There real reason commercial nuclear power does not work for the US is because Henry Ford never made reactors. Every commercial reactor in the US is a singular stand alone design. Development of a standard reactor design might streamline the permit path. It would also allow for the sharing of personnel, parts, tech manuals, training, and response teams. Reducing cost and maximizing safety. Perhaps allowing the Oil industry to own our nuclear industry is a problem. Tav Pierce Nuc MM SSN 705
My issue with nuclear power is that I simply don't trust private companies not to give us another Chernobyl or Fukushima. I look at the likes of Shell and the Deepwater oil spill and I see human error undermining all the safeguards. And I've yet to hear of a city being evacuated because of an accident at a wind farm...
Awesome video. Unfortunately it's going to take a very long time to undo the damage the scaremongers have caused. If these people only knew how much radioactive material is released into the air from a coal plant, or just how toxic the chemicals and byproducts of solar panel manufacturing are. Nuclear power is clean, cheap and abundant. More recycling would happen in general if it weren't for the energy expense to do it, and we've had the solution to that all along.
What freakin' good is all this electricity (from coal or nuclear) ANYWAY when we don't have affordable electric cars, boats, and airplanes yet to be powered by it?
What freakin' good is all this electricity (from coal or nuclear) ANYWAY when we don't have affordable electric cars, boats, and airplanes yet to be powered by it?
Your entire life would be powered by a chunk of thorium the size of less than a golfball !
It would not leave even a hundredth of the wastes this guy thinks is acceptable (and that waste decays about 500 times faster!), Does not need Yucca either!
The solution is 1,000,000 times as energy dense as coal, has no pressurized core, does not require solid nuclear fuel and thus does lot create long lived actinides.
This solution is meltdown proof, has ample fuel supplies (in the US too) and has already been demonstrated in the 1960's. It was not the way to make weapons so, unfortunately, the world passed it by. Now, there is every reason to drop all others and develop this (almost) perfect unlimited energy solution!
Everyone fukushima first of all in its design and location was a risk to the safety of the area. The plant actually due to its age should of been decomishioned. By ignoring conventional safety codes fukushima plant was a risk. Nuclear energy done properly is one of the safest forms of energy. Look at other energy sources there have been several natural gass explosions and when it comes to oil we only need to say gulf of mexico. N E is clean eficient and produces like thousand times more energy
As a person who studies Physics in higher education, the amount of misconceptions and sometimes just outright ignorance of science portrayed by the anti-nuclear folk around these comment boxes really does amaze me. I now truly feel what it's like to be an evolutionary biologist faced with a storm of creationist idiocy :(
this guy is pure BULL SHIT... They said the same thing 60 years ago about neutralizing nuclear waste & they have done JACK SHIT to this end
```
Get it straight people ~
```
THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN
```
AND that bullshit story about one football field of wastes...why doesn't this scumbag tell you the 64 sites in america alone take up thousands of square miles and must be maintained for 1000s of years
```
& every day must be protected from terrorists 4 all time
Nobody ever mentions weaponization of expended Uranium fuel rods in these videos. The US is doing a fine job of dumping its depleted uranium into Afghanistan and Iraq in the form of armor piercing munitions. Yay for recycling!
Anyway, even as a kid I wondered if this were possible, to render these by-products as inactive as possible. I've read that if you could perform actual transmutation that it would be tantamount to converting lead into gold. People have said that through electrolysis or some other means that transmutation would only happen on a limited scale and uneconomical. Now I see that the CFNS hybrid and Wilfred van Rooijen's research with the GFR design could finally solve this problem and more.
Nuclear waste has no environmental impact. It's not dumped in rain forests. Store it a mile underground in rock. It is absolutely not a scientific or environmental issue.
Nice, calling people ignorant/dumb without actually making a refutation.
Nuclear waste is vitrified and stored away from sentient life. Coal doesn't generate waste because it's dispersed into the atmosphere. They would LOVE to be able to capture waste (what do you think carbon sequestration does?). I cannot recall of anyone getting seriously injured from nuclear waste in the last 30 years. The nuclear waste "issue" is completely political.
@ballersack i have been told that the people who mine and process it get alot of cancer. infact i turn down a haul truck job becuase there is a increased chance of cancer.
People aren't used in mines, they use leeching (chemicals pumped into the earth). In any event, uranium is found in practically everything, especially cement.
Regarding Japan, I hear much more about the terror surrounding the reactor(s) than the actual thousands of people that have died from buildings collapsing.
@ballersack just in from japan, "The high radioactivity in the water was likely to slow efforts to stabilise the reactors, (after three workers were contaminated when they sloshed through the puddle in the reactor three turbine room Thursday)." sounds like happy fun!
Yeah that sounds like the scariest, most awful thing in the world, ever. I mean, sure, technically their injuries amount to sunburns, but its way more scary cuz dey wuz in daa wadurr. durrrrrr
12,000 people dead from an earthquake+tsunami? BORING.
Now, a reactor malfunctioning during this, thats really scary. Let's talk about it for months.
@ballersack cant avoid a tsunami, but we can avoid nuclear meltdowns with contamination to the surrounding environment for decades to come. we all know these ppl lie to our faces about how severe this is. when it was first reported they where saying it was a minor malfunction. those 12,000 dont have to worry about there jobs or where they will live any more. its the people that are alive, homeless and without a future because there land is radiated that we should worry about.
The Japanese authorities have been extremely truthful and careful with their words. Get off of the whole "big bad evil lying corporations" band wagon and read a fucking science book.
"Now, a reactor malfunctioning during this, thats really scary. Let's talk about it for months."
Make that several reactors - And please understand that radioactive contamination has the capacity to alter the very fabric of life for entire generations of humanity. It decreases fertility while increasing the number of monstrous birth defects and kills by SILENTLY increasing the incidence of death via cancer
I mean, sure, they are all at the same power plant, within walking distance, but who fucking cares about facts??
FYI, Chernobyl, the worlds most deadliest place ever, has a thriving ecology where endangered species have come back in high numbers.
There is no scientific basis for the claim that radiation increases the risk of cancer at low doses (i.e. the miniscule dose at fukushima). If you want to call that "SILENT", fine.
You said that not me and then knocked down YOUR OWN ARGUMENT with the next sentence
"sure, they are all at the same power plant, within walking distance, but who ****** cares about facts??" - this is called a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT and it is DISHONEST
"Chernobyl, the worlds most deadliest place ever, has a thriving ecology where endangered species have come back in high numbers."
So tell me why humans are not living there now?
Despite your ignorance and completely unsubstantiated pronouncement that everything is A-OK, Actual studies done on birds, rodents and fish have found much higher than normal mutation rates.
But who cares about that? ballersack the anonymous YouTube clown knows WAY more than those stupid scientists
Humans don't live in Chernobyl because ignoramuses like yourself keep perpetuating false information, which scare people into making unnecessary sacrifices.
I'd love to see your proof of the higher than normal mutation rates. Lol, even on the humble wikipedia site it states: "No scientifically documented cases of mutant deformity in animals of the zone were reported other than partial albinism in swallows[2][3] and insect mutations."
"There is no scientific basis for the claim that radiation increases the risk of cancer at low doses (i.e. the miniscule dose at fukushima)."
Well, except for the evidence that cancers DID increase after Chernobyl - WAY THE HELL OVER IN SWEDEN
Yet you have the balls to claim, without offering any kind of credentials or for that matter any proof whatsoever, that there will be no additional cancers around Fukushima as a result of this
@ballersack well if its all ok, why don't you go live out the front gate of fukushima and eat some fish from their waters as well, u do this and i will believe its all ok then
@TheFluffyDuck sorry? LOL... that comment was before fukushima accident. And, for the record, this is bullshit, the power plants older than 30 years are leaking nuclear shit into atmosphere long time ago, and noone seems to be aware of that. The reason of this campains in favour of nuclear plants is profit, nuclear power is cheaper for the producers, but it's poison for us, the ordinary people who live close to these time-bombs nuclear facilities.
@quierover123 Look up thorium breeder reactors/liquid fluoride reactors. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Give me a source that shows nuclear sites in America leaking radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere when running normally while you're at it.
Well Fluffy, If we all would be living a Hippie lifestyle since, meaning a more environmental conscious one, using less energy, producing and consuming less unnecessary products and waste, eating less meat, watching less TV and leaving our car in the garage once in a while we would have less of the problems we have to face today, including Global Warming. It's hard to imagine for the typical US american who has learned that man has to dominate nature instead of being part of it.
@gunnargerhardt we used to live like that, only problem was a lifespan of about 40 years regardless of lifestyle or wealth. Nature is a cruel motherfucker, ever heard of something called the black plague? Killed 60% of Europe's population and could've been prevented withhygeine from modern technology. I'm not saying we shouldn't be more conscious, but it was that natural impulse of humans to dominate nature that got us where we are today
@gunnargerhardt also don't use the term US American, if you want to be a judgemental prick just say American, US American makes you sound redundant and ignorant, but I guess sounding ignorant isn't on your list of concerns.
@gunnargerhardt BRAVO! Plus, meat should be outlawed, anyway, even if it did nothing to increase global warming and waste cropland to feed cattle, because it is still MURDER!
@mphello How are you going to solve the problem of the entire world's population developing a lack of nutrients? Meat is the only possible source of enough ferrum to sustain a human being, for one example.
Besides, you can't eat grass. Cows can eat grass, after which you eat the cows.
Ever been on a farm? Sorry, stupid question, veganazis don't visit farms. Anyway, if you had, you'd find animals that are happy to just hang about eating things. What's wrong with offering animals a happy life?
2012 Notice on the debate last night when NV asked if nuclear waste was going to be dumped on them?
Perry and Romney saw it as a matter of PAYING NV ENOUGH MONEY and only Ron Paul said IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL STATES RIGHT ISSUE! To me, it showed how those 3 politicians' minds work.
What do you think? Does MONEY solve everything, or does the CONSTITUTION?
