NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! MANIFEST INDUSTRIAL CRIME! A BOMB WAITING TO EXPLODE ! NO SUBSIDIZING AGGRESSIVE WAR CRIMES! BE THEY SURRENDERED TO THE ICC AND THE ROME STATUTE! NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW SCAT!
It is exactly because of chernobyl that we know the dangers of nuclear energy and what not to do at a nuclear power plant. Chernobyls design and safety standards were literally a worst case scenario. chernobyl happened at a time when people were still using x-rays in shoe stores. needless to say in the past 40 years the science and standards have improved greatly. Something like chernobyl could never happen again. and the way Fukushima was handled is perfect proof of that.
@fr97305 Oh great, more toxic metals. GEET has been around for 30 years now. Youtube "geet generator runs on coffee/beer" and google "free geet plans". See for yourself how you have been fucked in the ass by nuke-mafia.
@analyzingfunny You don't really understand what Thorium is do you? You can stockpile hundreds of tons of the stuff in the same room, and it won't start a reaction. That's because it needs another nuclear material to act as an initiator to start the reaction. It isn't radioactive enough by itself to actually start one. Hell, you could hold a large rock of it in your hands and suffer no ill effects. Plus, it's many times more efficient than uranium and the waste is around for a tenth as long.
By 2050 fusion will be the source of most of the worlds energy.
This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline in the next few decades. This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion, a new form of energy.
Visit Fusion Power Corporation and You Tube's - StarPower for Tomorrow! for a real education on fusion.
After hearing Dr. Helen Caldicott's speech Nagasaki to Fukushima it's clear that my instincts against nukes was right on. Aside from the potential devastation from weapons, the extreme consequences of completely foreseeable and even imminent problems - from the leaking of its waste to natural disasters to and the exponential increase of all these risks through the proliferation by the export of nuclear technology and radioactive materials.
anyone who thinks we should keep nuclear power is a psycho, chernobyl probably killed about a million people totally or so, fukushima tho. it will kill ALOOT more, i think it will be like a new world war 2 over again or worse. And thats a SINGLE plant, checkout how many plants there is, if just 2-4 would fail the human race is fuckt no kidding. Why do we have those plants? because of money, there are better ways but na we wont use em untill we drop the money system same with cars and other stuff
@werexz "chernobyl probably killed about a million people totally or so" Actually, 56 died at the plant, less than 4,000 have died from the after effects.
"there are better ways but na we wont use em untill we drop the money system same with cars and other stuff"
Without the "money system" the economy will dismantle itself over night and everything will turn to shit.
Stop being a retarded hippie and learn about Nuclear Energy.
@Nickelskov are u kidding me? check up the facts again my friend. do u think the radiation of chernobyl only stayed there? its not like, BAM 1 million ppl dead, but ye, 1 million ppl have prolly died cuz of chernobyl cause of radiation and radiation makes it easier to get cancer. now the mox fuel that was in fukushima, if u would inhale a millionth of a gram of that, u would get cancer for sure, not in a day or two but ye u would get it and in that reactor there was 200-250kg. thats quite alot.
@werexz "1 million ppl have prolly died cuz of chernobyl cause of radiation and radiation makes it easier to get cancer."
You don't even understand how radiation gives you cancer?
You actually think 1 million people died and the only source which says 985,000 people died was discredited because it took sources which added up multiples of the same source, and the Scientific Community came to the conclusion of only approx 4,000 deaths total.
@Nickelskov or maybe, they dident want to release the news of how bad the accident was as usual as with all other major disasters. I got nothing more to say, just check how many ppl there is who get cancer per year now and then check in 2-5 years again and i promise you there will be a fucking MAJOR increase in cancer because of fukushima now. I promise you that for sure. bye
@werexz Are you stupid? Chernobyl's cancer causing consequences didn't show up till 20 years after the fact. You cannot develop radiation caused cancer in less than 5 years, it isn't possible unless they are constantly being exposed, which people aren't exposed to high enough levels to be at risk. And besides, most of the "nuclear fallout" landed into the Ocean, which since nuclear fallout has a larger density than water, it would sink to the bottom of the ocean. End of story.
@Mr1patriot4 Are you fucking kidding me???? Fukushima Fallout has spread EVERYWHERE!!...... the milk you drink..the air you breath ...is now TOXIC ...all thanks to " Nuclear Power "..... wake up man...
@mrshorty13579 Oh hey, the radiation released from the plant is less than what you get from the sun every day. The only true danger was being near the reactor, like within 5 meters, the "fallout" that spread everywhere has less radioactive material than what is spread to.
Also, those plants were from the 60's and due to get replaced 2 weeks after the Tsunami/Earthquake happened. The new model plants can handle much worse.
"It’s not enough to understand how everybody in the room thinks. You have to decide which ones in the room are right, and stand with them. A leader is not a mediator or an umpire or a convener or a facilitator.
Sometimes, as Chris Christie put it, “the president has got to show up."
With each equivocation, the man in the Oval Office shields his identity and cloaks who the real Barack Obama is." --Maureen Dowd, New York Times, June 26, 2011
legalize marijuana and we could use the Hemp plant for paper, clothes, textiles, biodegradable plastics, and we can even use it as fuel for both energy AND our cars and be able to harvest every 3 months! maybe even shorter with the technology we got. the Hemp plant is universal, not just for smoking. food for thought, the seed oil and hash oil (comes from the bud) has so many uses and are environment friendly no matter how much we use it!
Thank you President Obama, 2011 has proven itself a very lucrative year with ongoing tax-funded Federal cash-injections and unprecedented fiscal spending on export energy initiatives.
Nuclear Power is as good for America as expanded contracts for offshore drilling with BP.
Nuclear Power and Offshore Drilling are some of the safest, most economical ways to boost Wall Street profits by attracting more investors from the central banking cartel and profiteering global High-Rollers like Goldman Sachs
SCUM BAMMA & the NWO want nuclear power because it is the quickest path to murdering 93% of the worlds population as is directly stated on the GEORGIA GUIDE STONES ~ which demand we reduce earth population by 93% which I agree with by the way ~
```
U EARTHLINGS are so fucking stupid U cant see the writing on the wall ~
```
Fucking morons ~ FUKUSHIMA will kill millions if not more & we have 442 with 65 being built...ALL IT WILL TAKE 4 THE NWO TO WIPE US OUT IS 2-3 MORE SO CALLED ACCIDENTS
@khatack you fucking ass wipe ... we have one million tonnes of nuclear waste that has to be stored for a million years...and it all has to be placed in new storage containers every 125 years you god damn idiot~
```
The logistics on this alone is beyond comprehension...plus all the equipment trucks cranes and used containers also have to be stored and right now today we have no place to put waste we made 10 years ago
```
You are nothing but a fucking moron who is controlled by the mass media
If the subject matter is beyond your comprehension, you shouldn't bother thinking about it. There are minds far more capable than yours working on the issue.
@mageboi97 lol google [ fort Calhoun nuclear plant ] which is no being inundated with the Missouri river and is on emergency power...
but you dont see this in the papers you fool because they want you dead...And i agree with them...there are too many dumber that are than WHALE SHIT ~ just wasting our world resources ...
```
git a fucking gripp dude there are too many people on this planet...
every couple of hundred years a major pandemic spreads and kills a good percentage of the population. Spanish Flu, The Plague, etc. Swine Flu isnt in here because hell more people died from the normal flu bug than they did from that, hell even i had it and nothing happened. The planet has a good way of staying under control. We are just another surface nuisance.
@TheDuvalMilitia your probably right ...and the true is I agree with depopulation 100%...too many people on this planet that serve no purpose..but i never agree with randomly wiping out 93% of us with no regard for the people with special skills and talents...thats just wrong...
