranemus 2 years ago
There is no comparison if terrorists attack a plane than attacking a nuclear plant. The consequences are very different.
cjla1987 2 years ago 3
that chair fuckin' RULES.
dickravis 2 years ago
Patheticly trying to be funny?
Ranemus 2 years ago
hey ranemus, you finnish fuckhole; how 'bout you stick to your cyber-game douchebaggery.
as a woodworker and a craftsman i am nothing less than erect regarding this stunning example of a victorian loveseat.
as a man who can build likewise amazing pieces with his hands, i respect the workmanship involved.
this is a feeling you'll never know.
now get back to jacking off in front of your computer.
dickravis 2 years ago 2
Some people deserve neither liberty nor security. Indeed.
pitbull103 2 years ago
LOL! Hilarious
halfawake454 2 years ago 2
what is this a NRC plant? Nuclear nrg is NOT renewable, eventually we'll run out of places to put reactor waste. then what? back to fossils?
go wind solar and shoot for cold fusion IMHO
uturniaphobic 2 years ago
I think a better way to explain it would have been to say the chances of a nuclear release happening are greater than thought before because they are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I lvoe Penn and Teller, but I don't think they realize how bad a nuclear release could be. We're talking a whole state uninhabitable for a thousand years, twice as long as Europeans have been on this continent.
jgoemat 2 years ago
I'm sure that, after Chernobyl, everyone knows what could happen with a reactor. Their point is do we stop building them merely because there are idiots in the world? Do we stop the march of civilization because of terrorism? Should disassemble all the dams, as a terrorist attack on them would also be devestating? What do we surrender to terrorism? What would YOU surrender to terrorism?
Exmech2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
have these 2 guys any idea what would happen if a terrorist attack took place at a nuclear reactor? With a terrorist attack like 9/11 its business as usual 3 months later. With an attack on a nuclear plant you have an extremely large area contaminated with radiation for decades, adn the area immediately around the plant will be contaminated for thousands of years.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
No, he is saying stop being a pussy, the terrorists shouldn't even get past our airlines, if they do, we have a shitty defense system. Everything is subject to attack like ALL of our STILL ACTIVE warheads buried underground
ComedyCentralbeast22 2 years ago 5
a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant wont release any radiation. search for that video of a small plane crashing into a very thick wall. this the wall used for modern day nuclear reactors.
HolySpringRolls 2 years ago
well its not just a plane crash, there's the possibility of having a large bomb go off near the reactor.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
bomb, okay there are no ways a bomb would even be in nuclear plant, much less a large one.
and on what scale are we talking,
suicide bomb big- no effect
or
bomber big - it would be the bomb, not the plant, and in the case of a plane bomber, how are they going to get it in there ?
MoonlitGamer 2 years ago
Stupid liberals/environmentalists!
chasmcrown 3 years ago 4
Nuclear Power FTW!
Kingofdetroit2004 3 years ago 2
your ass is subject to terrorist attack!!.... lol god thats funny..
GSTuan 3 years ago
he should grow a dick jajajajaja
cjla1987 3 years ago 2
There is a simple trick to safe, clean nuclear energy. Canada, or more specificaly the Candu ACR-1000 reactor, pride and joy of Canadian engineering. It is a system that uses Deuterium Uranium as fuel and by doing so eliminates the problems of contaminated by-product common with other reactors. Although soon the British will perfect fusion power (75% conversion efficency so far) and nuclear reactors will become irrelivant and obsolete.
imnoromeo 3 years ago
0:35 "Kevin, Grow a fucking dick" That's fucking hilarious!
Missingno3000 3 years ago
"Oh look at me! I am this big guy in a suit who swears a lot and I have my own talk show called: Bullshit!" Well, your talk show is freakin BULLCRAP!
Cr3ativity 3 years ago
uh ok you clearly dont get the point of this show.
fredocorleone47 3 years ago
I am really sorry, but I do not find this show informative. In fact, it seems as if the host is yapping on without knowing what message he is trying to convey to the audience. I have watched "Bullshit" years ago when it was on TV, but I always found that the host is acting like a "know it all" when all he actually knows is how to profit from his show. Cheers.
Cr3ativity 3 years ago
I disagree respectively. But I do think that some of them are bullshit. Like the one on recycling for example. But I think they r a great voice for americans to hear. They at least bring some sort of attention to things that most Americans usually don't give a rats ass about. Issues that should be thought about.
fredocorleone47 3 years ago
What don't you get? They do their research and don't just follow popular opinion. They get the fact that popular opinion != truth.