Well Fluffy, If we all would be living a Hippie lifestyle since, meaning a more environmental conscious one, using less energy, producing and consuming less unnecessary products and waste, eating less meat, watching less TV and leaving our car in the garage once in a while we would have less of the problems we have to face today, including Global Warming. It's hard to imagine for the typical US american who has
learned that man has to dominate nature instead of being part of it.
Well Fluffy, If we all would be living a Hippie lifestyle since, meaning a more environmental conscious one, using less energy, producing and consuming less unnecessary products and waste, eating less meat, watching less TV and leaving our car in the garage once in a while we would have less of the problems we have to face today, including Global Warming. It's hard to imagine for the typical US american who has learned that man has to dominate nature instead of being part of it.
@TheFluffyDuck No! Some were probably, at one time, a hippie but, have turned into capitalist pigs now. Don't think they were ever hippies at heart. Being a hippie in the 70's was a trendy thing for some back then. Just like being a gangster wanna be's. They are not gonna become gangsters in a few years but, probably become what ever is trendy in thenear future. Most people are self absorbed now adays.
@jpp678 Well its got to do with decay rates, that fuel then turns into other elements. However when a certian percentage of the fuel( 5%) is no longer enriched you cant sustain the reaction as well. ITs just keeping it at peak efficancy.
But look at the bright side. you can recycle 95% of your waste. Name another energy source you can recycle that much?
@jpp678 Because we don't use the breeder reactors...in the US, the conventional reactors waste 95% of the fuel; whereas in France, using breeder reactors, they waste less than 5%. Been doing it for decades in France, and the US is just a bunch of mamby pambies.
There is no magic bullet or fountain of youth. If you folks want to turn your lights on then there will be negative consequences. The amount of energy needed to fuel the needs of American CANNOT be fullfilled with wind and solar alone. An amalgamation of Nuclear, Coal, Wind, Natural Gas and Solar is the way to go. I don`t think Wind or Solar is anywhere close to replacing even 20 percent of our energy needs.
@Groundonrage Not really, First of all the waste volume can be recycled alot almost 95%. Secondly over their entire life time Nuclear power is the next cheapest to coal. Wind and solar cost WAY WAY more.
They have found a bacteria that thrives off of radioactive rock and sulpher 2 miles underground in Africa . I wonder if this same bacteria would eat away at the spent fuel rods if the bacteria colony can be sustained in the deep geological suppository !
my gosh! the media has blinded me. I thought nuclear energy was bad! i always thoguht nuclear=radiation=cancer and mass destruction....I'm really happy now :D..yay
All the scare about nuclear power is exactly that, stupid uninformed fear. Reactors are safe, hell, even Three Mile Island accident even with multiple failures of human and safety elements the radioactives were contained to the reactor building itself and never released to the outside. Reactors these days are even safer. The idiot enviro nuts are impeding what is the most safest and most effective and efficient means of power generation, idiot enviro nuts should be looking at coal.
There are about 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium in the oceans. This is nearly 1000 times more than the terrestrial uranium sources in the western world...
Nuclear power is the only way to meet our growing energy needs.
Here is a fun fact: To produce equal amounts of energy, the use of 1 mass unit of uranium requires roughly 16,500 mass units of coal. (This can be found by comparing total energy produced, per unit mass, for each energy source, in the US, in 2008. Use the EIA website if you are studious.)
Spent nuclear fuel stays in the containers they are put in, and coal gets placed into our atmosphere.
Assertion: Nuclear power has relatively ZERO emissions when compared to coal power.
@Phillip095 No! nuclear fission(one step in the process)has no emission, almost all the other 13 steps involved in nuclear power production emit green house gases. And the question is not coal vs. nuclear. We have to take into account ALL other alternative energies. Wind and solar in the long run are becoming cheaper as nuclear power plant construction is only getting more expensive.This can be verified by Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
w.r.t. the amount of nuclear wastes reported by various agencies: The source I referenced (EIA) accounts for all spent nuclear fuel discharges from all US nuclear power reactors which have operated from 1968 to 2002. The EIA is credible.
w.r.t. the mining operations to find U: Most of the techniques used to mine U are also used to mine coal, and so the environmental impacts of mining U are publicly acceptable because the public accepts coal mining.
Well his math really sucks. He says we would only have 2 lb's of nuclear waste per person over a 70 yr span...wtf is he talking about? The U.S. already produces MILLIONS of tons of radioactive waste and obviously we don't get all our power from Nuclear energy. This guy is a bigger liar/idiot than Regan. Nuclear maybe an option, but we shouldn't, "put all our eggs in 1 basket", we have NO idea what the long term effects of underground storage are. Stupid stupid stupid.
@devrobbiz Wow you are incredibly stupid. Of course we don't get all of out power from Nuclear energy, he said that for a person from birth to age 70, there would be about 2 pounds of waste. Which is way less waste then burning fossil fuels such as: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The waste from nuclear power plant is much safer. If you would listen to what he said, from 55 years of commercial use of uranium rods, it could fit in a Football field only up to the goal post.
@visini14 wow you are incredibly stupid, did you even read what I wrote? WTF, the waste from nuclear power plant is much safer? R u serious? What are you smoking! Then why don't they do that now then? American Nuclear Power plants currently produces MILLIONS of tons of waste, a 1000x his argument of "2 lb's per person per lifetime", if we got 100% of power from Nuclear it would generate even more waste. He isn't telling us something or is lying, it obviously doesn't add up.
@devrobbiz, I recommend the "US Energy Information Administration" website for information about nuclear waste. Search google to find it.
Click the "Nuclear" section, and then click the link "Spent Fuel".
You will see that the total amount of "spent fuel" is about 47,023,400 kg of waste, equal to 103,710,000 lbm. This is in the time period of 1968 to 2002. Per the 310,000,000 people in the US, this turns out to be 0.335 lbm per person.
@Phillip095 Thanks for the reply. This is a tough issue to have an accurate debate on. Estimates on actual radioactive waste generated vary so wildly from one scientist/environmentalist/agency to the next. Some only count waste that had to be stored at a separate location from the plant, some include low level waste while others don't, and so many people forget the environmental impact of mining a million tons of ore to get a small amount of uranium...
@devrobbiz, Of course, there is spent fuel not accounted for in the tables given by the EIA, and other nuclear wastes also.
There are medical applications which produce wastes, nuclear weapons which have been dismantled, and others which I can not think of now. I do not know how to find the mass of waste these other sources contribute. These speaker may have accounted for these other sources, which may explain where he got the 2 lbm estimate from.
@Phillip095 ... which then has to be enriched into a usable fuel, all of which (including the nuclear plant itself) use an unprecedented amount of water, which is probably a more valuable commodity than energy. I don't put much faith into afew things: 1) were storing high level waste (which will take millions of years to become safe) underground in containers that won't last as long, or storing it in geological deposits that could shift/change in the future.
I have not heard of water consumption being a problem of U enrichment. Could you please show me a reference so that I can read about water consumption issues? Thanks.
@devrobbiz, this is the third of three replies to you.
Nuclear science a well understood, and so the influences nuclear wastes have on the Earth can be determined. The same can not be said for coal power, which currently is causing global warming worries.
I would like to suggest that I do not know everything about nuclear wastes, so I may be overlooking something significant w.r.t. waste disposal. This is a disclaimer.
@devrobbiz Rofl, are you serious? Millions of tons? What are you smoking? Wheres your source? You listening to Green Peace and other enviro nuts that are blowing things WAY out of proportion?
The US is fucking dumb. we sort of stumbled upon an amazing brilliant work of science. As with all developments in science, with great power comes a great new way to kill people. This led to the scarring a society that knows nothing about "nuclear" being all top secret and all. Thus nuclear is bad because everyone says so. How can u blame them the developments made in the last 100 years have been so steep its a miracle so many people even know the word.
@shk9664 I agree, nuclear energy is clean and can generate much more power than wind and solar, you can thank the enviro-nazis for the fear campaign, that did a brilliant job in misinforming the populace.
@dermotk5 Breeding animals is evil because it confines animals in cages for their entire lives. THAT is the MAIN problem with breeding animals. NOBODY - especially anti-environmental conservatives - had dare better complain against ANY "loss of freedom" until they FIRST release - or support Peta or Last Chance for Animals - all animals from factory farms. Only THEN should dare complain that they are being "oppressed".
That guy is Corporate Scum that should be executed for crimes against humanity....Just another Nazi New World Order Scum in a nice expensive outfit....This guy isn't even human in my opinion he is a corporate slug that should be drowned in a pile of salt...
Why is advocating execution extreme for someone who is pushing an agenda that will poison the planet for 1,000's of years with radioactive waste?I'd let him go through the trial process first before execution to make it a legal process.Believe me someday in the future or near future criminals like him will go on trial and they will face the death penalty just like the Nazi Scum at The Nuremberg Trials.Half the scientists that invented Nuclear Power were Nazis War Criminals from Germany
Quick EVIDENCE challenge for all those who casually say that "Renewable energies can supply our current needs". How many square miles of (weather dependant) solar panels would it take to supply a small steel mill and how big would the nessesary batteries be? How much energy and resources would be required to build them? If you can answer that with a straight face you get nominated for an Oscar.
Everything this guy says may be true. But, like all politicians (yes - he is a politician, because he has an agenda) he refuses to incorporate ALL variables. The PRIME variable being: human selfishness & greed. Given even more power than they already have, the nuclear power industry will fight against every single law and regulation that protects the environment and nuclear workers. ALL US nuclear plants will end up being Chernobyls.
You know Chernobyl was a steam accident, right? And only happened because the workers intentionally turned off the safety systems to perform an unnecessary test.
Yes. I know. I've seen the documentaries. So? Did the Russians know BEFORE the accident that that's the way the accident would happen? It's not just the known sequence of events that make nuclear power not worth the cost. It's the unknown. The massive complexity. The fact that such massive safety precautions need to be taken in the first place, thereby forcing us (at least in the US, France, etc) to overcompensate - that make nuclear to expensive - even just financially, even if ..