```
Im old so it don't matter but there are some talented young people that will just be wasted
nuclear yes. Biofuels? definitely not by the mainstream means. I dont want to see masses of land in places like Brazil where they would be deforesting in order to grow crop for gasohol which is an incredibly inefficient process but also it is damaging. Growing the biofuels uses a lot of non-environmental processes such as spraying pesticides on the crops, and a lot of land is needed just for a small batch of the stuff. Thats only one bio fuel though, im open for improvements
@heartlessvietboy Which can be controlled, just when things go wrong they go WRONG. However the aim is not to let these problems happen in the first place.
Maybe it's best if we eliminate anything that's involved with having the great potential of harming people and earth. By great I mean carbon emissions (in the long run), drilling for oil and natural gas (pollution and land-sinking), Geo -Thermal (heat of earth), and Nuclear (water vapor and site contamination). Nuclear may be zero pollution, but in the long run we'll have to clean it up. Natural Energy will last for Thousands of years.
@heartlessvietboy its a great concept but much less reliable and much more expensive than the other alternatives. For example wind energy; those turbines made from aluminium are produced using 10 years worth of power they generate from fossil fuels to make. they also need to be reserviced every 25 years at maximum.Weather reliant. You need a large area and a lot of them to power just a fraction of the grid, i know I live by fields of them. However on smaller scales i think they are effective!
Do people actually believe a wind turbine would take 10 years worth of power to produce? Yes, wind sometimes does not blow, but by that time the super conducting generator would have created more than twice the amount of power than we have ever done before.
@heartlessvietboy Yeah, those big ass ones you see on hillsides that are now being connected to the national grid, I asked my physics teacher, if you want i could ask him all over again and get the details for why they're bad? anyway do you have any links for that information?
Nuclear Energy is great, but it is temporary. When we have established an entire clean energy infrastructure, we will eliminate Nuclear energy from the face of the Earth.
@heartlessvietboy Its temporary because its limited. However Its only dangerous when put into the wrong hands so I dont really have a problem with it, and clean energy is good as long as it doesnt bankrupt us, or remain unreliable. Though i do keep up with updates on technology and we are at least improving these renewables quite rapidly as time goes on.
I don't think Nuclear is limited. Uranium is not rare. Neither is Hydrogen Gas on earth. We are not concerned about the dangerousness of it here in America though accidents can happen. We are concerned about radioactivity.
@heartlessvietboy Uranium that we use for nuclear fission is limited, however if we find the technology to use nuclear fusion to power our energy needs then there will be no need whatsoever for any other type of energy, it would be like having a sun on our planet. Nuclear Fusion is somehow confused with being very related to nuclear fission when it is not. Its seemingly renewable (sea water and stones) and doesn't produce any biologically affecting radisotopes. See Nuclear Fusion.
Using steam water to spin turbines enclosed in a pressurized chamber with pipes may be efficient and technologically advanced, but what happens to the water that is used? Do we get all of it back? Do Nuclear Power Plants effect the ecology of the surrounding region? Or do they use piple-line (rain) water?
The water that was used to make steam to spin a turbine goes back as steam water to be heated again as steam. Excellent. How come I see water vapor towers?
@AlexBradleyPopovich It seems insane to think that coal is a better solution, yet you may be right when you consider the much more dangerous nuclear waste compared to hydro carbon from coal. However, coal like nuclear and oil are fossil fuels and have an end to the supply whereas "Fusion" reactors are truly the future answer to all our energy needs. We need to step up research in this area. It is clean with no dangerous by products.
@CalicoVall Good point, but don't you mean the next 20 - 60 years... I doubt there will be any oil or coal left in 100-150 years and no one will be able to afford it in the next 30-50 years. We know the future power sources, the question is, will we discover the technology to harness them before we run out of the old fossil fuels. I predict that within the next 5-10 years, we will discover the more important technologies... as long as they are not hindered by present day energy companies.
@CalicoVall Actually, I agree with you. Thorium is definitely is abundant, much much safer than enriched uranium, harder to breed for weapons proliferation, no possibility of a meltdown, and greatly reduced waste... yea, it's a good alternative for sure and could replace most fossil fuels for energy production. I do plan to keep my eye on cold fusion and I am an investor in it's development... Cheers, Rich
@Richbund Cold Fusion? Wasn't that reguarded as hopeless 10 years ago because the guys who claimed to have done it couldn't replicate their claim? Another way to go would be to use the new Pebble-bed reactor design to make it meltdown proof.
@CalicoVall Yes it was... 10 years ago. I am an investor is future tech. Thorium reactors are nothing new...There are many "cold fusion" experiments that have inconsistently resulted in a mild nuclear reaction, producing helium, tritium, and heat. As I have stated before, the technology is just outside our reach. It's intriguing enough that the US Navy (SPAWARS) is heavy involved in R&D Is it hopeless?
@AlexBradleyPopovich LOL If nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen, coal has already exploded, blown fallout all over and has destroied our environment in many more ways (strip-mining, run-off, acid rain destroying forests and animal life, etc.)
Of course nuclear can be deadly! SO can coal and any other power source if proper precautions are not taken.
And I'm not a friend of Nuclear power. It's a tool until we get Hydrogen plants or Fusion suddenly shows up to save the day.
haah still find it fucking weird you can onley choose 2 sides but that woman is realy manipulative and obama has a good hart but is less realistic you guys need more then just democrates and republicans
I don't know any other way to put it, but go watch somebody cook something in a pressure cooker. The pressure cooker doesn't boil the water away that's in it but develops high pressure to cook the food faster in it without evaporating all the water in it. In other words, when you look at your pressure cooker, that's pretty much what a nuclear reactor does. It doesn't matter what type. It can be a BWR, PWR, CANDU, AGR, or the russian RBMK at Pripyat City (Chernobyl), for that matter.
My planetary brethren and you physicists, engineers and men of science let's awaken at reality, at knowledge, at wisdom and let's pass at the construction the thermonuclear controlled reactors, reactors with spherical chamber after Sun model; which can not be dangerous, not even for those which serve these installations.
The test for nuclear fusion realisation on Tokamak's installations and with LASER cannot bring anything new for the energetics' future. I bind the thermonuclear controlled reactor schedule by the Sun model , by the reactive electromagnetic motor schedule from Palenque stone's tombe. You see the my project for thermonuclear controlled reactor.
Nuclear power is not the problem Its the the people that can't control and manage it
Japan was not prepared fully for a tsunami. Nuclear power is a mostly safe and CHEAP power source. (if you have decent experts and workers and prepare for the worst) . I do believe we should have more wind an hydro plants but America shouldn't go wasting all their money on that (yes some) but do Rid the country AND WORLD of coal and oil plants . That shit HAS to go. Thats the real issue
I pity the Fool who Falls in love with a nuclear scientist, thinking him a genius. They are Selling dangerous Weapons of Mass Destruction, Isn't that a vioaation of International Law in the Rome Statute?
@RainbowAlchemy They are developing a solution to wate disposal..... alow the reactor to become very, very old and wait for an earthquake. Some gets dispersed evenly in atmosphere, and the rest simply forms a blob on the ground.
we need to find a real permanant selution but we cant get there in 10 years we could use nuclear power to get there but then well get the problem that people onley act if they need to and it will be forgotten untill its 2 late
@MrTimothytim We can survive on solar. The space station is being run on solar. If NASA can do it, america can take the technology and make it adaptable on earth.
@newave123456 There is no air in space. As a result, the amount of energy per unit area is 10 times larger than what you got in earth. Also, there is no weather in space and the sun is almost always on.
