the manufacturer saved money, my point was i wish companies, did not save money by using less material, or cheaper or substandard, in buildings etc etc. there are corporate examples all over the place. i just wish money was not there primary goal. they could make money and not cut corners. it was just my thoughts on large corps. nuclear power may not be the end solution for all times, but is perhaps a better choice for this age.
The only reason anything happened was because the backup generators were built in a basement prone to flooding. So even the oldest and worst of reactors made was pretty reliable, only brought down by a half-assed easily preventable oversight in backup electrical system.
In Newer reactor designs meltdowns are theoretically impossible, produce marginal waste that is easily stored.
i am not bashing nuclear power shuggy555, my point was that the jokes in this video are not reasonable and i wish penn and teller would take things more seriously.
after some research however, i have learned that the nuclear power plants made for japan, those specific models, originally had designs for a stronger and larger containment area, the company cheaped out to save money by making the containment area perhaps efficient, but not as good as it could have been or was even designed
Hey guys not you have you cowering or anything but I hope you know if you have a smoke detector then you have americium, an element that is highly radio active. Also if you have an old gas lantern then you have thorium which is... you guessed it radio active.
Now how many of you right now have:
A) grown a third arm
B) died and become a zombie
C) anything else people say is going to happen if you are exposed to highly radio active elements.
@shuggy555 Besides which that plant is 40 years old, and a newer plant would be safer than one of those older ones, just as that one nuclear expert from the Competitive Enterprise Institute said.
Sorry Penn & Teller, but still, Japans reactor isn't shit? They can be dangerous, oh wait, thats just because they save money when they build them. Put more cash into there back up systems and maybe. ?Thank God you two don't actually control any agency.
I don't have an opinion on the topic at hand. I just wanted to express how much I can't stand the narrator. What an obnoxious obese twat. People should stop fueling his rants, in my opinion of course.
I wish every Nevadan had seen this well before 11/2/2010. There would have been much less of a chance that the Harry Reid dill weed, who prides himself on stopping Yucca Mountain, would have been reelected.
I have been watching a few videos about nuclear power, and although I am interested in nuclear, I know fuck all about it... So naturally, I don't have a biased opinion about whether it is good or not.
I have seen many videos which are either completely against or for nuclear - I am yet to see a video which states true facts about the pros and cons of nuclear power. And I get the feeling that, although this video is rather convincing, it seems to be a one sided argument.
I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that nuclear waste is still useful. It can still be used as fuel, the only problem is our reactors are note efficient enough. They are saving it for later.
Original USA and Russia were working hard to make the reactors achieve this level of efficiency but then they found a whole bunch more uranium deposits and lots interest in efficiency.
In theory, you can fission something until all that's left is hydrogen.
It is pretty scary the level of cognitive dissonance and poor logic people accept as skepticism today. Your source of information is the nuclear regulatory commission, and you expect to be taken seriously? What a fucking joke. And again, if an attack is targeted at a nuclear power plant, you are potentially looking at entire countries wiped out, it's a very old military tactic which the US has used in the past. Attacking a subway line has no range at all, so that's a really stupid argument.
"And again, if an attack is targeted at a nuclear power plant, you are potentially looking at entire countries wiped out"
LOL!!! You have been watching WAY too much bad Hollywood movies. The only nuclear plant to melt down did not take out the Ukraine. You really should try backing up your arguments with hard facts not stuff you pull out of your arse.
@IPossessAHugePenis I don't mean to troll here, but your arguement is asinine. Do you even know how radiation works? Better yet, do you understand anything about modern engineering?
The thing with chernobyl is that it took ten days before someone trusted the scientist that the a burning pile of radioactive feul rods were dangerous.
Here in Sweden we recently amended the old ban on building new nuclear power plants to allow us to replace our old ones. I'm all for it. I've only heard one argument against that concerned me and that was that it might stall the research and development of renewable energy.
@searcher619 Certainly. What I meant was that the public and political will to support and strive for more sustainable energy might falter. However, as you said that is in no way reason enough not to renew our nuclear power plants. Especially since the alternative is buying dirty coal energy from Germany and Poland.
@SilkSwe Nuclear energy is renewable, you asshat. Even if you wanted to stay away from breeder reactors the amount of time it would take to deplete the world's supply of nuclear fuel would run from 50 to 100 years.
@MrMZaccone Well true, but the mining still has the same environmental and political issues as oil drilling. I just don't want to trade the addiction to oil for one of uran.