..there were never another nuclear accident again. Compared to wind, solar, wave, geothermal - which are available and would be easily satisfy our needs if they were given fair support, the same financial & infrastructure backing that oil, coal and nuclear have - there is no logical reason to do nuclear.
Problem is, wind, geothermal, and wave can't be set up everywhere, and solar needs more development to become practical. Although I agree, building a plant is VERY expensive, but afterwords produces cheap electricity.
Actually, no. Solar is ready to go everywhere. It just needs the investment and the commitment. In New Jersey, I already give my money to solar and wind farms for electricity.
Totally insane to commit to nuclear when its most dangerous and expensive problem has not been solved yet.
Uh, well, let's see. Nobody has solved the waste disposal problem yet, and nuclear power plants cost several billion dollars each, resulting in very centralized power. Solar power and wind can be much less centralized. When they fail, all you need to do is replace a solar panel or a blade. You don't get Chernobyl-level disasters or leaks which could contaminate thousands.
Fusion power is the only form of power that can replace fossil fuels. It's the only thing that can fix the fuel crisis. Solar and wind are not for large-scale
You DO realize how ridiculous it is to call something that DID happen, like Chernobyl, "impossible", right?
Only a combo of wind, solar, wave, and geothermal (and pyrolysis - check out Pryogenesis's website) as well as outlawing breeding animals for food, and lowered consumption in general, will solve the energy and environmental crises.
To be fair, all THESE programs need and DESERVE as much "tweaking" - i.e. massive subsidies - that coal, nuclear, oil get.
@duck24x Your right...I'm sure that the possibility of you dams breaking and your solar panels catching flame or your geothermal reactor exploding should not be ruled out either though and don't tell me well it wouldn't be as bad.
Are you really that afraid of nuclear power? I mean we have plants all over the world. Heck some countries depend on nuclear for 80% of their power,
I DO agree that we should cut back on animal breeding for food, some farms these days are ridiculous.
When those nuclear plants all over the world decay - which they will, some day - they'll leak toxic radioactive waste. (Toxic non-radioactive waste can at least be pyrolyzed. Google Canadian company Pyrogenesis.)
When solar panels and wind turbines break down, they don't spew toxins all over (at least not toxins that can't be converted).
@duck24x so then people who have access to lots of space can use wind and solar and everyone else can go to hell?
I'm not arguing that wind and solar are safer..never have, but they are not and ever will be practical on a nation wide level..well maybe solar after another century of study.
Why shun a power we have now and if we are responsible with it it's not dangerous.
You are an idiot, you obviously don't know about solar energy or wind power or the fact the Nuclear Power/Nuclear Weapons Program in the U$A was guided by Nazi War Criminals that the U$ Government gave shelter to after the war. It is a well known fact of history. The World is Fucked Up these days and Nuclear Power Plants are perfect targets for terrorists or nutcases to fly airplanes into, think about it, do you want a scenario like Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island again?
@duck24x Eh? Taxes? Republicans? What does that have to do with this conversation?
My basis on wind power not being practical is based on the fact that it can only really be used in certain parts of the world. Solar I admitted with time could be the answer to our problems but at this time it's not really practical to build acres of solar panels to produce a fraction of what a basic Mohave factory produces.
Wind, geothermal, wave do not need to be set up everywhere. That's what an electric grid is for. Nuclear power plants, and coal plants cannot be set up everywhere, either. But, in the coal/nuclear case, it's because of their environmental hazard.
--@yugai15---is a typical 23 year old that is brain washed and has been spoon fed corporate crap his whole life and takes the MSNBC approach to knowledge, he didn't grow up when the news still had actual news, before all the corporations bought out the newspapers and the media.....All his "Favorites" on youtube are anime and video game related, so you can't really expect too much...At least this new generation knows how to play video games and watch cartoons....
Because I think Nuclear power is a good thing I must be brainwashed eh? Really? Seems there are plenty of people far more educated than you or me who think the same thing.
I suppose because I think modern Feng Shui is bull that I'm brain washed as well right?
By the by what do my favorites have to do with my intelligence?
Well if someone Crashes a Plane into a Nuclear Power Plant I hope it's in your region.Then we can argue the Nuclear Issue when you are Enlightened and Irradiated.You obviously are buying into all the Pro-Nuclear Crap so yeah You Are a Pro-Government Pro-Industry Brainwashed Zombie in my opinion.Education has nothing to do with intelligence, a 12-year old kid can tell you Nuclear Power Is Bullshit, with age doesn't always follow wisdom...Especially when there is a big Pay Off...
@streetfightspdx you want to know what stupidity is? that you seem to think that it is plausible to create enough power for the planet with less environmental damage than nuclear for a smaller cost. you are the definition of brainwashed. so dont come crying to me when all your lights go out in a few years time because you thought nuclear was a bad idea. read into its safety record...youre no doubt basing your opinions on chernobyl and three mile island
Go sell your opinion to someone else retard...."A smaller cost"???? you are funny....Stop arguing economics Fuckface.....I've lived homeless on purpose for years of my life so I'll survive without electricity if i have to, it's not that hard unless you live in a really cold climate..And yeah I'm basing my opinion on the past nuclear disaster and the future too, they make great targets for terrorists to fly planes into...Don't cry when it happens, hopefully near you and not me..
so what youre saying is that this will all go away if we go and live homeless for fun? just like you? and youre calling me a retard? and youre basing your opinion on things that havent and will never happen? youre just a bit silly. and as for planes....a terrorist could do more damage hitting into a big skyscraper so why would they waste an opportunity on some out of town nuclear power plant? it wouldnt meltdown or anything. do some research and think before you comment next time
Obviously I have electricity since I'm posting comments on youtube....So what if I've traveled the country and lived like a nomad before without electricity....I had some of the best times of my life traveling around...But that's not the issue...It doesn't take a plane to cause a meltdown..Take a look at the history of nuclear power: 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, plus many other smaller disasters...Solar Power and Wind and the Ocean is a much better source of energy....
@streetfightspdx The problems with the alternatives are that they are not reliable, not constants, and not available in all area's. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal are the main choices for base load power supply. Hydro and geothermal are both limited and based on location. The fossil and hydro plants can be put anywhere.
@streetfightspdx Chernobyl was the only disaster that actually caused major problems and such a disaster is unlikely to ever repeat itself with modern day safety measures the Russians didn't use back then. In fact some of the modern designs, even a saboteur attempting to purposely cause a meltdown would be hard pressed to cause major damage.
@streetfightspdx You don't have to buy it from me, you could actually research the incidents. In an actual nuclear meltdown the real danger is misplaced public fear, not the 4 millirems of radiation.
@streetfightspdx "3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, plus many other smaller disasters" That's it? What are the other "small" disasters? Because in perspective all the incident that happned in the history of nuclear energy are Highly minute. I think the only two incidents that really happened are the two you mentioned. Chernobyl was a disaster that happened because of those idiots overriding a ton of safety precautions to conduct an unnecessary test. And poor design.
@streetfightspdx And three mile island didn't even have any casualties at all. The newer reactors are now even more safer and reliable than ever. Almost virtually melt down proof.
You're 24 you can't tell me anything about nuclear power, I was, go study and do some research before you post on youtube. You weren't even alive when 3-Mile Island happened, my friends family had to move from that area and most of them got Cancer. If you're 24 then you were probably still in your Mom's stomach when Chernobyl happened. Go drink some more Government Kool-Aid!!!
@streetfightspdx "You're 24 you can't tell me anything about nuclear power"
Nice way to attempt censorship. I can tell you all i want about nuclear power especially towards a FACT that in it's entire history of operation. The nuclear industry has had far fewer casualties than just the oil industry alone. And this doesn't even account for other countries mining for coal and other resources like china. After fuel rods are spent over 95% of it is recycled and reused.
I'm not trying to censor anyone, especially not the mainstream opinions like yours, I'm just trying to change your stupidity level, If you want to believe nuclear power is safe I'm not going to lose any sleep at night knowing you are a stupid little 24-year old sheep. You accept Lie$ as Truth, by the well paid-off so-called "Experts." I don't give a fuck about you being a stupid little Government Kool-Aid Drinking Idiot, go drink some Plutonium and suck on that experts dick!
@streetfightspdx "I'm just trying to change your stupidity level," So i could have an anti-human mind like greenpeace? Even their co founder left and stated that nuclear energy was the way to go. He is to an environmentalist. France has over 80% of it's power coming from nuclear. Where are the casualties there? And how many plants operate daily without any incident? That's right ALL OF THEM.
Blah Blah Blah Blah....I'd rather listen to a psychotic crackhead mumbling to himself in a mental ward. Your mainstream stupidity is boring as it comes, I heard all your arguments and Lie$ and none of them are sinking in.
@streetfightspdx "Blah Blah Blah Blah....I'd rather listen to a psychotic crackhead mumbling to himself in a mental ward" or maybe you'd rather not listen at all and continue on your course of spreading misinformation, myth, and hype the two past accidents that were due to faulty design and had poor safety precautions which are still you know extremely little compared to that giant oil slick that just happened out in the sea. And you think you are older? You sound like a god damn teenager.
You probably work for the Nuclear Industry and get paid to spread Lie$ on Youtube....I'm not a fan of Oil or Coal or any of that bullshit, it's time to switch over to Solar Power, Wind, Water, etc. Hemp can be used for Fuel, Food and Fiber. There are many other alternatives but Government and Industry want things to stay the same and as long as your opinion is the mainstream there will be more Oil Disasters, Nuclear Disasters, etc..
@streetfightspdx "You probably work for the Nuclear Industry and get paid to spread Lie$ on Youtube." Hah! how many fucking times have I heard this bullshit from people like you? Actually three times now and all said from different companies. I work for Target, And you are a complete skeptic. At least try to find real evidence to counter my claims. Instead of picking at me, That's just plain trollish.
hopefully you just really work at Target and not for the nuclear industry. Is it that far fetched to think the nuclear industry would have people posting on youtube about the benefits of nuclear power, not really, they have lobbyists in DC, so why not post up some on youtube, there are millions of people on youtube so it is not far fetched at all...