@newave123456 youre forgetting nasa almost isnt bound by finances the usa is a ceptelistic country one of the most solar power isnt realistic in a captelistic system we need it to get cheaper or find a other source in the meanwhile nuclear power is the best selution down side is in capetelistic system you need something to push for better ways cuz they dont wanna spent thta money so a program with agreements would do that
@MrTimothytim I disagree with your premise. If the gov makes it a priority, we could easily make it more affordable. Nasa has given society many things. Jimmy Carter started us on a national plan with solar based on what Nasa did with it. But big oil and Reagan made sure that did not come to fruition. We don't need nuclear anything.
@newave123456 yes that is treu its just like in WO2 its forced germany to put momre money into all kind of new technologies and they discoverd many things also things we used today even things for ure preveous example nasa many things but there are difrances between them like they found a way to win oil from coal using hydrogen but it its just not worth the effort as the same with solar power ofcours we need to go that path but its not efficiant enough for a capetelistic society
@newave123456 And you can enjoy a $700 dollar electric bill at the end of every month too. Oh, and when their is a global catastrophe, such as Yellowstone erupting and the sun gets blocked out, enjoy sitting in darkness since their will be nothing to power your precious solar panels. Meanwhile, I'll be paying cheap bills every month and be perfectly fine if the sun gets blocked out since my power isn't dependent on variant factors.
@thefinalfrontier1701 if there is no sun, almost 90% of the earth WILL DIE... if you dont have the sun, you will not stay in the present form that you are in. Trust and believe that.
I wonder why nobody mentions hydro power these days. Washington State gets almost all of its power from hydro. I would say our air is pretty damn clean.
if nuclear bomb exsit so thas two little girls the one who capture by heaven and hell
heaven mom has power and nuclear capture by thanotos then if they release from soul how do we ganna survive from nuclear bomb just for two little girls
@Elaijahful what the fuck are you talking about? wait, you know what. don't reply an answer until you find someone that can translate from whatever your natve language is into english. thanks.
None of them has any interest in neuclear power, including Obama. If you see US begin to ship neuclear waste to AREVA to reprocess them into useful fuel. That would be a real sign that US actually take neuclear power seriously.
Even country such as Vietnam already begin to built neuclear power plant while US just sit and talk. Now we all know the real power of BIG OIL.
@calscott1 Nah, Nah, Rich people has a lot of money, They will live very long because they have acess to the latest technology(Stem Cell). They eat right, sleep right, exercise right and has a lot of money and time to spend. The future will always shine for them. Onther hand, poor people always has to work, always busy, always poor and still can't make the end meet. They are the ones don't really care because FUTURE SUCKS!
Every country is like that. Except 3 socialist haven in northern europ
@newave123456 Sad that life today is run by the amount of money the rich people want to keep bringing in from fossils and nuclear. They don't think about people or the future. It's all about how rich they can be by the time they die.
Nuclear power plants take a long time to build in large part because- 1. they are protested by local communities. 2. they have to meet rediculously over the top safety standards(in spite of never having been responsible for a single death in the U.S.) 3. lack of standardized design. An administration that actually gave a damn about eliminating green house gases would work to counter public ignorance and paranoia about nuclear power and pursue it as the best alternative to coal/natural gas.
After doing some research, I figured out that here in California, a single nuclear power plant could provide more power than all 10 of the state's coal plants combined. Not only that, but a breeder plant could run almost indefinitely without ever having to be refueled with uranium. This would be a massive pollution reduction. So... if Obama's going w/ it and conservatives generally support it, what's the roadblock? You'd think the EPA would jump at the chance to eliminate 10 coal plants.
@CobaltX07 Its all the negative press and the idiot enviro nuts who are staunchly against nuclear power. Really, who has the most to lose if nuclear power comes to prominence? Coal and oil companies. Nuclear powerplants are the best energy production we have right now. But all the hype about its 'dangers' have kept it from reaching the level it needs to really make a impact. Look at France, 50%+ of energy produced by nuclear power, hell, France sells surplus energy to surrounding countries.
They just failed with nuclear power, i dont know if they were baught in the past . But do you guys know how dangerous it is to enovate or clean up a nuclear power plant ? Its just giving more problems to the futur generations! When you put a nuclear power plant online , you cant just stop it with an off button. Its realy a complicated energy in all means.
Wow. Looking back on these debate after Obama has been elected. It just seems so scripted. Obama has the best lines in the play and everyone else is supporting cast. Damn you all and your trickery. Where Toto to pull the curtain open when we need him?
Fission should be illegal. Fusion is the only way forward. We can't even take care of issues that last a few decades how can we manage the most toxic substances for hundreds of thousands of years?
@EMPPT Unfortunately, the nuclear power industry, for the love of money, has not been honest with U.S. citizens. Nuclear power kills, the nuclear fuel process is the nuclear power industry's dirty secret. 120,000 claims, over 45,000 claims approved, 1,200, could not be paid due to their death. Costing taxpayers $4 billion in claims paid out to nuclear workers. Source DOL/DOE statistics, after the act passed for atomic energy workers in the year 2000.
@EMPPT A total of between 600,000 and 800,000 men were involved in the clean-up operations in Chernobyl up to 1989. Of these men, 300,000 received radiation doses 500 times the limit for the public over one year. According to government agencies in the three former Soviet States affected, about 25,000 "liquidators" have so far died. Estimates provided by the liquidator associations in the three countries are well in excess of the official figures.
@grishicles You can compare it to Russian plane accidents...Because the USSR didn't even bother to install safety measures. The only other large "explosion" was 3 Mile Island, which had the equivalent of the radiation from your TV
@EMPPT Let's NOT use analogies if they can be misleading. A nuclear power plant is made safe because it HAS to be safe in order to prevent huge catastrophes. The problem is that safe can never be safe enough. Something can happen and over the long term WILL happen and then the consequences are enormous. And those consequences are irradiating people and landscapes killing a ton of people and ruining fates of many many more, poisining generations that follow or dont even follow.
@EMPPT The only problem is, and it is a BIG problem, is that to THIS DAY we still have absolutely NOTHING to protect our bodies from radiation. For example, we have special material to walk through fire with, but there is NOTHING to protect the body from radiation, if you are exposed you will die. The men working in Japan right now on the nuclear plant, as Thom Hartmann said, "They are dead men walking---they will all die within a year."
@EMPPT Nuclear fission is useless. The coal and oil it takes to mine uranium could have just been burned for power in the first place. We should use the most efficiant forms of energy we can, that's the key to developing the next stage in energy production. Coal Oil Gas > Solar Wind Hydro.
It's amazing how so many people die in automobile crashes a day yet we don't even see much at all. I want to find that true data. Then we can really compare exactly if driving a car is more dangerous than flying an airplane. Because if a pilot is drinking and flying like car drivers, I think crash rate of airplane flying, both small and large, will double that of the automobile.
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." -Ronald Reagan
The reason it takes so long to build a nuclear power plant, is because of all of the regulations the government puts on them!
"An aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted."
In other words, an insane tax on these energy companies if they go over that amount.. A.K.A "Cap and Trade".. Which would be the final fork in our American economy
yucca mountain was being planned at this time, it wasn't ready but nuclear power plants have enough protection and space to safely keep the waste until its ready in 2017. theres been so many advancements in nuclear power since the last plant was built that nuclear power is extremely cost effective.
@skinnyJEANking2 you do realize how long ago that was, dont you? I suppose you think we learned absolutely nothing from Chernobyl. You need to brush up on your facts about Nuclear Power before you start spouting off comments like that.
@neemguy81 LMAO! What facts? I just made a statement of an event that happened. I did not even go into detail. Before you go spouting off at others comments, maybe you should know what you're talking about.