@SilkSwe An addiction to uranium??? First, did you miss the part where I said that Nuclear power was renewable? The right kind of reactor makes more fuel than it uses. Now I'm not claiming that you can't become addicted to something that is in constant unlimited supply but unless that addiction is to something dangerous, who cares? As for danger, Nuclear energy has a better safety record than any other kind. My argument is that there is a solution for every single objection to N.E.
@willparadigm You can't use one objection to play off another and have it both ways though. Don't want to mine? Build breeder reactors. Don't want breeder reactors? Mine uranium! Don't want to be addicted to oil? Build reactors! What's going to have to happen is someone is going to have to beat the special interests over the head with some common fucking sense and get this shit done before we end up a third world country in the dark because we're too worried about being the "bad guys".
@SilkSwe A large part of the "Manmade Global Warming" thing could be dealt with by going to nuclear as well. It's as clean a practical energy source as man has ever invented and because the general public is fucking ignorant we're sitting around wringing our hands going "Whatever will we do when the oil runs out???" The answer is obvious, we're going to build the reacors anyway so why not just do it now and get on with a life that makes sense.
@SilkSwe There are two types of Nuclear energy Fission and Fusion.
Fusion is Renewable There are about 5 Fusion Reactors in the world. however Fusion Research has been struggling for money due to the failiure in the last century to achieve it however now we have in france the First comercial reactor that is being built. its been delayed for about 10 years tho. if we did enough research on Nuclear energy even Fission plants can be Renewable.
30 years since we built any new reactors and at the time this was taped there was 107 (I believe he said) reactors operating and generating electricity.
Over 30 years operating X 107 reactors / 1 incident on US soil = 1 Pretty impressive safety record.
I hate it when people bring up Chernobyl as a reason to never rely on nuclear power. That's like arguing to never use airplanes as mass transit because North Korea had 100,000 die because they made an airliner out of a washing machine and a weed whacker and OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN KILLED BY THOSE PLANES, IMAGINE THAT DISASTER HAPPENING HERE!!
@searcher619 A pinto might kill three or four people at most, a serious disaster at a nuclear energy plant is potentially an extninction event. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to get rid of cars or airplanes, either, they are a massive threat to the longterm health of our planet.
@IPossessAHugePenis Extinction? Really?..........................and did you really ever expect to be taken seriously when you choose the name for your youtube account?
"I hate it when people bring up Chernobyl as a reason to never rely on nuclear power"
Right on. I find it insane people actually beleive that nuclear power is dangerous because they ran an unauthorized test in a shitty outdated plant any engineer would have called stupid and dangerous, then waited waited days until they brought in a scientist to ask if a burning pile of spent feul rods was dangerous.
@abyschan Chernobyl was the most publicized nuclear disaster but there are MANY that are swept under the rug:
In October 2006, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel concluded that the SRE meltdown near Simi Valley, CA caused the release of more than 458x the amount of radiation released by the Three Mile Island accident.
Why doesn't anyone talk about that one?! B/c Boeing has $ and the gov let them get away w/ murder. BTW that site has yet to be cleaned up. Superfund sites = jokes.
Having read the argument between jenaardell and searcher619... I'm very confused about what you two talk about half the time. It has nothing to do with this video. I suggest you watch it again. Nuke is clean, cheap, safe, and produces real people amounts of power, unlike solar, wind, or geothermal. You, yourself, contain radiation: natural Potassium. You won't die from it. And as for the waste causing cancer... do you know how they treat cancer these days? Oh yeah! Radiation therapy. Win.
That's like saying you treat cancer with chemo therapy, so swallowing a container of sleeping pills must be good for you.
Also, Potassium is waaaaay less radioactive than the stuff used in nuclear plants. I'm not saying nuclear power necessarily a bad idea, just that you should be making good arguments for it, not stupid arguments.
I understand that radiation can cause harm, but it's not all bad. We've managed to perform amazing feats with it.
As to an argument for nuclear power, it's easier to hear any objections you may have than to guess and take shots in the dark. I'm well aware K is much less radioactive than the material found in a nuclear plant, having received working dose from a fission reactor. However, of the amount of radiation a person is exposed to during a year, 1% or less is from nuclear power.
@redneckrabbi0 Ok if radiation therapy is so safe... go get some now. See what happens to you. Radiation is constantly linked to cancer, as a carcinogen. That's nothing new.
Nuclear energy is NOT a clean energy because there is toxic radioactive waste involved. It can NEVER be labeled a "clean" energy. (There are no solar spills or wind leaks btw). AND nuclear energy is nowhere near cheap... do some research before posting words other people have implanted in your head.