I'm glad your just a sheep and not working for the nuclear industry but you should consider a new job working for the nuclear industry promoting the benefits of nuclear power, since I'm sure Target doesn't pay you much.
@streetfightspdx "If you want to believe nuclear power is safe I'm not going to lose any sleep at night knowing you are a stupid little 24-year old sheep." Little 24 year old with more intelligence than people like you that buy into common stereotypes and myths. The sun will be more likely to give out cancer than your local nuclear plant. If you'd at least know how the industry is run. then you'd know a smidgen about the industry it's self.
There is so many nuclear accidents that have happened [many have been censored by the military, but there is lots of uncensored info]. There is a ton of nuclear waste that is on the black market when a Dirty Bomb goes off somewhere because of all the loose security the Nuclear Industry won't be seen in the same light. Most of the incidents of people trying to create dirty bombs and buy nuclear material have been busted by sheer luck, but luck only lasts so long.
@streetfightspdx "There is so many nuclear accidents that have happened" As in power plants? If it is a safety risk towards the locals the government isn't going to hide anything. This isn't like your local wallmart or target super corporation. They don't do cover ups unless it is something related to weapons. There is a large marginal difference between weapons grade plutonium and the type that is used in reactors.
@streetfightspdx The remaining 5% of that fuel has a half-life of about 300 years. Where it can be safely buried in a trench where the earth will seep it into it's mantle. Most people like you that are against nuclear energy are highly misinformed. Especially by those Greenpeace faggots. Did you even know that there is radiation emitted by nature and by the sun that has a higher concentration than that found on the outside of most nuclear powerplants?
Shut the fuck up you little Government Kool-Aid Drinking Idiot...You are a little 24-year old faggot. You are a Dunce that grew up into a full blown Idiot....You are the misinformed trying to pretend like you know everything, typical know it all 24-year old behavior.
@streetfightspdx "my friends family had to move from that area and most of them got Cancer." Cancer? Hahaha cancer is everywhere. Blame it on the reactor will you. I know plenty of people who have cancer as well. There is a difference between cancer and radiation sickness. And usually they'd have to have a VERY high dose in order for it to lead to that. The recorded amount wasn't sufficient enough to cause such a disease. you get more from an X ray by a doctor.
@streetfightspdx "ou can't change History Little Boy...People got Cancer at 3-Mile Island, look it up, then go jump off a cliff like a good little Lemming. " End of argument. You ass lost. AND IT'S NOT CANCER YOU FUCKING TWAT! it's called radiation sickness. Cancer is everywhere. Can you at least state to me what cancer is? and how it is caused since you seem to know everything.
Within days of the 3-Mile Island Disaster 140,000 people left the area. I must have imagined all that. Have you ever heard of Thyroid Cancer? or is all Cancer just called "radiation sickness" in the language of the pea brained idiots like you? Unlike you I don't claim to know everything but I'm not drinking the Government Plutonium-Laced Kool-Aid like you. The accident at the plant occurred 12 days after the release of the movie The China Syndrome, maybe it was a movie promotion.
@streetfightspdx "Within days of the 3-Mile Island Disaster 140,000 people left the area." Mostly from panic and fear like you were promoting. There 9 thousand residents in middle town. And on top of that there are still 251,798 Residents in dolphin county. What are you trying to prove? After WWII and the nuking of the two cities. People thought they would never recover and that it would be a radioactive area for a long tome. Look at them. The city thrived right after the war.
@streetfightspdx "Have you ever heard of Thyroid Cancer? " Yes and have you ever heard that it can actually be treated with radioactive iodine?
"The accident at the plant occurred 12 days after the release of the movie The China Syndrome," Maybe that's the problem with you. You should read books or articles instead of looking at fear promoting, and media driven documentaries.
@streetfightspdx I think most of you are to scared about nonsense and need to look at the facts and the scope about our future energy. Wind and solar are highly inefficient and to costly to feed out grid. And you like everyone else keep pointing at chernobyl. For Christ sake that was a reactor that had at least 7 safety procedures overridden to conduct an unnecessary test. It also had faulty design.
Does Cancer and Nuclear Waste-Related deaths count? They were guarding Potatoes better than Plutonium and nuclear material during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Check out the ViceTV [VBSdotCom] and check out the clip about buying a Dirty Bomb in Bulgaria.
@streetfightspdx "Does Cancer and Nuclear Waste-Related deaths count?
There weren't any in three mile island
"The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
@streetfightspdx planes can't penetrate through 9 inches of steel that surrounds the core, if the heat of the core can't melt the barrier a plane crush would be like fly hitting a windshield
Did you ever stop to think that there is a ton of Money for Politicians/Corporate Scum who Praise Nuclear Power? You wrote me saying:"If it was such a bad thing then other world super powers would not be using it for the last 30 maybe 40 years".Are you kidding me? You actually think the Government/Super Powers of the World are there to protect you and do what's best for Mankind and the Planet? Go back to playing video games because you're obviously a lost cause if you think like that.
Only a combo of wind, solar, wave, and geothermal (and pyrolysis - check out Pryogenesis's website) as well as outlawing breeding animals for food, and lowered consumption in general, will solve the energy and environmental crises.
"Given even more power than they already have, the nuclear power industry will fight against every single law and regulation that protects the environment and nuclear workers. ALL US nuclear plants will end up being Chernobyls. "
So let me get this straight - if I'm a self-interested nuclear power corporation, you're telling me that the most competitive, money-making thing to do would be to blow up my own reactors and kill my own workers. Really?
its 130.6 football field with 10 feet high of nuclear waste for every one in the world to each 70years old and have energy useing the coke can idea a coke can is 355mL and there is 3.5315x10^-5 cubic feet(CF) in one mL and a football feel is 360ft by 160ft and 10ft tall that give u 576,000 CF per 10foot high foot ball feid so revie u take (335mL)x(3.5315x10^-5 CF/1mL)x(1 ten foot high football field/576000CF) x (6x10^9 people)=130.6
Yes
shinokiba 1 week ago
so what if our children/ grand children will never see a polar bear, i never got to see a dinosaur but im not crying about it.
coolducky22 3 months ago
@Esoparagon
If you try to dominate nature I wish you good luck holding on to your pee :D
gunnargerhardt 3 months ago
There real reason commercial nuclear power does not work for the US is because Henry Ford never made reactors. Every commercial reactor in the US is a singular stand alone design. Development of a standard reactor design might streamline the permit path. It would also allow for the sharing of personnel, parts, tech manuals, training, and response teams. Reducing cost and maximizing safety. Perhaps allowing the Oil industry to own our nuclear industry is a problem. Tav Pierce Nuc MM SSN 705
tpotstout 5 months ago
My issue with nuclear power is that I simply don't trust private companies not to give us another Chernobyl or Fukushima. I look at the likes of Shell and the Deepwater oil spill and I see human error undermining all the safeguards. And I've yet to hear of a city being evacuated because of an accident at a wind farm...
SteveAstronaut 5 months ago
2lbs*6billion people = 12billion pounds of Radio active liquid now what? well cancer at its best!
Rodrig0med 6 months ago
Awesome video. Unfortunately it's going to take a very long time to undo the damage the scaremongers have caused. If these people only knew how much radioactive material is released into the air from a coal plant, or just how toxic the chemicals and byproducts of solar panel manufacturing are. Nuclear power is clean, cheap and abundant. More recycling would happen in general if it weren't for the energy expense to do it, and we've had the solution to that all along.
drright71 7 months ago 3
What freakin' good is all this electricity (from coal or nuclear) ANYWAY when we don't have affordable electric cars, boats, and airplanes yet to be powered by it?
mphello 7 months ago
What freakin' good is all this electricity (from coal or nuclear) ANYWAY when we don't have affordable electric cars, boats, and airplanes yet to be powered by it?
mphello 7 months ago
Your entire life would be powered by a chunk of thorium the size of less than a golfball !
It would not leave even a hundredth of the wastes this guy thinks is acceptable (and that waste decays about 500 times faster!), Does not need Yucca either!
The Liquid Fluoride THORium reactor
fireofenergy 7 months ago
NO LWR's!
The solution is 1,000,000 times as energy dense as coal, has no pressurized core, does not require solid nuclear fuel and thus does lot create long lived actinides.
This solution is meltdown proof, has ample fuel supplies (in the US too) and has already been demonstrated in the 1960's. It was not the way to make weapons so, unfortunately, the world passed it by. Now, there is every reason to drop all others and develop this (almost) perfect unlimited energy solution!
LFTR and MSR
fireofenergy 7 months ago
Everyone fukushima first of all in its design and location was a risk to the safety of the area. The plant actually due to its age should of been decomishioned. By ignoring conventional safety codes fukushima plant was a risk. Nuclear energy done properly is one of the safest forms of energy. Look at other energy sources there have been several natural gass explosions and when it comes to oil we only need to say gulf of mexico. N E is clean eficient and produces like thousand times more energy
gamesthefreak 8 months ago
As a person who studies Physics in higher education, the amount of misconceptions and sometimes just outright ignorance of science portrayed by the anti-nuclear folk around these comment boxes really does amaze me. I now truly feel what it's like to be an evolutionary biologist faced with a storm of creationist idiocy :(
Hayleyfire929 8 months ago
this guy is pure BULL SHIT... They said the same thing 60 years ago about neutralizing nuclear waste & they have done JACK SHIT to this end
```
Get it straight people ~
```
THEY DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN
```
AND that bullshit story about one football field of wastes...why doesn't this scumbag tell you the 64 sites in america alone take up thousands of square miles and must be maintained for 1000s of years
```
& every day must be protected from terrorists 4 all time
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 8 months ago
I'd prefer to drink the can of Nuke waste than drink the can of Coke :)
ynnebbenny 8 months ago
He says "USA Government approved", as though we should now feel relaxed, and have no more concerns.
ynnebbenny 8 months ago
What a f&*%$*& sellout!
theufosrule 9 months ago
The designs of nuclear power is fine -
- it is men looking to maximize the bottom line, lack of transparency, and human incompetence that make nuclear power inherently dangerous.