@skinnyJEANking2 Well i apologize then if you did not mean to discredit the industry by citing an event which happened in 1986. I think you should be a little more descriptive in your comments. The tone that you took was that of someone who was ignorant of the events that actually happened and the resulting actions in the industry that took place because this disaster took place. Believe it or not, I do know a great deal about what I am talking about. MSG me if you want to know more.
Also, presumably, a heavy-water, pebble-bed, "breeder" nuclear reactor would defeat most of the anti-nuke arguments. It is physically impossible for such a reactor to melt down, the plutonium waste can be recycled, meaning no new uranium will have to be mined. What little waste cannot be recycled can be disposed of in those insanely strong containers they intend to transport them in.
"There has not been a new nuclear powerplant built in decades in this country"... right, so I suppose our new carriers and submarines run on people pedaling bicycles. "We still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste"... said carriers and subs must also have black holes built into them that aren't safe for the public. As for liquefying coal, it's not "another" carbon-based fuel, it turns into oil, yes, regular oil, for gasoline.
@MrWagman11 You are an idiot. And the people who gave you + votes are just as fucking stupid,He explained perfectly why nuclear energy is a bad idea or in other terms a fucking failure.
@AntiChristClub No he didn't. The reason the costs are so astronomical is because of all the hoops you have to jumo through to build one. There are tons of regulations enviromental agencies placed on nuclear energy and even after those regs are met people will still protest the building of a nuclear facility and cause massive delays in construction.
@MrWagman11 , american technologie pwning gamma radiation. Sure, its jsut that no material known to earth can withstand this kind of radiation for a long term. But hey if this woman thinks shw knows better who am i to talk. :O
Let's see here. We're spending millions and billions on the war in Afghanistan and sending millions and billions of dollars to corrupt regimes around the world. How 'bout we quit giving aid to foreign governments and also bring our troops home from afghanistan. Use that money to put toward building nuclear reactors and give our soldiers an option of going to work to help build the plants.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! MANIFEST INDUSTRIAL CRIME! A BOMB WAITING TO EXPLODE ! NO SUBSIDIZING AGGRESSIVE WAR CRIMES! BE THEY SURRENDERED TO THE ICC AND THE ROME STATUTE! NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW SCAT!
RainbowAlchemy 2 months ago
It is exactly because of chernobyl that we know the dangers of nuclear energy and what not to do at a nuclear power plant. Chernobyls design and safety standards were literally a worst case scenario. chernobyl happened at a time when people were still using x-rays in shoe stores. needless to say in the past 40 years the science and standards have improved greatly. Something like chernobyl could never happen again. and the way Fukushima was handled is perfect proof of that.
superchris247 2 months ago
i think we should shut them down for good i mean 2012 it might not happen
but id rather do it and not need to then not do it and get blown to pieces.
eurika213 4 months ago
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. Look it up.
Xx3klipsExX 4 months ago
@Xx3klipsExX LFTR is what the US needs to invest in.
visini14 3 months ago
Nuclear Nu-god of chaos, Clear, get it. Nu also equal 40. Nun=40 is the death card 13.
76hexum 4 months ago
Nuclear Technology is worthless. They tell you poison is golden! Fools!
RainbowAlchemy 4 months ago
@RainbowAlchemy Wothless? Tell that to couple of billion people that rely on it.
nanotech2080 4 months ago
HOWBOUT THORIUM?
fr97305 5 months ago
@fr97305 Oh great, more toxic metals. GEET has been around for 30 years now. Youtube "geet generator runs on coffee/beer" and google "free geet plans". See for yourself how you have been fucked in the ass by nuke-mafia.
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny You don't really understand what Thorium is do you? You can stockpile hundreds of tons of the stuff in the same room, and it won't start a reaction. That's because it needs another nuclear material to act as an initiator to start the reaction. It isn't radioactive enough by itself to actually start one. Hell, you could hold a large rock of it in your hands and suffer no ill effects. Plus, it's many times more efficient than uranium and the waste is around for a tenth as long.
halo07guy2 4 months ago
By 2050 fusion will be the source of most of the worlds energy.
This is not wishful thinking, it is simply a way of stating that all other forms of energy that are based on the use of finite fossil fuel sources must decline in the next few decades. This decline will provide a major impetus for the rapid increase in the utilization of Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion, a new form of energy.
Visit Fusion Power Corporation and You Tube's - StarPower for Tomorrow! for a real education on fusion.
hhelsley 5 months ago
After hearing Dr. Helen Caldicott's speech Nagasaki to Fukushima it's clear that my instincts against nukes was right on. Aside from the potential devastation from weapons, the extreme consequences of completely foreseeable and even imminent problems - from the leaking of its waste to natural disasters to and the exponential increase of all these risks through the proliferation by the export of nuclear technology and radioactive materials.
jayunderscoreone 5 months ago
anyone who thinks we should keep nuclear power is a psycho, chernobyl probably killed about a million people totally or so, fukushima tho. it will kill ALOOT more, i think it will be like a new world war 2 over again or worse. And thats a SINGLE plant, checkout how many plants there is, if just 2-4 would fail the human race is fuckt no kidding. Why do we have those plants? because of money, there are better ways but na we wont use em untill we drop the money system same with cars and other stuff
werexz 5 months ago
@werexz "chernobyl probably killed about a million people totally or so" Actually, 56 died at the plant, less than 4,000 have died from the after effects.
"there are better ways but na we wont use em untill we drop the money system same with cars and other stuff"
Without the "money system" the economy will dismantle itself over night and everything will turn to shit.
Stop being a retarded hippie and learn about Nuclear Energy.
Fucking Retards.
Nickelskov 3 months ago
@Nickelskov are u kidding me? check up the facts again my friend. do u think the radiation of chernobyl only stayed there? its not like, BAM 1 million ppl dead, but ye, 1 million ppl have prolly died cuz of chernobyl cause of radiation and radiation makes it easier to get cancer. now the mox fuel that was in fukushima, if u would inhale a millionth of a gram of that, u would get cancer for sure, not in a day or two but ye u would get it and in that reactor there was 200-250kg. thats quite alot.
werexz 3 months ago
@werexz "1 million ppl have prolly died cuz of chernobyl cause of radiation and radiation makes it easier to get cancer."
You don't even understand how radiation gives you cancer?
You actually think 1 million people died and the only source which says 985,000 people died was discredited because it took sources which added up multiples of the same source, and the Scientific Community came to the conclusion of only approx 4,000 deaths total.
Stop being a stupid hippie please.
Nickelskov 3 months ago
@Nickelskov or maybe, they dident want to release the news of how bad the accident was as usual as with all other major disasters. I got nothing more to say, just check how many ppl there is who get cancer per year now and then check in 2-5 years again and i promise you there will be a fucking MAJOR increase in cancer because of fukushima now. I promise you that for sure. bye
werexz 3 months ago
@werexz Are you stupid? Chernobyl's cancer causing consequences didn't show up till 20 years after the fact. You cannot develop radiation caused cancer in less than 5 years, it isn't possible unless they are constantly being exposed, which people aren't exposed to high enough levels to be at risk. And besides, most of the "nuclear fallout" landed into the Ocean, which since nuclear fallout has a larger density than water, it would sink to the bottom of the ocean. End of story.
visini14 3 months ago
Comment removed
DoNotReadMyComments 6 months ago
Comment removed
DoNotReadMyComments 6 months ago
PEACE & LOVE
TVRADIOREGGAEFM 6 months ago
@Mr1patriot4 Are you fucking kidding me???? Fukushima Fallout has spread EVERYWHERE!!...... the milk you drink..the air you breath ...is now TOXIC ...all thanks to " Nuclear Power "..... wake up man...
mrshorty13579 7 months ago
@mrshorty13579 Oh hey, the radiation released from the plant is less than what you get from the sun every day. The only true danger was being near the reactor, like within 5 meters, the "fallout" that spread everywhere has less radioactive material than what is spread to.