@redneckrabbi0 I like pen and teller but they are far from impartial. I think that many people exaggerate the problem with nuclear power but saying its cheap, safe, and clean is asinine. The only reason its "cheap" is because of subsidies from the government. Its cost 4 billion dollars to make a plant, its expensive to mine uranium, and its expensive to dispose of the waste responsibly. Its clean in that it does not produce co2 but it does produce waste. And how is is safer than a solar panel?
So it's acceptable that the U.S. uses more energy than any other nation because we made ourselves dependent on technology. I love how most Americans like yourself can't "inconvenience" themselves to save energy. I never said anything about living like Amish people. I'm just bringing up the fact that we do not need to consume as much energy as we do. And P.S. only people on life support would die without electricity.
You ar incredibly short sighted. What do you think makes it possible for us to produce and sroe the amount of food needed by the world's population? What do you think makes it possible to research and produce vaccines and cures for various illnesses? Electricity does. Refrigeration units do not run on hope and good will. It amazes me how people like you are filled with guilt/envy over the prosperity of a country like the US. Spend some time in some of these developing nations.
Yes. Many people would starve to death world wide not just here in the US. You forgetting how the US produces and sells food to natios whch can nnot produce enough food to feed their own people? Please tell me how it's "unfair" that we can afford to buy the resources we do to support our lifestyle.
I will repeat: I'm just bringing up the fact that we do not need to consume as much energy as we do. I understand our lifestyles are dependent upon electricity but it is possible to live without it. And P.S. f we weren't continuously polluting our environment (with things like radioactive waste), there would be less illness and lower cancer rates. Then we wouldn't need as much electricity to manufacture vaccines and drugs that are doing more harm than good, yay!!
You DO know that the US has the strictest environmental regulations in the world right? You seem to be buying into the bull being pushed by groups like Greenpeace.
Get your facts straight before jumping to overgeneralized conclusions. GERMANY has the strictest environmental regulations. Then New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, United Kingdom, France, Australia, Malaysia, Taiwan THEN the US.
I love how pessimistic close-minded argumentative ppl like yourself love to jump to conclusions & ASSUME that the people who give a sh*t about the environment are all Greenpeace tree-huggers. I personally have never been to the Greenpeace website but thanks for judging me.
The US SELLS food to other nations to make a profit, not to do a good deed. And we import most of our food and products from places like China because it's cheaper than making it ourselves. Humans are inherently greedy and are born with a chip on their shoulder that makes them expect to receive far more than they actually deserve. That's what's unfair. Just b/c you can afford to be wasteful shouldn't give you the right to consume as much as you possibly can, especially when it comes to energy.
So you are one of those who feels it's evil to turn a profit? Give me a break. Human nature is NOT love, peace, and happiness. If it were we wouldn't have thise problems. Hell our history wouldn't be as bloody as it is. Grees and selfishness are part of our survival instincts. Pretending we arne't the way we are is naive. In the real world NOTHING is fair. Things just are. Your guilt for not having to suffer and struggle comes through loud and clear in your comments.
I never said profit was evil. I brought it up because you made it seem like the world relies on the good ole U.S. to provide everything for them. Our history is bloody because people are greedy. I already mentioned that so how you thought I was pretending otherwise is beyond me. You don't like to listen to other people huh?? I never said the world is fair. I don't have guilt... I have frustration for people who are STUBBORN and unwilling to change their habits.
You are frustrated with people who refuse to see things as yu do is more like it. And yes if the US stopped selling food to other countries many would starve to death. We are one of the few nations who is producing MUCH more food than it needs and sells it. Many starving nations actually do depend on us for their food. The US is the most generous nation. We give away more money and food than any other country on the planet. Did you ever stop and wonder maybe YOU are the stubborn one?
I'm actually one of those who feels we need to stop supporting these nations. We have been feeding them and supporting them financially for decades w/o ANY kind of change or improvement. We are enabling them. Keeping them dependant on us for survival is pretty sick to me. They need to be forced to start standing on their own. The people in those countries need to stop having children they can't support as well as dealing with the rampant corruption which has a large hand in their suffering.
Oh also forgot to point out the obvious but since it's not all that obvious to you... All modern treatments and vaccines which are saving lives and easing suffering world wide were developed becasue there was money to be made in their production. Profit is a motivator. W/O it the world would be a much darker place as well as much less populated. Greed is not evil by itself. ater all it's one of the many things we have to thank for our continued existence.
@jenaardell "Inconvenience" You mean like switching to lightbulbs that require hazmat procedures every time you break one? I had to throw away an entire set of bedding when my son broke one in the reading lamp in his bedroom.
@MrMZaccone I know!! Compact florescent lights are horrible! Florecent light itself is bad enough; very cold and unpleasant. I remember my dorm had cheap florescent lights everywhere and they gave me headaches and made me lethargic.