Nuclear power fails and will continue to fail because of human failings - not its own.
if fully utilized, geothermal can supply 2000 times the current US demand.
Please Google: MIT: The Future Of Geothermal Energy
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Nobody ever mentions weaponization of expended Uranium fuel rods in these videos. The US is doing a fine job of dumping its depleted uranium into Afghanistan and Iraq in the form of armor piercing munitions. Yay for recycling!
gaxxag 9 months ago
radioactivity is not fun
thomasey2 9 months ago
lol this video is the first search result of "boring alert"
CodyTAGGIN 10 months ago
Anyway, even as a kid I wondered if this were possible, to render these by-products as inactive as possible. I've read that if you could perform actual transmutation that it would be tantamount to converting lead into gold. People have said that through electrolysis or some other means that transmutation would only happen on a limited scale and uneconomical. Now I see that the CFNS hybrid and Wilfred van Rooijen's research with the GFR design could finally solve this problem and more.
stratoleft 10 months ago
Do a little research on LFTR's you might well uncover some surprising facts.
awakeamericanow 10 months ago
Nuclear waste has no environmental impact. It's not dumped in rain forests. Store it a mile underground in rock. It is absolutely not a scientific or environmental issue.
ballersack 11 months ago
@ballersack Obviously you are either ignorant or just dumb. It is stupidity like that that cause the biggest issues.
SolvingLife 11 months ago
@SolvingLife
Nice, calling people ignorant/dumb without actually making a refutation.
Nuclear waste is vitrified and stored away from sentient life. Coal doesn't generate waste because it's dispersed into the atmosphere. They would LOVE to be able to capture waste (what do you think carbon sequestration does?). I cannot recall of anyone getting seriously injured from nuclear waste in the last 30 years. The nuclear waste "issue" is completely political.
ballersack 11 months ago
@ballersack
Really?
Tell that to Japan.
AwakeOnline 10 months ago
@AwakeOnline
How many people have had health problems from radiation due to the reactor?
ZERO
ballersack 10 months ago
@ballersack i have been told that the people who mine and process it get alot of cancer. infact i turn down a haul truck job becuase there is a increased chance of cancer.
Kokoda144 10 months ago
@Kokoda144
People aren't used in mines, they use leeching (chemicals pumped into the earth). In any event, uranium is found in practically everything, especially cement.
Regarding Japan, I hear much more about the terror surrounding the reactor(s) than the actual thousands of people that have died from buildings collapsing.
ballersack 10 months ago
@ballersack just in from japan, "The high radioactivity in the water was likely to slow efforts to stabilise the reactors, (after three workers were contaminated when they sloshed through the puddle in the reactor three turbine room Thursday)." sounds like happy fun!
Kokoda144 10 months ago
@Kokoda144
Yeah that sounds like the scariest, most awful thing in the world, ever. I mean, sure, technically their injuries amount to sunburns, but its way more scary cuz dey wuz in daa wadurr. durrrrrr
12,000 people dead from an earthquake+tsunami? BORING.
Now, a reactor malfunctioning during this, thats really scary. Let's talk about it for months.
ballersack 9 months ago
@ballersack cant avoid a tsunami, but we can avoid nuclear meltdowns with contamination to the surrounding environment for decades to come. we all know these ppl lie to our faces about how severe this is. when it was first reported they where saying it was a minor malfunction. those 12,000 dont have to worry about there jobs or where they will live any more. its the people that are alive, homeless and without a future because there land is radiated that we should worry about.
Kokoda144 9 months ago
Comment removed
ballersack 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kokoda144
The Japanese authorities have been extremely truthful and careful with their words. Get off of the whole "big bad evil lying corporations" band wagon and read a fucking science book.
ballersack 9 months ago
@ballersack
"Now, a reactor malfunctioning during this, thats really scary. Let's talk about it for months."
Make that several reactors - And please understand that radioactive contamination has the capacity to alter the very fabric of life for entire generations of humanity. It decreases fertility while increasing the number of monstrous birth defects and kills by SILENTLY increasing the incidence of death via cancer
Is this what bores you?
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale
Holy shit, several reactors!!!! WE ARE ALL DEAD.
I mean, sure, they are all at the same power plant, within walking distance, but who fucking cares about facts??
FYI, Chernobyl, the worlds most deadliest place ever, has a thriving ecology where endangered species have come back in high numbers.
There is no scientific basis for the claim that radiation increases the risk of cancer at low doses (i.e. the miniscule dose at fukushima). If you want to call that "SILENT", fine.
ballersack 9 months ago
@ballersack
"several reactors!!!! WE ARE ALL DEAD."
You said that not me and then knocked down YOUR OWN ARGUMENT with the next sentence
"sure, they are all at the same power plant, within walking distance, but who ****** cares about facts??" - this is called a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT and it is DISHONEST
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@ballersack
"Chernobyl, the worlds most deadliest place ever, has a thriving ecology where endangered species have come back in high numbers."
So tell me why humans are not living there now?
Despite your ignorance and completely unsubstantiated pronouncement that everything is A-OK, Actual studies done on birds, rodents and fish have found much higher than normal mutation rates.
But who cares about that? ballersack the anonymous YouTube clown knows WAY more than those stupid scientists
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale
Humans don't live in Chernobyl because ignoramuses like yourself keep perpetuating false information, which scare people into making unnecessary sacrifices.
I'd love to see your proof of the higher than normal mutation rates. Lol, even on the humble wikipedia site it states: "No scientifically documented cases of mutant deformity in animals of the zone were reported other than partial albinism in swallows[2][3] and insect mutations."
Again, read a science book.
ballersack 6 months ago 2
@ballersack
LOL, Wikipedia is humble for a reason - it is USER EDITABLE.
Use Google SCHOLAR... Search for the following titles:
A. Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl
B. Elevated minisatellite mutation rate in the post-Chernobyl families from Ukraine
Oh btw, the [2] and [3] you copied and pasted without reading... READ THEM!!
One is called "Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' "
Learn what a science book is - because it's NOT Wikipedia
BeondaPale 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ballersack
"There is no scientific basis for the claim that radiation increases the risk of cancer at low doses (i.e. the miniscule dose at fukushima)."
Well, except for the evidence that cancers DID increase after Chernobyl - WAY THE HELL OVER IN SWEDEN
Yet you have the balls to claim, without offering any kind of credentials or for that matter any proof whatsoever, that there will be no additional cancers around Fukushima as a result of this
Yer funny clown. Do another trick for us
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@ballersack well if its all ok, why don't you go live out the front gate of fukushima and eat some fish from their waters as well, u do this and i will believe its all ok then
Kokoda144 9 months ago
I wonder how more along the road we would be to solving global warming if the hippies in the 70's didnt sway public opinion against nuclear power?
How ironic, hippies have contributed towards global warming.
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago 10
@TheFluffyDuck sorry? LOL... that comment was before fukushima accident. And, for the record, this is bullshit, the power plants older than 30 years are leaking nuclear shit into atmosphere long time ago, and noone seems to be aware of that. The reason of this campains in favour of nuclear plants is profit, nuclear power is cheaper for the producers, but it's poison for us, the ordinary people who live close to these time-bombs nuclear facilities.
quierover123 10 months ago 2
@quierover123 Look up thorium breeder reactors/liquid fluoride reactors. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Give me a source that shows nuclear sites in America leaking radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere when running normally while you're at it.
zapo147 10 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck
Well Fluffy, If we all would be living a Hippie lifestyle since, meaning a more environmental conscious one, using less energy, producing and consuming less unnecessary products and waste, eating less meat, watching less TV and leaving our car in the garage once in a while we would have less of the problems we have to face today, including Global Warming. It's hard to imagine for the typical US american who has learned that man has to dominate nature instead of being part of it.
gunnargerhardt 10 months ago 10
@gunnargerhardt we used to live like that, only problem was a lifespan of about 40 years regardless of lifestyle or wealth. Nature is a cruel motherfucker, ever heard of something called the black plague? Killed 60% of Europe's population and could've been prevented withhygeine from modern technology. I'm not saying we shouldn't be more conscious, but it was that natural impulse of humans to dominate nature that got us where we are today
kaosjm 9 months ago
@gunnargerhardt also don't use the term US American, if you want to be a judgemental prick just say American, US American makes you sound redundant and ignorant, but I guess sounding ignorant isn't on your list of concerns.
kaosjm 9 months ago
@gunnargerhardt BRAVO! Plus, meat should be outlawed, anyway, even if it did nothing to increase global warming and waste cropland to feed cattle, because it is still MURDER!
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello How are you going to solve the problem of the entire world's population developing a lack of nutrients? Meat is the only possible source of enough ferrum to sustain a human being, for one example.
Besides, you can't eat grass. Cows can eat grass, after which you eat the cows.
Ever been on a farm? Sorry, stupid question, veganazis don't visit farms. Anyway, if you had, you'd find animals that are happy to just hang about eating things. What's wrong with offering animals a happy life?
Blahb27 6 months ago
@gunnargerhardt Nature sucks. Dominating it rules!
Esoparagon 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2012 Notice on the debate last night when NV asked if nuclear waste was going to be dumped on them?
Perry and Romney saw it as a matter of PAYING NV ENOUGH MONEY and only Ron Paul said IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL STATES RIGHT ISSUE! To me, it showed how those 3 politicians' minds work.
What do you think? Does MONEY solve everything, or does the CONSTITUTION?