Also, those plants were from the 60's and due to get replaced 2 weeks after the Tsunami/Earthquake happened. The new model plants can handle much worse.
THE MORE YOU KNOW!
Nickelskov 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It’s not enough to understand how everybody in the room thinks. You have to decide which ones in the room are right, and stand with them. A leader is not a mediator or an umpire or a convener or a facilitator.
Sometimes, as Chris Christie put it, “the president has got to show up."
With each equivocation, the man in the Oval Office shields his identity and cloaks who the real Barack Obama is." --Maureen Dowd, New York Times, June 26, 2011
hookalakah 7 months ago
legalize marijuana and we could use the Hemp plant for paper, clothes, textiles, biodegradable plastics, and we can even use it as fuel for both energy AND our cars and be able to harvest every 3 months! maybe even shorter with the technology we got. the Hemp plant is universal, not just for smoking. food for thought, the seed oil and hash oil (comes from the bud) has so many uses and are environment friendly no matter how much we use it!
free00to00ryhme 7 months ago
Thank you President Obama, 2011 has proven itself a very lucrative year with ongoing tax-funded Federal cash-injections and unprecedented fiscal spending on export energy initiatives.
Nuclear Power is as good for America as expanded contracts for offshore drilling with BP.
Nuclear Power and Offshore Drilling are some of the safest, most economical ways to boost Wall Street profits by attracting more investors from the central banking cartel and profiteering global High-Rollers like Goldman Sachs
CorporateRule 7 months ago
from 0:24 to 0:30 "I believe nuclear power is safer than other energy alternatives." hahaha stupid
contaire03 7 months ago
@contaire03 It is.
mageboi97 7 months ago
Obama, you talk tough but you haven't done SHIT.
get the FUCK out of our White House.
2012Romney 8 months ago
SCUM BAMMA & the NWO want nuclear power because it is the quickest path to murdering 93% of the worlds population as is directly stated on the GEORGIA GUIDE STONES ~ which demand we reduce earth population by 93% which I agree with by the way ~
```
U EARTHLINGS are so fucking stupid U cant see the writing on the wall ~
```
Fucking morons ~ FUKUSHIMA will kill millions if not more & we have 442 with 65 being built...ALL IT WILL TAKE 4 THE NWO TO WIPE US OUT IS 2-3 MORE SO CALLED ACCIDENTS
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 8 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel
You, earthling, are rather delusional and paranoid. Please contact your psychiatrist for anti psychotics and therapy.
khatack 8 months ago
@khatack you fucking ass wipe ... we have one million tonnes of nuclear waste that has to be stored for a million years...and it all has to be placed in new storage containers every 125 years you god damn idiot~
```
The logistics on this alone is beyond comprehension...plus all the equipment trucks cranes and used containers also have to be stored and right now today we have no place to put waste we made 10 years ago
```
You are nothing but a fucking moron who is controlled by the mass media
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 8 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel
If the subject matter is beyond your comprehension, you shouldn't bother thinking about it. There are minds far more capable than yours working on the issue.
khatack 8 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Lol your a fucking retard.
mageboi97 7 months ago
@mageboi97 lol google [ fort Calhoun nuclear plant ] which is no being inundated with the Missouri river and is on emergency power...
but you dont see this in the papers you fool because they want you dead...And i agree with them...there are too many dumber that are than WHALE SHIT ~ just wasting our world resources ...
```
git a fucking gripp dude there are too many people on this planet...
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 7 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel
every couple of hundred years a major pandemic spreads and kills a good percentage of the population. Spanish Flu, The Plague, etc. Swine Flu isnt in here because hell more people died from the normal flu bug than they did from that, hell even i had it and nothing happened. The planet has a good way of staying under control. We are just another surface nuisance.
TheDuvalMilitia 5 months ago
@TheDuvalMilitia your probably right ...and the true is I agree with depopulation 100%...too many people on this planet that serve no purpose..but i never agree with randomly wiping out 93% of us with no regard for the people with special skills and talents...thats just wrong...
```
Im old so it don't matter but there are some talented young people that will just be wasted
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 5 months ago
also, if they were the original people and have been around longer than any other race; why are they the least scientifically evolved?
thevideodrome1 9 months ago
nuclear yes. Biofuels? definitely not by the mainstream means. I dont want to see masses of land in places like Brazil where they would be deforesting in order to grow crop for gasohol which is an incredibly inefficient process but also it is damaging. Growing the biofuels uses a lot of non-environmental processes such as spraying pesticides on the crops, and a lot of land is needed just for a small batch of the stuff. Thats only one bio fuel though, im open for improvements
dillondownie 10 months ago
Nuclear is said to be zero pollution. However it is also said to be radioactive.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Which can be controlled, just when things go wrong they go WRONG. However the aim is not to let these problems happen in the first place.
dillondownie 9 months ago
Maybe it's best if we eliminate anything that's involved with having the great potential of harming people and earth. By great I mean carbon emissions (in the long run), drilling for oil and natural gas (pollution and land-sinking), Geo -Thermal (heat of earth), and Nuclear (water vapor and site contamination). Nuclear may be zero pollution, but in the long run we'll have to clean it up. Natural Energy will last for Thousands of years.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy explain what natural energy is, is it wind, solar, hydro etc?
dillondownie 9 months ago
By natural energy I mean energy that comes from nature. Such as Wind. The Ocean. Ball mechanics.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy its a great concept but much less reliable and much more expensive than the other alternatives. For example wind energy; those turbines made from aluminium are produced using 10 years worth of power they generate from fossil fuels to make. they also need to be reserviced every 25 years at maximum.Weather reliant. You need a large area and a lot of them to power just a fraction of the grid, i know I live by fields of them. However on smaller scales i think they are effective!
dillondownie 9 months ago
Do people actually believe a wind turbine would take 10 years worth of power to produce? Yes, wind sometimes does not blow, but by that time the super conducting generator would have created more than twice the amount of power than we have ever done before.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Yeah, those big ass ones you see on hillsides that are now being connected to the national grid, I asked my physics teacher, if you want i could ask him all over again and get the details for why they're bad? anyway do you have any links for that information?
dillondownie 9 months ago
Nuclear Energy is great, but it is temporary. When we have established an entire clean energy infrastructure, we will eliminate Nuclear energy from the face of the Earth.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Its temporary because its limited. However Its only dangerous when put into the wrong hands so I dont really have a problem with it, and clean energy is good as long as it doesnt bankrupt us, or remain unreliable. Though i do keep up with updates on technology and we are at least improving these renewables quite rapidly as time goes on.
dillondownie 9 months ago
I don't think Nuclear is limited. Uranium is not rare. Neither is Hydrogen Gas on earth. We are not concerned about the dangerousness of it here in America though accidents can happen. We are concerned about radioactivity.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Uranium that we use for nuclear fission is limited, however if we find the technology to use nuclear fusion to power our energy needs then there will be no need whatsoever for any other type of energy, it would be like having a sun on our planet. Nuclear Fusion is somehow confused with being very related to nuclear fission when it is not. Its seemingly renewable (sea water and stones) and doesn't produce any biologically affecting radisotopes. See Nuclear Fusion.
dillondownie 9 months ago
@dillondownie lol just what we need a sun on our planet !
smiles1969able 7 months ago
There is a reason China the future most powerful country in the world is building so many nuclear plants. They are smarter then the U.S.
wineverytime1 10 months ago
Using steam water to spin turbines enclosed in a pressurized chamber with pipes may be efficient and technologically advanced, but what happens to the water that is used? Do we get all of it back? Do Nuclear Power Plants effect the ecology of the surrounding region? Or do they use piple-line (rain) water?