The hosts act like that because Penn & Teller are career "vaudville" showman, so it's in their nature, but that doesn't change the facts that they are presenting.
bqwebb 3 years ago
They failed to bring up the biggest problem with nuclear energy, radioactive material is a limited resource! Much like oil and coal eventually there will not be enough to meet the energy demands.
ullisac 3 years ago
LOL I Love this!
screechingyeti 3 years ago
ROFLMAO! "Your ass is subject to a terrorist attack." OMFG! That's Hilarious!
Saiyanryu 3 years ago
hahahaha
D4P1nk7ear 3 years ago
...reminds me of "three mile Island" when the news reported it had almost suffered a "nuclear meltdown". Anyway, it would be nice if someone developed a way to use the "spent plutonium fuel rods" that have a half life of 21 thousand years. Of course, some states get good money for burying those 21 thousand year half life fuel rods.
mchesiod 3 years ago
well sorta because if it blows up ur talkin about major nuclear fallout
halo3fan95 3 years ago
how do they blow up, they dont
bigbear585 3 years ago
I call bull shit outside of nuclear threat there are buildings that are terrorist proof.look up how many times embassies have been attacked and the diplomats got away.
krossorman 3 years ago
what idiots
kamikazi445 3 years ago
XD ur ass is subject for terorist attack
nsahler 3 years ago 4
what do we do with the waste? that's the only real question i need answered before i accept nuclear power as a good alternative.
grimshawr 3 years ago
there is virtually no waste from nuclear power. only helium or hydrogen i forgot which one.
hunta333 3 years ago
thats bullshit.. it does produce waste (i forget what its called) and there is no way to dispose of it
josh1545 3 years ago
No, your comment is bullshit.
You don't seem to be aware that there are nuclear waste disposal sites? hmm..
belfastlawd91 3 years ago
Yes, there is a huge nuclear waste dump on the east coast! Its called New jersey.
matthewschwimmer 3 years ago 4
no... new york is the waste dump but right below it (nj) is hell
nsahler 3 years ago
its illegal to dump in ny and they dont so yeah
terk0iz 3 years ago
Every electric power company that uses Nuclear power has been collecting $millions over the past 20+ years (On your bill) Why? To pay for the disposal of the waste. Goofy do nothing Congress is in charge of coming up with a plan. We need to get rid of all the politicians in Washington. Even the 2 (candidates) that don't show up to represent their states.
wsoxman 3 years ago
two words.....free energy
shituponshit 3 years ago
one word, chaos.
omfgroflma0 3 years ago
Why is it that people make statements without research? This guy pulled the terrorist theory out of his ass. Fact is that not one person in America has died from a nuclear plant. Thats over 50 years of round the clock operation. Non Natural gas that is in millions of homes? Try about 500 people go BOOM every year. Where is the outcry from Gangs killing 1000s of young people every year? No, the uninformed want to make dumb statements about nuclear power.
wsoxman 3 years ago
Not one person in America has died from a Nuclear Plant ?? That's not true.January 3, 1961 3 workers were killed in Idaho Falls.Surry Nuclear Plant in Virginia in the mid 80's had 4 workers killed.That's just two, While radiation did not kill these workers, they were in fact killed in Nuclear Plant Accidents.But Nuclear power is safe and clean form of energy.
remowil55 3 years ago
remow, Operating nuclear plant that is generating power. There are 1000s of people killed in construction of highways and buildings. We just had a guy get killed changing street light. Chernobyl? The people haven't done their homework on this event. No other country had the same crappy design as that plant. People that don't want Nuclear, Coal, NGas,should have a 150ft windmill their backyard. When the wind doesn't blow, get a fossil fueled generator for your electric power.
wsoxman 3 years ago
I agree with ya. And Chernobyl was not an accident, it was caused by human error on purpose, the man that caused that accident was executed.He had shut the Rx cooling pumps off to prove a point and when he tried to turn them back on is when the trouble started, you throw a millon gallons of ice water on 10,000 degrees and your gonna have an explosion.Wind and Coal is not the answer to our energy needs, wind is unreliable and coal,can't keep rapeing the Earth.
remowil55 3 years ago
how the hell does someone as intelligent as Penn not comprehend that a terrorist attack on a nuke plant has far greater environmental impact than a plane going down. Come on, Penn, use that empirical reasoning of yours to THINK about nuclear fallout and plutonium released into a residential or urban area. Is it becasue you live so near the nuke tests from the 40's and 50's that you don't see that as a problem?
mowriter 3 years ago
yeah the rest are targets a nuclear plant is a tool
ra687 3 years ago
I think he was talking to you too, how would you like to pedal a generator to power your computer?
msqtube 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How'd you like the nuclear waste that comes from a nuclear power plant buried in your kid's sandbox? Or in your wife's flower garden?