Ron Paul, President 2012
vechorik 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well Fluffy, If we all would be living a Hippie lifestyle since, meaning a more environmental conscious one, using less energy, producing and consuming less unnecessary products and waste, eating less meat, watching less TV and leaving our car in the garage once in a while we would have less of the problems we have to face today, including Global Warming. It's hard to imagine for the typical US american who has
learned that man has to dominate nature instead of being part of it.
gunnargerhardt 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well Fluffy, If we all would be living a Hippie lifestyle since, meaning a more environmental conscious one, using less energy, producing and consuming less unnecessary products and waste, eating less meat, watching less TV and leaving our car in the garage once in a while we would have less of the problems we have to face today, including Global Warming. It's hard to imagine for the typical US american who has learned that man has to dominate nature instead of being part of it.
gunnargerhardt 10 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck No! Some were probably, at one time, a hippie but, have turned into capitalist pigs now. Don't think they were ever hippies at heart. Being a hippie in the 70's was a trendy thing for some back then. Just like being a gangster wanna be's. They are not gonna become gangsters in a few years but, probably become what ever is trendy in thenear future. Most people are self absorbed now adays.
amyntazoe 10 months ago
Why is there only %5 being of the fuel being used ?
jpp678 1 year ago
@jpp678 Well its got to do with decay rates, that fuel then turns into other elements. However when a certian percentage of the fuel( 5%) is no longer enriched you cant sustain the reaction as well. ITs just keeping it at peak efficancy.
But look at the bright side. you can recycle 95% of your waste. Name another energy source you can recycle that much?
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago
@jpp678 Because we don't use the breeder reactors...in the US, the conventional reactors waste 95% of the fuel; whereas in France, using breeder reactors, they waste less than 5%. Been doing it for decades in France, and the US is just a bunch of mamby pambies.
Brainbuster1000 11 months ago
There is no magic bullet or fountain of youth. If you folks want to turn your lights on then there will be negative consequences. The amount of energy needed to fuel the needs of American CANNOT be fullfilled with wind and solar alone. An amalgamation of Nuclear, Coal, Wind, Natural Gas and Solar is the way to go. I don`t think Wind or Solar is anywhere close to replacing even 20 percent of our energy needs.
Allante715 1 year ago
Nuclear power has great potential but
the waste takes centuries to decay
and the cost of building even one plant is staggering.
Groundonrage 1 year ago
@Groundonrage Not really, First of all the waste volume can be recycled alot almost 95%. Secondly over their entire life time Nuclear power is the next cheapest to coal. Wind and solar cost WAY WAY more.
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago
They have found a bacteria that thrives off of radioactive rock and sulpher 2 miles underground in Africa . I wonder if this same bacteria would eat away at the spent fuel rods if the bacteria colony can be sustained in the deep geological suppository !
aotearoastyle 1 year ago
my gosh! the media has blinded me. I thought nuclear energy was bad! i always thoguht nuclear=radiation=cancer and mass destruction....I'm really happy now :D..yay
TheItalianFlavor 1 year ago
@TheItalianFlavor actually a large percentage of the time it goes, nuclear=control radiation=cancer treatment
hooray!
AIveoIus 1 year ago
@AIveoIus dreamcrusher! lol
TheItalianFlavor 1 year ago
@TheItalianFlavor The media told you Nuclear Energy was bad? I've never heard that. Only pros and cons.
calapanpo 1 year ago
All the scare about nuclear power is exactly that, stupid uninformed fear. Reactors are safe, hell, even Three Mile Island accident even with multiple failures of human and safety elements the radioactives were contained to the reactor building itself and never released to the outside. Reactors these days are even safer. The idiot enviro nuts are impeding what is the most safest and most effective and efficient means of power generation, idiot enviro nuts should be looking at coal.
HoOkEdOnBlEaCh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy machine , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
porscheghcje 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are about 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium in the oceans. This is nearly 1000 times more than the terrestrial uranium sources in the western world...
Nuclear power is the only way to meet our growing energy needs.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Here is a fun fact: To produce equal amounts of energy, the use of 1 mass unit of uranium requires roughly 16,500 mass units of coal. (This can be found by comparing total energy produced, per unit mass, for each energy source, in the US, in 2008. Use the EIA website if you are studious.)
Spent nuclear fuel stays in the containers they are put in, and coal gets placed into our atmosphere.
Assertion: Nuclear power has relatively ZERO emissions when compared to coal power.
Phillip095 1 year ago
@Phillip095 No! nuclear fission(one step in the process)has no emission, almost all the other 13 steps involved in nuclear power production emit green house gases. And the question is not coal vs. nuclear. We have to take into account ALL other alternative energies. Wind and solar in the long run are becoming cheaper as nuclear power plant construction is only getting more expensive.This can be verified by Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
JohnFord231 1 year ago
@devrobbiz, This is my forth reply to you.
w.r.t. the amount of nuclear wastes reported by various agencies: The source I referenced (EIA) accounts for all spent nuclear fuel discharges from all US nuclear power reactors which have operated from 1968 to 2002. The EIA is credible.
w.r.t. the mining operations to find U: Most of the techniques used to mine U are also used to mine coal, and so the environmental impacts of mining U are publicly acceptable because the public accepts coal mining.
Phillip095 1 year ago
Well his math really sucks. He says we would only have 2 lb's of nuclear waste per person over a 70 yr span...wtf is he talking about? The U.S. already produces MILLIONS of tons of radioactive waste and obviously we don't get all our power from Nuclear energy. This guy is a bigger liar/idiot than Regan. Nuclear maybe an option, but we shouldn't, "put all our eggs in 1 basket", we have NO idea what the long term effects of underground storage are. Stupid stupid stupid.
devrobbiz 1 year ago
@devrobbiz Wow you are incredibly stupid. Of course we don't get all of out power from Nuclear energy, he said that for a person from birth to age 70, there would be about 2 pounds of waste. Which is way less waste then burning fossil fuels such as: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The waste from nuclear power plant is much safer. If you would listen to what he said, from 55 years of commercial use of uranium rods, it could fit in a Football field only up to the goal post.
visini14 1 year ago
@visini14 wow you are incredibly stupid, did you even read what I wrote? WTF, the waste from nuclear power plant is much safer? R u serious? What are you smoking! Then why don't they do that now then? American Nuclear Power plants currently produces MILLIONS of tons of waste, a 1000x his argument of "2 lb's per person per lifetime", if we got 100% of power from Nuclear it would generate even more waste. He isn't telling us something or is lying, it obviously doesn't add up.
devrobbiz 1 year ago
@devrobbiz, I recommend the "US Energy Information Administration" website for information about nuclear waste. Search google to find it.
Click the "Nuclear" section, and then click the link "Spent Fuel".
You will see that the total amount of "spent fuel" is about 47,023,400 kg of waste, equal to 103,710,000 lbm. This is in the time period of 1968 to 2002. Per the 310,000,000 people in the US, this turns out to be 0.335 lbm per person.
Well under the 2 lbm given in the video.
Phillip095 1 year ago
@Phillip095 Thanks for the reply. This is a tough issue to have an accurate debate on. Estimates on actual radioactive waste generated vary so wildly from one scientist/environmentalist/agency to the next. Some only count waste that had to be stored at a separate location from the plant, some include low level waste while others don't, and so many people forget the environmental impact of mining a million tons of ore to get a small amount of uranium...
devrobbiz 1 year ago
@devrobbiz, Of course, there is spent fuel not accounted for in the tables given by the EIA, and other nuclear wastes also.
There are medical applications which produce wastes, nuclear weapons which have been dismantled, and others which I can not think of now. I do not know how to find the mass of waste these other sources contribute. These speaker may have accounted for these other sources, which may explain where he got the 2 lbm estimate from.
Phillip095 1 year ago
@Phillip095 ... which then has to be enriched into a usable fuel, all of which (including the nuclear plant itself) use an unprecedented amount of water, which is probably a more valuable commodity than energy. I don't put much faith into afew things: 1) were storing high level waste (which will take millions of years to become safe) underground in containers that won't last as long, or storing it in geological deposits that could shift/change in the future.
devrobbiz 1 year ago
@devrobbiz, this is my fifth reply to you.
I have not heard of water consumption being a problem of U enrichment. Could you please show me a reference so that I can read about water consumption issues? Thanks.
Phillip095 1 year ago
@devrobbiz, this is the third of three replies to you.
Nuclear science a well understood, and so the influences nuclear wastes have on the Earth can be determined. The same can not be said for coal power, which currently is causing global warming worries.
I would like to suggest that I do not know everything about nuclear wastes, so I may be overlooking something significant w.r.t. waste disposal. This is a disclaimer.
Phillip095 1 year ago
@devrobbiz Rofl, are you serious? Millions of tons? What are you smoking? Wheres your source? You listening to Green Peace and other enviro nuts that are blowing things WAY out of proportion?
HoOkEdOnBlEaCh 1 year ago
lol, fucking us...
roflwaffle12321 1 year ago
The US is fucking dumb. we sort of stumbled upon an amazing brilliant work of science. As with all developments in science, with great power comes a great new way to kill people. This led to the scarring a society that knows nothing about "nuclear" being all top secret and all. Thus nuclear is bad because everyone says so. How can u blame them the developments made in the last 100 years have been so steep its a miracle so many people even know the word.
shk9664 1 year ago
@shk9664 I agree, nuclear energy is clean and can generate much more power than wind and solar, you can thank the enviro-nazis for the fear campaign, that did a brilliant job in misinforming the populace.
elysium76 1 year ago
Thank You! :)
chawlamohali 1 year ago
excellent work!
1888junkteam 1 year ago
@dermotk5 Breeding animals is evil because it confines animals in cages for their entire lives. THAT is the MAIN problem with breeding animals. NOBODY - especially anti-environmental conservatives - had dare better complain against ANY "loss of freedom" until they FIRST release - or support Peta or Last Chance for Animals - all animals from factory farms. Only THEN should dare complain that they are being "oppressed".
duck24x 1 year ago
That guy is Corporate Scum that should be executed for crimes against humanity....Just another Nazi New World Order Scum in a nice expensive outfit....This guy isn't even human in my opinion he is a corporate slug that should be drowned in a pile of salt...