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
@heartlessvietboy The steam goes back into the place where they are heated into steam, so it's a closed circuit.
PkerHaezel 9 months ago
The water that was used to make steam to spin a turbine goes back as steam water to be heated again as steam. Excellent. How come I see water vapor towers?
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
The answer is simply fusion derived energy, we should be pouring trillions into hot and cold fusion research.
Richbund 10 months ago
@Richbund I totally agree with you... We are getting close, but many test reactors can only run a few months a year due to lack of funding.
jonnoj2222 10 months ago
Coal is waaaaaay better! Nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen. Look at how deadly nuclear can be. It's awful. I an a Friend of Coal.
AlexBradleyPopovich 10 months ago
@AlexBradleyPopovich It seems insane to think that coal is a better solution, yet you may be right when you consider the much more dangerous nuclear waste compared to hydro carbon from coal. However, coal like nuclear and oil are fossil fuels and have an end to the supply whereas "Fusion" reactors are truly the future answer to all our energy needs. We need to step up research in this area. It is clean with no dangerous by products.
Richbund 10 months ago
@Richbund Agreed, but in the meantime (aka the next 20-300 years) what are our choices?
CalicoVall 10 months ago
@CalicoVall Good point, but don't you mean the next 20 - 60 years... I doubt there will be any oil or coal left in 100-150 years and no one will be able to afford it in the next 30-50 years. We know the future power sources, the question is, will we discover the technology to harness them before we run out of the old fossil fuels. I predict that within the next 5-10 years, we will discover the more important technologies... as long as they are not hindered by present day energy companies.
Richbund 10 months ago
@Richbund Me? I'm in favor of investing in Thorium reactors while we invest in renewable energy sources and Fusion. You?
CalicoVall 10 months ago
@CalicoVall Actually, I agree with you. Thorium is definitely is abundant, much much safer than enriched uranium, harder to breed for weapons proliferation, no possibility of a meltdown, and greatly reduced waste... yea, it's a good alternative for sure and could replace most fossil fuels for energy production. I do plan to keep my eye on cold fusion and I am an investor in it's development... Cheers, Rich
Richbund 10 months ago
@Richbund Cold Fusion? Wasn't that reguarded as hopeless 10 years ago because the guys who claimed to have done it couldn't replicate their claim? Another way to go would be to use the new Pebble-bed reactor design to make it meltdown proof.
CalicoVall 10 months ago
@CalicoVall Yes it was... 10 years ago. I am an investor is future tech. Thorium reactors are nothing new...There are many "cold fusion" experiments that have inconsistently resulted in a mild nuclear reaction, producing helium, tritium, and heat. As I have stated before, the technology is just outside our reach. It's intriguing enough that the US Navy (SPAWARS) is heavy involved in R&D Is it hopeless?
Richbund 10 months ago
@Richbund No way. And the amount of power, money and work this could provide for the world, not just for ourselves.
CalicoVall 10 months ago
@AlexBradleyPopovich LOL If nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen, coal has already exploded, blown fallout all over and has destroied our environment in many more ways (strip-mining, run-off, acid rain destroying forests and animal life, etc.)
Of course nuclear can be deadly! SO can coal and any other power source if proper precautions are not taken.
And I'm not a friend of Nuclear power. It's a tool until we get Hydrogen plants or Fusion suddenly shows up to save the day.
CalicoVall 10 months ago
Coal is waaaaaay better!
AlexBradleyPopovich 10 months ago
Nuclear power sucks. I go for coal.
AlexBradleyPopovich 10 months ago
Nuclear power sucks. I go for coal.
AlexBradleyPopovich 10 months ago
haah still find it fucking weird you can onley choose 2 sides but that woman is realy manipulative and obama has a good hart but is less realistic you guys need more then just democrates and republicans
MrTimothytim 10 months ago
I don't know any other way to put it, but go watch somebody cook something in a pressure cooker. The pressure cooker doesn't boil the water away that's in it but develops high pressure to cook the food faster in it without evaporating all the water in it. In other words, when you look at your pressure cooker, that's pretty much what a nuclear reactor does. It doesn't matter what type. It can be a BWR, PWR, CANDU, AGR, or the russian RBMK at Pripyat City (Chernobyl), for that matter.
stratoleft 10 months ago
I'm fairly certain they edited that youtube video
EmperorOfMars 10 months ago
• SandustanBrasov
My planetary brethren and you physicists, engineers and men of science let's awaken at reality, at knowledge, at wisdom and let's pass at the construction the thermonuclear controlled reactors, reactors with spherical chamber after Sun model; which can not be dangerous, not even for those which serve these installations.
sandustanBrasov 10 months ago
SandustanBrasov
The test for nuclear fusion realisation on Tokamak's installations and with LASER cannot bring anything new for the energetics' future. I bind the thermonuclear controlled reactor schedule by the Sun model , by the reactive electromagnetic motor schedule from Palenque stone's tombe. You see the my project for thermonuclear controlled reactor.
sandustanBrasov 10 months ago
Climate change is a misleading stuff
Stop climate change does not equal to sustainable living
Using nuclear power,
We might reduce CO2, but not our linear resource usage.
and I don't know why people don't get this, Nuclear power is supplied by a small group of companies who are so powerful in lobbying the government.
It's not safe, it's not worth it.
gigiggg9 10 months ago
@gigiggg9 People get it but they don't care ;(
newave123456 10 months ago
@gigiggg9 I agree do the doable things (solar, wind, etc) for the future that pose no threat to people.
calscott1 10 months ago
There is long term damage for radiations, but not plane crashes... get this!
gigiggg9 10 months ago
NO NUCLEAR POWER!!! IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAFEST AND CLEANEST FORM OF ENERGY YOU DUMB DUMB BOY....
MsEmotikat 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nuclear power is not the problem Its the the people that can't control and manage it
Japan was not prepared fully for a tsunami. Nuclear power is a mostly safe and CHEAP power source. (if you have decent experts and workers and prepare for the worst) . I do believe we should have more wind an hydro plants but America shouldn't go wasting all their money on that (yes some) but do Rid the country AND WORLD of coal and oil plants . That shit HAS to go. Thats the real issue
MrFakegods 10 months ago
obama looks gay
josh4rock 10 months ago
@josh4rock yes he does
MrFakegods 10 months ago
Talk talk talk talk
gettingahandle 10 months ago
Now what is right? As we watch the drama unfold in Japan over leaking radiation. What will be nuclear's next plan?
lakotaize 10 months ago
HEY! PRO-NUKERS!
How's that nuclear power workin' out for ya today? Clean? Safe? Too cheap to meter?
Riiiiiight!
CrudeDude 10 months ago
I pity the Fool who Falls in love with a nuclear scientist, thinking him a genius. They are Selling dangerous Weapons of Mass Destruction, Isn't that a vioaation of International Law in the Rome Statute?
RainbowAlchemy 10 months ago
waste disposal presents to long term storage problem better to develop renewable resources
RainbowAlchemy 10 months ago
@RainbowAlchemy They are developing a solution to wate disposal..... alow the reactor to become very, very old and wait for an earthquake. Some gets dispersed evenly in atmosphere, and the rest simply forms a blob on the ground.
gettingahandle 10 months ago
Dangerous and Useless, Nuke Science Is Idiocy! Would You Buy Swamp Land in Florida? i'm So Sure!