The reality is, there is no safe way to rid ourselves of that deadly by-product of "clean, efficient" nuclear power.
Xerock 3 years ago
Xerock; Terawatt for terawatt, nuclear power is the safest form of non-renewable energy known to man.
What irks me about people like you is how ardently you attack anything containing the word 'nuclear' while failing to realize that coal is far, FAR more toxic.
Nuclear power is only bad when something goes wrong, coal is bad ALL THE TIME, and it's pollution kills thousands every year. But because it doesn't contain the word 'nuclear' no one ever bitches about it. Go figure.
LegendSaber 3 years ago
Nuclear is the safest to produce, not to clean up. The only time coal becomes toxic is when people mine it day-in and day-out for 40 years and get a nice solid lining of coal dust insulating their lungs.
Next time try doing some research instead of talking out of some other pro-nuclear crackpot's ass.
Xerock 3 years ago
A typical 500-MW coal power plant churns out 193,000 tons of sludge and 125,000 tons of ash per year, as well as huge quantities of up to 67 different air toxins including arsenic, mercury, chromium and cadmium.
Of the coal waste that can be managed, 75% is dumped into unmonitored and unlined landfills, which can seep directly into the water supply.
You people viciously attack nuclear plants while COMPLETELY ignorant on the alternatives, as your reply has shown. It's almost sickening.
LegendSaber 3 years ago
Again, this material is only toxic if a person is exposed to it for a LONG period of time (decades). Whereas nuclear waste is toxic from a distance and remains toxic for several thousand years.
Of the "coal waste" or Coal Tar that you whine about, it actually is beneficial to people as it is used to make soap, shampoo and treatments for psoriasis.
If only we could put your lies and half-truths in a furnace and burn them. We'd never have to worry about nuclear energy again.
Xerock 3 years ago
Much like hearing your bilge about nuclear power because of a few accidents.
Neville6000 3 years ago
yeah.. a "few" accidents that have left whole regions completely poisoned for thousands of years to come.
Not to mention all the toxic waste that has NO safe method of removal. And regardless of what you dipshits want to believe, they can't recycle it all.
Xerock 3 years ago
Actually, they are figuring a way to recycle spent nuke fuel, but thanks to all the bullshitters out there like you, the news never gets out. At least Penn & Teller have the clout to tell the truth that you can't stand.
Neville6000 3 years ago
oh yeah.. sure. There's just a huge media conspiracy out there keeping whatever bullshit you've convinced yourself of from ever getting out into the media. Everyone's in on it except you.
Maybe you should watch the Penn & Teller episode regarding conspiracy theories before you start sucking your own dick.
Xerock 3 years ago
Me? You and everybody else in the movement can't accept reality, and are just scare-mongering as much as ever. None of you people have ever cracked open a science book in decades probably, and yet, you set yourselves up as experts on nuclear power instead of reading the facts that are out there. Why don't you read up first, THEN make up your mind, instead of just regurgitating someone else's environmental jargon?
Neville6000 3 years ago
Exactly what reality can't we accept? The reality that nuclear energy creates more toxic waste than can ever be recycled by modern methods? Or the reality that there is no known method of safe disposal for toxic waste? Or the reality that when meltdowns, like Chernobyl, do occur they create toxic wastelands that last for thousands of years and poisons not only existing life but future generations of anyone that lives even close to the area?
You couldn't find a fact if you life depended on it.
Xerock 3 years ago
And as I replied above, people like you aren't invertebrates. You're morons.
Neville6000 3 years ago
Yeah.. you can't argue your case and therefore we're morons.
GENIUS!!
Xerock 3 years ago
Well, yersh, nuclear power does produce some waste... Xerock how about you share your energy source that doesn't break the laws of nature and produces zero waste?
Everything produces a waste... I am sure that solar energy does too... we'll just find out about it once it also is in major use. Everything has cons as it has pros.