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx
That's a tad extreme..at least duck24x is bringing facts to the fight
yugai15 1 year ago
@yugai15
Why is advocating execution extreme for someone who is pushing an agenda that will poison the planet for 1,000's of years with radioactive waste?I'd let him go through the trial process first before execution to make it a legal process.Believe me someday in the future or near future criminals like him will go on trial and they will face the death penalty just like the Nazi Scum at The Nuremberg Trials.Half the scientists that invented Nuclear Power were Nazis War Criminals from Germany
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@yugai15
do a Google search for:
------- "Operation Paperclip" ---
---------"Operation Alsos" ------
those are a few names they used for the program used to recruit the scientists of Nazi Germany.....
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
if its just that much put it in a rocket and blast it of into some other sun far far far away.
Omega3chimp 1 year ago
Iran wants nukes, so we can drop all our nuclear waste on Iran. Problem solved.
hawkermustang 1 year ago
Quick EVIDENCE challenge for all those who casually say that "Renewable energies can supply our current needs". How many square miles of (weather dependant) solar panels would it take to supply a small steel mill and how big would the nessesary batteries be? How much energy and resources would be required to build them? If you can answer that with a straight face you get nominated for an Oscar.
LloydieP 1 year ago
Everything this guy says may be true. But, like all politicians (yes - he is a politician, because he has an agenda) he refuses to incorporate ALL variables. The PRIME variable being: human selfishness & greed. Given even more power than they already have, the nuclear power industry will fight against every single law and regulation that protects the environment and nuclear workers. ALL US nuclear plants will end up being Chernobyls.
duck24x 2 years ago
You know Chernobyl was a steam accident, right? And only happened because the workers intentionally turned off the safety systems to perform an unnecessary test.
TheBioweapon 2 years ago
Yes. I know. I've seen the documentaries. So? Did the Russians know BEFORE the accident that that's the way the accident would happen? It's not just the known sequence of events that make nuclear power not worth the cost. It's the unknown. The massive complexity. The fact that such massive safety precautions need to be taken in the first place, thereby forcing us (at least in the US, France, etc) to overcompensate - that make nuclear to expensive - even just financially, even if ..
duck24x 2 years ago
..there were never another nuclear accident again. Compared to wind, solar, wave, geothermal - which are available and would be easily satisfy our needs if they were given fair support, the same financial & infrastructure backing that oil, coal and nuclear have - there is no logical reason to do nuclear.
duck24x 2 years ago
Problem is, wind, geothermal, and wave can't be set up everywhere, and solar needs more development to become practical. Although I agree, building a plant is VERY expensive, but afterwords produces cheap electricity.
TheBioweapon 2 years ago
Actually, no. Solar is ready to go everywhere. It just needs the investment and the commitment. In New Jersey, I already give my money to solar and wind farms for electricity.
Totally insane to commit to nuclear when its most dangerous and expensive problem has not been solved yet.
duck24x 2 years ago
@duck24x Dangerous and expensive? explain
yugai15 1 year ago
Uh, well, let's see. Nobody has solved the waste disposal problem yet, and nuclear power plants cost several billion dollars each, resulting in very centralized power. Solar power and wind can be much less centralized. When they fail, all you need to do is replace a solar panel or a blade. You don't get Chernobyl-level disasters or leaks which could contaminate thousands.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
Fusion power is the only form of power that can replace fossil fuels. It's the only thing that can fix the fuel crisis. Solar and wind are not for large-scale
gyromancy2 1 year ago
@duck24x
Hmmmm You do realize that a Chernobyl level disaster is near impossible right? Well let's move beyond that shall we?
Expensive? Well not really compared to building other type of power plants.
Disposal? What do you think the massive Yucca mountain is for?
Too be fair nuclear power does need a little more tweaking but we need to allow that tweaking if we want to get anywhere.
yugai15 1 year ago
@yugai15
You DO realize how ridiculous it is to call something that DID happen, like Chernobyl, "impossible", right?
Only a combo of wind, solar, wave, and geothermal (and pyrolysis - check out Pryogenesis's website) as well as outlawing breeding animals for food, and lowered consumption in general, will solve the energy and environmental crises.
To be fair, all THESE programs need and DESERVE as much "tweaking" - i.e. massive subsidies - that coal, nuclear, oil get.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x Your right...I'm sure that the possibility of you dams breaking and your solar panels catching flame or your geothermal reactor exploding should not be ruled out either though and don't tell me well it wouldn't be as bad.
Are you really that afraid of nuclear power? I mean we have plants all over the world. Heck some countries depend on nuclear for 80% of their power,
I DO agree that we should cut back on animal breeding for food, some farms these days are ridiculous.
yugai15 1 year ago
When those nuclear plants all over the world decay - which they will, some day - they'll leak toxic radioactive waste. (Toxic non-radioactive waste can at least be pyrolyzed. Google Canadian company Pyrogenesis.)
When solar panels and wind turbines break down, they don't spew toxins all over (at least not toxins that can't be converted).
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x so then people who have access to lots of space can use wind and solar and everyone else can go to hell?
I'm not arguing that wind and solar are safer..never have, but they are not and ever will be practical on a nation wide level..well maybe solar after another century of study.
Why shun a power we have now and if we are responsible with it it's not dangerous.
yugai15 1 year ago
@yugai15
You are an idiot, you obviously don't know about solar energy or wind power or the fact the Nuclear Power/Nuclear Weapons Program in the U$A was guided by Nazi War Criminals that the U$ Government gave shelter to after the war. It is a well known fact of history. The World is Fucked Up these days and Nuclear Power Plants are perfect targets for terrorists or nutcases to fly airplanes into, think about it, do you want a scenario like Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island again?
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@yugai15
On what do you base your conjecture that wind and solar are not practical on a nationwide scale, but nuclear is?
Just got back from my tax assessor's office to be told my property taxes will increase in July and again next year.
I am not bringing energy into this (at this time), but, once again, it proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will EVER improve with Republicrats in power.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x Eh? Taxes? Republicans? What does that have to do with this conversation?
My basis on wind power not being practical is based on the fact that it can only really be used in certain parts of the world. Solar I admitted with time could be the answer to our problems but at this time it's not really practical to build acres of solar panels to produce a fraction of what a basic Mohave factory produces.
yugai15 1 year ago
Wind, geothermal, wave do not need to be set up everywhere. That's what an electric grid is for. Nuclear power plants, and coal plants cannot be set up everywhere, either. But, in the coal/nuclear case, it's because of their environmental hazard.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
--@yugai15---is a typical 23 year old that is brain washed and has been spoon fed corporate crap his whole life and takes the MSNBC approach to knowledge, he didn't grow up when the news still had actual news, before all the corporations bought out the newspapers and the media.....All his "Favorites" on youtube are anime and video game related, so you can't really expect too much...At least this new generation knows how to play video games and watch cartoons....
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx Ah yes well played.
Because I think Nuclear power is a good thing I must be brainwashed eh? Really? Seems there are plenty of people far more educated than you or me who think the same thing.
I suppose because I think modern Feng Shui is bull that I'm brain washed as well right?
By the by what do my favorites have to do with my intelligence?
yugai15 1 year ago
@yugai15
Well if someone Crashes a Plane into a Nuclear Power Plant I hope it's in your region.Then we can argue the Nuclear Issue when you are Enlightened and Irradiated.You obviously are buying into all the Pro-Nuclear Crap so yeah You Are a Pro-Government Pro-Industry Brainwashed Zombie in my opinion.Education has nothing to do with intelligence, a 12-year old kid can tell you Nuclear Power Is Bullshit, with age doesn't always follow wisdom...Especially when there is a big Pay Off...
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx indeed wisdom does not come with age..how ironic you are the example from which I learned this.
yugai15 1 year ago
@yugai15
Is that your Feeble Attempt at Sarcasm?? Or are you admitting that you are a Pro-Government Pro-Industry Brainwashed Zombie???
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx you want to know what stupidity is? that you seem to think that it is plausible to create enough power for the planet with less environmental damage than nuclear for a smaller cost. you are the definition of brainwashed. so dont come crying to me when all your lights go out in a few years time because you thought nuclear was a bad idea. read into its safety record...youre no doubt basing your opinions on chernobyl and three mile island
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
@jimmyreed112
Go sell your opinion to someone else retard...."A smaller cost"???? you are funny....Stop arguing economics Fuckface.....I've lived homeless on purpose for years of my life so I'll survive without electricity if i have to, it's not that hard unless you live in a really cold climate..And yeah I'm basing my opinion on the past nuclear disaster and the future too, they make great targets for terrorists to fly planes into...Don't cry when it happens, hopefully near you and not me..
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
so what youre saying is that this will all go away if we go and live homeless for fun? just like you? and youre calling me a retard? and youre basing your opinion on things that havent and will never happen? youre just a bit silly. and as for planes....a terrorist could do more damage hitting into a big skyscraper so why would they waste an opportunity on some out of town nuclear power plant? it wouldnt meltdown or anything. do some research and think before you comment next time
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
@jimmyreed112
Obviously I have electricity since I'm posting comments on youtube....So what if I've traveled the country and lived like a nomad before without electricity....I had some of the best times of my life traveling around...But that's not the issue...It doesn't take a plane to cause a meltdown..Take a look at the history of nuclear power: 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, plus many other smaller disasters...Solar Power and Wind and the Ocean is a much better source of energy....
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx The problems with the alternatives are that they are not reliable, not constants, and not available in all area's. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal are the main choices for base load power supply. Hydro and geothermal are both limited and based on location. The fossil and hydro plants can be put anywhere.
DGFerro 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx Chernobyl was the only disaster that actually caused major problems and such a disaster is unlikely to ever repeat itself with modern day safety measures the Russians didn't use back then. In fact some of the modern designs, even a saboteur attempting to purposely cause a meltdown would be hard pressed to cause major damage.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@CobaltX07
I'm not buying it.....Go peddle your pro-nuclear philosophy to someone else....
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx You don't have to buy it from me, you could actually research the incidents. In an actual nuclear meltdown the real danger is misplaced public fear, not the 4 millirems of radiation.