RainbowAlchemy 10 months ago
After what's happened in Japan, is nuclear power safe?
AIDSCrocodile 10 months ago
Let the debate begin...
go to twitter: @surveyindepth
surveyindepth 10 months ago
we need to find a real permanant selution but we cant get there in 10 years we could use nuclear power to get there but then well get the problem that people onley act if they need to and it will be forgotten untill its 2 late
MrTimothytim 10 months ago
@MrTimothytim We can survive on solar. The space station is being run on solar. If NASA can do it, america can take the technology and make it adaptable on earth.
newave123456 10 months ago
@newave123456 There is no air in space. As a result, the amount of energy per unit area is 10 times larger than what you got in earth. Also, there is no weather in space and the sun is almost always on.
wtuanmu 10 months ago
@newave123456 youre forgetting nasa almost isnt bound by finances the usa is a ceptelistic country one of the most solar power isnt realistic in a captelistic system we need it to get cheaper or find a other source in the meanwhile nuclear power is the best selution down side is in capetelistic system you need something to push for better ways cuz they dont wanna spent thta money so a program with agreements would do that
MrTimothytim 10 months ago
@MrTimothytim I disagree with your premise. If the gov makes it a priority, we could easily make it more affordable. Nasa has given society many things. Jimmy Carter started us on a national plan with solar based on what Nasa did with it. But big oil and Reagan made sure that did not come to fruition. We don't need nuclear anything.
newave123456 10 months ago
@newave123456 yes that is treu its just like in WO2 its forced germany to put momre money into all kind of new technologies and they discoverd many things also things we used today even things for ure preveous example nasa many things but there are difrances between them like they found a way to win oil from coal using hydrogen but it its just not worth the effort as the same with solar power ofcours we need to go that path but its not efficiant enough for a capetelistic society
MrTimothytim 10 months ago
@newave123456 And you can enjoy a $700 dollar electric bill at the end of every month too. Oh, and when their is a global catastrophe, such as Yellowstone erupting and the sun gets blocked out, enjoy sitting in darkness since their will be nothing to power your precious solar panels. Meanwhile, I'll be paying cheap bills every month and be perfectly fine if the sun gets blocked out since my power isn't dependent on variant factors.
thefinalfrontier1701 1 month ago
@thefinalfrontier1701 if there is no sun, almost 90% of the earth WILL DIE... if you dont have the sun, you will not stay in the present form that you are in. Trust and believe that.
newave123456 1 month ago
I wonder why nobody mentions hydro power these days. Washington State gets almost all of its power from hydro. I would say our air is pretty damn clean.
RedSandStudios 11 months ago
if nuclear bomb exsit so thas two little girls the one who capture by heaven and hell
heaven mom has power and nuclear capture by thanotos then if they release from soul how do we ganna survive from nuclear bomb just for two little girls
Elaijahful 1 year ago
@Elaijahful what the fuck are you talking about? wait, you know what. don't reply an answer until you find someone that can translate from whatever your natve language is into english. thanks.
a10miletooth 10 months ago
sounds mad'
jokeraces22 1 year ago
None of them has any interest in neuclear power, including Obama. If you see US begin to ship neuclear waste to AREVA to reprocess them into useful fuel. That would be a real sign that US actually take neuclear power seriously.
Even country such as Vietnam already begin to built neuclear power plant while US just sit and talk. Now we all know the real power of BIG OIL.
wtuanmu 1 year ago
@wtuanmu All fossil fuel and nuclear is bad. There is no money in wind and solar because they make people self sufficient and thats real talk.
newave123456 10 months ago
@newave123456 Why don't you spend 50k to install solar panel on your roof top and become self sufficient. No body will stop you.
wtuanmu 10 months ago
Comment removed
calscott1 10 months ago
@calscott1 Nah, Nah, Rich people has a lot of money, They will live very long because they have acess to the latest technology(Stem Cell). They eat right, sleep right, exercise right and has a lot of money and time to spend. The future will always shine for them. Onther hand, poor people always has to work, always busy, always poor and still can't make the end meet. They are the ones don't really care because FUTURE SUCKS!
Every country is like that. Except 3 socialist haven in northern europ
wtuanmu 10 months ago
@newave123456 Sad that life today is run by the amount of money the rich people want to keep bringing in from fossils and nuclear. They don't think about people or the future. It's all about how rich they can be by the time they die.
calscott1 10 months ago
Nuclear power plants take a long time to build in large part because- 1. they are protested by local communities. 2. they have to meet rediculously over the top safety standards(in spite of never having been responsible for a single death in the U.S.) 3. lack of standardized design. An administration that actually gave a damn about eliminating green house gases would work to counter public ignorance and paranoia about nuclear power and pursue it as the best alternative to coal/natural gas.
Harrison776 1 year ago
the reason we havent built a nc plant is that were a weak country now
shadowclan1993 1 year ago
After doing some research, I figured out that here in California, a single nuclear power plant could provide more power than all 10 of the state's coal plants combined. Not only that, but a breeder plant could run almost indefinitely without ever having to be refueled with uranium. This would be a massive pollution reduction. So... if Obama's going w/ it and conservatives generally support it, what's the roadblock? You'd think the EPA would jump at the chance to eliminate 10 coal plants.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07 Its all the negative press and the idiot enviro nuts who are staunchly against nuclear power. Really, who has the most to lose if nuclear power comes to prominence? Coal and oil companies. Nuclear powerplants are the best energy production we have right now. But all the hype about its 'dangers' have kept it from reaching the level it needs to really make a impact. Look at France, 50%+ of energy produced by nuclear power, hell, France sells surplus energy to surrounding countries.
HoOkEdOnBlEaCh 1 year ago
@CobaltX07 Currently, California favor natural gas.
wtuanmu 1 year ago
Don't know who the first dude is that responded, but those are some real words of wisdom. Quite rare for a American politician :P
HandjesBreda 1 year ago
In France "in Nuke We Trust".
MrNathari 1 year ago
They just failed with nuclear power, i dont know if they were baught in the past . But do you guys know how dangerous it is to enovate or clean up a nuclear power plant ? Its just giving more problems to the futur generations! When you put a nuclear power plant online , you cant just stop it with an off button. Its realy a complicated energy in all means.
p4tst3r 1 year ago
Why not be like Russia and make nukes and train assasins
ThornKajom 1 year ago
Wow. Looking back on these debate after Obama has been elected. It just seems so scripted. Obama has the best lines in the play and everyone else is supporting cast. Damn you all and your trickery. Where Toto to pull the curtain open when we need him?
ih8paper 1 year ago
Fission should be illegal. Fusion is the only way forward. We can't even take care of issues that last a few decades how can we manage the most toxic substances for hundreds of thousands of years?
yawnstretch 1 year ago
but why are you against Iran's peaceful nuclear energy?
TheGreenfrog140 1 year ago
nuclear is the cheapest energy..... bullshit for these monkeys,talking with silk accent.
adias111 1 year ago
im not american, but the first one said explicit bullshit......dam monkeyl!!!!!
adias111 1 year ago
I'm with Wingman.....these people really don't understand nuclear power....even at a basic level. Maybe they should go back to college?
gopy88 1 year ago
i like how they were talking about this three years ago yet nothing has changed
IGotzCashFlo15 1 year ago
Lovely, would love to see another Chernobyl in my lifetime...
themightychickens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hope we never have a woman as President.
MohoFlaggins 1 year ago
Man, obama twists words to make himself seem like he knows a logical approach to everything.....he doesn't know shit and has not done shit
getalought42 1 year ago
@getalought42
YAY, someone who gets it.