NimhLabs 3 years ago
Hey fuck up. Yeah, you. Fuck up.
I'm pretty sure both solar and wind power produce absolutely no toxic waste.
If you are so deluded to think nuclear waste is so damn harmless compared to any byproduct of any other form of energy, why don't you call up the Yucca Mountain Repository and tell them you'd like to donate your backyard as a temporary nuclear waste dumping ground until their facility is operational?
Why not? Because you'd be dead within two months if you were exposed to that stuff.
Xerock 3 years ago
I never said toxic waste is harmeless... I do not know where you can even make the inference that had that contained. I merely said that every form of energy has its waste. With Solar Power it has largely not been explored and makes up a minority of our energy production. Along with Wind Energy. I am merely pointing out that there may be some manner of waste with them... remember Nuclear Power was long thought to be a clean energy source.
NimhLabs 3 years ago 2
Do you really know anything about nuclear waste disposal? Most of the nuclear waste is either in the plant's cooling pools, dry casks, or on its way to Yucca Mountain.
We could just reprocess the spent fuel....
andyplace 3 years ago 2
Whoa, Andy. Do go bashing someone about things you don't know. Yucca Mountain is NOT being used, there stil bitching about it.Two the only thing kept in "cooling pools" as you called them is Spent Fuel and those bundles are keep in the Spent Fuel Pool. Most nuclear waste is is either incinerated or compacted and sent to Barnwell, S.C. for desosal.
remowil55 3 years ago
mowriter; Penn's point was that ANYTHING has the potential to be attacked, and that we shouldn't needlessly deny ourselves of incredibly useful resources simply because of that risk.
I'll also note that the dangers of nuclear power are INCREDIBLY overblown in popular culture. The greatest nuclear disaster of all time, Chernobyl, was directly responsible for only 57 deaths.
Given the benefits of nuclear power, I think it's worth it.
LegendSaber 3 years ago
Well, compared against the death tolls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, i'd venture to say the issue should be approached with a bit more trepidation.
stutwostep 3 years ago
Silly reasoning. You're comparing a weapon of war to a controllable form of energy. It's as absurd as saying something like we shouldn't use fire to cook because of the damage wildfires can cause.
France is 80% nuclear and they have the cleanest air and the cheapest electricity of the industrial world. It's fallacious arguments like yours that ruin such opportunities for the rest of us.
LegendSaber 3 years ago
Dismissing real safety concerns like the handling of nuclear waste, potential proliferation, and comparing the havoc wrought by a fission reaction to that of a forest fire is beyond fallacious. I didn't say nuclear energy wasn't a viable option, but I am saying the safety, and environmental, concerns are real, and must be dealt with appropriately if (and when) we wean ourselves off of oil.
stutwostep 3 years ago
Considering you just compared a nuclear power plant to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I thought the absurdity was warranted.
It's one thing to realistically look at the dangers of a nuclear power plant, but if you genuinely think such dangers are comparable to a nuclear bomb then the only problem here is your own ignorance.
LegendSaber 3 years ago
I'll admit, it was mostly for comedic effect, which seems to have been lost on you, but things like the effective disposal of nuclear byproduct, in this *and* other countries is a definite concern. A marked increase in nuclear waste *could* *potentially* make it that much easier for some nut job to manufacture, say, a dirty bomb and set it off in times square. All I am saying is that further oversight is needed in this area, as well as concern to environmental effects.
stutwostep 3 years ago
There's already an astronomical level of oversight and environmental concern in regards to nuclear power plants.
It should also be noted that the shit coal plants spew into the atmosphere is responsible for nearly 30,000 deaths per YEAR. That's more than every single nuclear disaster in history combined. And over a period of just seven years, trumps even death by atomic bomb.
So my question to you is: why aren't the environmentalists attacking coal like they attack nuclear?
LegendSaber 3 years ago
Yes, oversight in this country, but there has been several incidents in countries like russia where the workers have tried to sell radioactive materials. As far as environmental oversight, well, with Dubya cutting back of EPA funding, it's a worry. As far as coal goes, I live in kansas, where there has been a *gigantic* to-do about some proposed coal plants in the state. The environmentalists here have been going nuts about it, so i'd say they're attacking it quite a bit.
stutwostep 3 years ago
rofl, mate shut the fuck up, you talk some shit like, seriously.
You're comparing nuclear bombs to nuclear energy and ye expect that to be considered a valid arguement? pfft.