CobaltX07 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, plus many other smaller disasters" That's it? What are the other "small" disasters? Because in perspective all the incident that happned in the history of nuclear energy are Highly minute. I think the only two incidents that really happened are the two you mentioned. Chernobyl was a disaster that happened because of those idiots overriding a ton of safety precautions to conduct an unnecessary test. And poor design.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx And three mile island didn't even have any casualties at all. The newer reactors are now even more safer and reliable than ever. Almost virtually melt down proof.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
You're 24 you can't tell me anything about nuclear power, I was, go study and do some research before you post on youtube. You weren't even alive when 3-Mile Island happened, my friends family had to move from that area and most of them got Cancer. If you're 24 then you were probably still in your Mom's stomach when Chernobyl happened. Go drink some more Government Kool-Aid!!!
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "You're 24 you can't tell me anything about nuclear power"
Nice way to attempt censorship. I can tell you all i want about nuclear power especially towards a FACT that in it's entire history of operation. The nuclear industry has had far fewer casualties than just the oil industry alone. And this doesn't even account for other countries mining for coal and other resources like china. After fuel rods are spent over 95% of it is recycled and reused.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
I'm not trying to censor anyone, especially not the mainstream opinions like yours, I'm just trying to change your stupidity level, If you want to believe nuclear power is safe I'm not going to lose any sleep at night knowing you are a stupid little 24-year old sheep. You accept Lie$ as Truth, by the well paid-off so-called "Experts." I don't give a fuck about you being a stupid little Government Kool-Aid Drinking Idiot, go drink some Plutonium and suck on that experts dick!
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "I'm just trying to change your stupidity level," So i could have an anti-human mind like greenpeace? Even their co founder left and stated that nuclear energy was the way to go. He is to an environmentalist. France has over 80% of it's power coming from nuclear. Where are the casualties there? And how many plants operate daily without any incident? That's right ALL OF THEM.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Blah Blah Blah Blah....I'd rather listen to a psychotic crackhead mumbling to himself in a mental ward. Your mainstream stupidity is boring as it comes, I heard all your arguments and Lie$ and none of them are sinking in.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "Blah Blah Blah Blah....I'd rather listen to a psychotic crackhead mumbling to himself in a mental ward" or maybe you'd rather not listen at all and continue on your course of spreading misinformation, myth, and hype the two past accidents that were due to faulty design and had poor safety precautions which are still you know extremely little compared to that giant oil slick that just happened out in the sea. And you think you are older? You sound like a god damn teenager.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
You probably work for the Nuclear Industry and get paid to spread Lie$ on Youtube....I'm not a fan of Oil or Coal or any of that bullshit, it's time to switch over to Solar Power, Wind, Water, etc. Hemp can be used for Fuel, Food and Fiber. There are many other alternatives but Government and Industry want things to stay the same and as long as your opinion is the mainstream there will be more Oil Disasters, Nuclear Disasters, etc..
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "You probably work for the Nuclear Industry and get paid to spread Lie$ on Youtube." Hah! how many fucking times have I heard this bullshit from people like you? Actually three times now and all said from different companies. I work for Target, And you are a complete skeptic. At least try to find real evidence to counter my claims. Instead of picking at me, That's just plain trollish.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
hopefully you just really work at Target and not for the nuclear industry. Is it that far fetched to think the nuclear industry would have people posting on youtube about the benefits of nuclear power, not really, they have lobbyists in DC, so why not post up some on youtube, there are millions of people on youtube so it is not far fetched at all...
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "they have lobbyists in DC" No where near as much as the oil companies do.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
I'm glad your just a sheep and not working for the nuclear industry but you should consider a new job working for the nuclear industry promoting the benefits of nuclear power, since I'm sure Target doesn't pay you much.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@streetfightspdx "I'm sure Target doesn't pay you much." They sure don't. Maybe we should say no to big box retailers instead of nuclear power then.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "If you want to believe nuclear power is safe I'm not going to lose any sleep at night knowing you are a stupid little 24-year old sheep." Little 24 year old with more intelligence than people like you that buy into common stereotypes and myths. The sun will be more likely to give out cancer than your local nuclear plant. If you'd at least know how the industry is run. then you'd know a smidgen about the industry it's self.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
There is so many nuclear accidents that have happened [many have been censored by the military, but there is lots of uncensored info]. There is a ton of nuclear waste that is on the black market when a Dirty Bomb goes off somewhere because of all the loose security the Nuclear Industry won't be seen in the same light. Most of the incidents of people trying to create dirty bombs and buy nuclear material have been busted by sheer luck, but luck only lasts so long.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "There is so many nuclear accidents that have happened" As in power plants? If it is a safety risk towards the locals the government isn't going to hide anything. This isn't like your local wallmart or target super corporation. They don't do cover ups unless it is something related to weapons. There is a large marginal difference between weapons grade plutonium and the type that is used in reactors.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
HaHaHa...Fool!!!
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx The remaining 5% of that fuel has a half-life of about 300 years. Where it can be safely buried in a trench where the earth will seep it into it's mantle. Most people like you that are against nuclear energy are highly misinformed. Especially by those Greenpeace faggots. Did you even know that there is radiation emitted by nature and by the sun that has a higher concentration than that found on the outside of most nuclear powerplants?
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Shut the fuck up you little Government Kool-Aid Drinking Idiot...You are a little 24-year old faggot. You are a Dunce that grew up into a full blown Idiot....You are the misinformed trying to pretend like you know everything, typical know it all 24-year old behavior.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "my friends family had to move from that area and most of them got Cancer." Cancer? Hahaha cancer is everywhere. Blame it on the reactor will you. I know plenty of people who have cancer as well. There is a difference between cancer and radiation sickness. And usually they'd have to have a VERY high dose in order for it to lead to that. The recorded amount wasn't sufficient enough to cause such a disease. you get more from an X ray by a doctor.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
You can't change History Little Boy...People got Cancer at 3-Mile Island, look it up, then go jump off a cliff like a good little Lemming.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "ou can't change History Little Boy...People got Cancer at 3-Mile Island, look it up, then go jump off a cliff like a good little Lemming. " End of argument. You ass lost. AND IT'S NOT CANCER YOU FUCKING TWAT! it's called radiation sickness. Cancer is everywhere. Can you at least state to me what cancer is? and how it is caused since you seem to know everything.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Within days of the 3-Mile Island Disaster 140,000 people left the area. I must have imagined all that. Have you ever heard of Thyroid Cancer? or is all Cancer just called "radiation sickness" in the language of the pea brained idiots like you? Unlike you I don't claim to know everything but I'm not drinking the Government Plutonium-Laced Kool-Aid like you. The accident at the plant occurred 12 days after the release of the movie The China Syndrome, maybe it was a movie promotion.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "Within days of the 3-Mile Island Disaster 140,000 people left the area." Mostly from panic and fear like you were promoting. There 9 thousand residents in middle town. And on top of that there are still 251,798 Residents in dolphin county. What are you trying to prove? After WWII and the nuking of the two cities. People thought they would never recover and that it would be a radioactive area for a long tome. Look at them. The city thrived right after the war.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "Have you ever heard of Thyroid Cancer? " Yes and have you ever heard that it can actually be treated with radioactive iodine?
"The accident at the plant occurred 12 days after the release of the movie The China Syndrome," Maybe that's the problem with you. You should read books or articles instead of looking at fear promoting, and media driven documentaries.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
The China Syndrome was a Hollywood movie, that was my feeble attempt at sarcasm.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx I think most of you are to scared about nonsense and need to look at the facts and the scope about our future energy. Wind and solar are highly inefficient and to costly to feed out grid. And you like everyone else keep pointing at chernobyl. For Christ sake that was a reactor that had at least 7 safety procedures overridden to conduct an unnecessary test. It also had faulty design.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Is someone paying you to lie on youtube????
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117
Does Cancer and Nuclear Waste-Related deaths count? They were guarding Potatoes better than Plutonium and nuclear material during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Check out the ViceTV [VBSdotCom] and check out the clip about buying a Dirty Bomb in Bulgaria.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx "Does Cancer and Nuclear Waste-Related deaths count?
There weren't any in three mile island
"The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@streetfightspdx planes can't penetrate through 9 inches of steel that surrounds the core, if the heat of the core can't melt the barrier a plane crush would be like fly hitting a windshield
sarkerm2 1 year ago
@sarkerm2
blah blah blah......stop watching the news and listening to the well paid-off so-called "experts" it is eating a hole in your brain
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@yugai15
Did you ever stop to think that there is a ton of Money for Politicians/Corporate Scum who Praise Nuclear Power? You wrote me saying:"If it was such a bad thing then other world super powers would not be using it for the last 30 maybe 40 years".Are you kidding me? You actually think the Government/Super Powers of the World are there to protect you and do what's best for Mankind and the Planet? Go back to playing video games because you're obviously a lost cause if you think like that.
streetfightspdx 1 year ago
@duck24x
Fusion power is the only form of power that can replace fossil fuels. It's the only thing that can fix the fuel crisis.
gyromancy2 1 year ago
@gyromancy2
Only a combo of wind, solar, wave, and geothermal (and pyrolysis - check out Pryogenesis's website) as well as outlawing breeding animals for food, and lowered consumption in general, will solve the energy and environmental crises.
duck24x 1 year ago
wait what does breeding animals have to do with it?
dermotk5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Given even more power than they already have, the nuclear power industry will fight against every single law and regulation that protects the environment and nuclear workers. ALL US nuclear plants will end up being Chernobyls. "
So let me get this straight - if I'm a self-interested nuclear power corporation, you're telling me that the most competitive, money-making thing to do would be to blow up my own reactors and kill my own workers. Really?
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
GO nuke lol
rebelgunnut 2 years ago
its 130.6 football field with 10 feet high of nuclear waste for every one in the world to each 70years old and have energy useing the coke can idea a coke can is 355mL and there is 3.5315x10^-5 cubic feet(CF) in one mL and a football feel is 360ft by 160ft and 10ft tall that give u 576,000 CF per 10foot high foot ball feid so revie u take (335mL)x(3.5315x10^-5 CF/1mL)x(1 ten foot high football field/576000CF) x (6x10^9 people)=130.6
rebelgunnut 2 years ago