AgentGTO 1 year ago
Comment removed
EMPPT 1 year ago 18
@EMPPT genius.... so true! sooo true!!!
bbphnix 1 year ago
@EMPPT Unfortunately, the nuclear power industry, for the love of money, has not been honest with U.S. citizens. Nuclear power kills, the nuclear fuel process is the nuclear power industry's dirty secret. 120,000 claims, over 45,000 claims approved, 1,200, could not be paid due to their death. Costing taxpayers $4 billion in claims paid out to nuclear workers. Source DOL/DOE statistics, after the act passed for atomic energy workers in the year 2000.
ndaboro 1 year ago
@EMPPT A total of between 600,000 and 800,000 men were involved in the clean-up operations in Chernobyl up to 1989. Of these men, 300,000 received radiation doses 500 times the limit for the public over one year. According to government agencies in the three former Soviet States affected, about 25,000 "liquidators" have so far died. Estimates provided by the liquidator associations in the three countries are well in excess of the official figures.
You can hardly compare this to a plane accident
grishicles 11 months ago
@grishicles You can compare it to Russian plane accidents...Because the USSR didn't even bother to install safety measures. The only other large "explosion" was 3 Mile Island, which had the equivalent of the radiation from your TV
vargulf19 11 months ago
@EMPPT Let's NOT use analogies if they can be misleading. A nuclear power plant is made safe because it HAS to be safe in order to prevent huge catastrophes. The problem is that safe can never be safe enough. Something can happen and over the long term WILL happen and then the consequences are enormous. And those consequences are irradiating people and landscapes killing a ton of people and ruining fates of many many more, poisining generations that follow or dont even follow.
Dahliandis 10 months ago
@EMPPT The only problem is, and it is a BIG problem, is that to THIS DAY we still have absolutely NOTHING to protect our bodies from radiation. For example, we have special material to walk through fire with, but there is NOTHING to protect the body from radiation, if you are exposed you will die. The men working in Japan right now on the nuclear plant, as Thom Hartmann said, "They are dead men walking---they will all die within a year."
MsEmotikat 10 months ago
@EMPPT Radiation is no joke, and it is not even slightly comparable with cars or planes.
MsEmotikat 10 months ago
@MsEmotikat Ever since the Fukushima event I've been receiving negative opinions, before it, all of them were positive.
How one event can change thoughts eh?
EMPPT 10 months ago
@MsEmotikat
Plane crashes are no joke either.
newdimensionfilms 10 months ago
@EMPPT Nuclear fission is useless. The coal and oil it takes to mine uranium could have just been burned for power in the first place. We should use the most efficiant forms of energy we can, that's the key to developing the next stage in energy production. Coal Oil Gas > Solar Wind Hydro.
TumisHumis 10 months ago
Horror, shut down all nuclear power plants urgently! URGENT!
bjeka2008 10 months ago
Horror, shut down all nuclear power plants urgently! URGENT!
bjeka2008 10 months ago
It's amazing how so many people die in automobile crashes a day yet we don't even see much at all. I want to find that true data. Then we can really compare exactly if driving a car is more dangerous than flying an airplane. Because if a pilot is drinking and flying like car drivers, I think crash rate of airplane flying, both small and large, will double that of the automobile.
heartlessvietboy 9 months ago
tree huggers are retarded i say polute the air as much as possible global warming is a load of shit you retards
rc8rsracer 1 year ago
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." -Ronald Reagan
The reason it takes so long to build a nuclear power plant, is because of all of the regulations the government puts on them!
"An aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted."
In other words, an insane tax on these energy companies if they go over that amount.. A.K.A "Cap and Trade".. Which would be the final fork in our American economy
PeteBacca 1 year ago 4
@PeteBacca Great comment
PivotB3stZ 1 year ago
Nuclear power is safe... But not 100%.
Lulzman69 1 year ago
yucca mountain was being planned at this time, it wasn't ready but nuclear power plants have enough protection and space to safely keep the waste until its ready in 2017. theres been so many advancements in nuclear power since the last plant was built that nuclear power is extremely cost effective.
volbia12 1 year ago
Chernobyl anyone?
skinnyJEANking2 1 year ago
@skinnyJEANking2 you do realize how long ago that was, dont you? I suppose you think we learned absolutely nothing from Chernobyl. You need to brush up on your facts about Nuclear Power before you start spouting off comments like that.
neemguy81 1 year ago
@neemguy81 LMAO! What facts? I just made a statement of an event that happened. I did not even go into detail. Before you go spouting off at others comments, maybe you should know what you're talking about.
skinnyJEANking2 1 year ago
@skinnyJEANking2 Well i apologize then if you did not mean to discredit the industry by citing an event which happened in 1986. I think you should be a little more descriptive in your comments. The tone that you took was that of someone who was ignorant of the events that actually happened and the resulting actions in the industry that took place because this disaster took place. Believe it or not, I do know a great deal about what I am talking about. MSG me if you want to know more.
neemguy81 1 year ago
@skinnyJEANking2 Chernobyl was shitty to 1980 Soviet Standards dude.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@skinnyJEANking2 that was a water meter malfunction not a common occourance
rc8rsracer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
global warming = hoax
Firework219 1 year ago
@Firework219 no it isn't
bbphnix 1 year ago
@bbphnix
yes it is, look it up
Firework219 1 year ago
I actually liked clinton's ideas...I mean more than the others...
bbphnix 1 year ago
I love Obama.
Mrbosnia12 1 year ago
Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors, Thorium reactors. . .
End the plutonium uranium cycle for the military industrial complex. It was always about the weaponizing of nuclear energy.
biped19 1 year ago
Also, presumably, a heavy-water, pebble-bed, "breeder" nuclear reactor would defeat most of the anti-nuke arguments. It is physically impossible for such a reactor to melt down, the plutonium waste can be recycled, meaning no new uranium will have to be mined. What little waste cannot be recycled can be disposed of in those insanely strong containers they intend to transport them in.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
"There has not been a new nuclear powerplant built in decades in this country"... right, so I suppose our new carriers and submarines run on people pedaling bicycles. "We still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste"... said carriers and subs must also have black holes built into them that aren't safe for the public. As for liquefying coal, it's not "another" carbon-based fuel, it turns into oil, yes, regular oil, for gasoline.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
Nuclear power is neccessary and eventually will be the remaining answer to the power situation.
Gunner21101 1 year ago
Nuclear power is great costly but enviromental
nukesvids 1 year ago
None of these candidate know much if anything about nuclear power.
MrWagman11 1 year ago 27
@MrWagman11 You are an idiot. And the people who gave you + votes are just as fucking stupid,He explained perfectly why nuclear energy is a bad idea or in other terms a fucking failure.
AntiChristClub 1 year ago
@AntiChristClub No he didn't. The reason the costs are so astronomical is because of all the hoops you have to jumo through to build one. There are tons of regulations enviromental agencies placed on nuclear energy and even after those regs are met people will still protest the building of a nuclear facility and cause massive delays in construction.
TheCommentifyer 1 year ago
@TheCommentifyer Sigh...Could we come to a agreement that NUCLEAR power is bad at least?
AntiChristClub 1 year ago
@MrWagman11 , american technologie pwning gamma radiation. Sure, its jsut that no material known to earth can withstand this kind of radiation for a long term. But hey if this woman thinks shw knows better who am i to talk. :O
Bakamatsuu 1 year ago
Let's see here. We're spending millions and billions on the war in Afghanistan and sending millions and billions of dollars to corrupt regimes around the world. How 'bout we quit giving aid to foreign governments and also bring our troops home from afghanistan. Use that money to put toward building nuclear reactors and give our soldiers an option of going to work to help build the plants.
MrWagman11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show