There are nuclear power sites in the US that STILL contaminate our water supply. Google info about the Hanford site. The government should clean up these sites before ever thinking about building more sites.
Also, nuclear power relies on uranium mining and in our case, mining from FOREIGN sources which will put us back in the same mess we are in already with foreign oil.
There are NO safe, permanent storage facilities for nuclear waste in the world, only temporary containment sites.
They woudl if they were allowed to scrap them and bild NEW sites. Unfortunately they can't becasue the environmental lobby has been preventing that. Many of our existing nuclear powerplants need to be retried and replaced with the much more efficient and better designed modern plants.
They would... what??? You can't just "scrap" a nuclear site. There is a huge, EXPENSIVE decommission process. The Hanford site alone requires $1.2 BILLION/year for cleanup. Why should we make more of a mess???
And? So you actually think they shouldn't retire tehse old nuke power stations simply because it's expensive? LOL!!! They have been trying to do just that like I said because they have to. This isn't a whim. These stations provide us with much needed power and MUST be replaced.
No, you're missing my point. I realize they have to decommission nuclear plants. My point is they cost too much to build, too much to maintain, are dangerous, emit radiation and radioactive waste AND it costs billions for decommissioning and cleanup. In my opinion, the cons out weigh the pros. ESPECIALLY when taking uranium mining into consideration. There are better, safer, cleaner energy alternatives.
And it seems like your are missing the obvious here. Their importance makes their cost acceptable. They last for a very long time and provide much needed power. If they were a luxury then ues you would be riht but they are not. They are a necessity. We will never move away from nuclear power. It will be quite the opposite. As our energy needs continue to grow we will have to embrace nuclear power much mor than we do today.
In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption.
Electricity WAS a luxury, we made it a necessity, which is great BUT the U.S. consumes far more energy than any other country -- more than China and Russia put together.
The bottom line is we need to conserve energy. Then we wouldn't need nuclear energy. If the rest of the world can do, why can't we???
You are missing the forrest for the trees. You can preach conservation all you like but it does not deal with the very hard fact that our lives are becoming more and more dependant on technology. This means a constantly growing need. Our power here in the US would be more than that 20% figure you quote if it weren't for the environmentalists lobby blocking the building of more plants. MUCH needed plants may I add. In countries like France they get over 70% of their power from nuclear.
That's right. Electricity WAS a luxury. That was only until we learned what we coudl do with it. How it can improve the quality of life for the human race as a whole. We wouldn't be living as well and as healthy as we are w/o electricity. Our MODERN civilization os society as a whole requires it to function. Mosr people don't look longingly at the lives lead by the Amish. Your argument is pointless given It is not a luxury. MANY peopel would die w/o the use of electricity.
@jenaardell Laughable, solar and wind will NEVER be practical, they're no better than fairytales at the moment and we need to power NOW! Do you realize how much acreage is needed for those two methods to produce even a tiny fraction of what's needed?
@jenaardell solar and wind are kinda fun toys but they don't have the btu's that nuclear power does. Maybe solar and wind will be viable some day but they are not there yet.
@MrMZaccone I'm just saying make the government clean up all the nuclear waste sites from reactor mishaps BEFORE spending the money to build more reactors and potentially contaminating more land and water.
It took our government FIFTY yrs to finally address the Santa Susana Field Lab site near L.A. & here's how they propose to clean-up ACRES AND ACRES of land... by shipping all of the contaminated radioactive soil to Utah. WOW.
@jenaardell Nuclear power doesn't have to rely on mining of any kind. Breeder reactors make more fuel than they use. In addition, in situ leech mining is very environmentally friendly and cannot be compared, even to the dangers of the petroleum or coal industries. As for the Hanford site, it cannot be compared to a modern reactor. "NO safe, permanent storage facilities for nuclear waste"? Not if you refuse to call 10,000 years "permanent", but then ...
I still think wind & solar energy power is better. We do have the technology to take it nation wide and in unrban and surburban development. I think it is more about radioactive waste than radiation I care about. Also the Russia melt down, their are still reports or poor children who develop abnormally near the melt down plant. It is not reported in mainstrean newspapers because they are too poor to go to the doctor.
Well no it's not "better" since it can't provide the level of power nuclear plants and traditional power plants can but it is a great way to add to our power output. Try to remember our energy needs will only grow not decrease. Most people I see who advocate Solar and Wind seem to feel these two shoule replace existing reliable methods of power generation. What we need to do is use them all.
AND ANOTHER THING - Chernobyl "WAS" not a disaster that happened in the distant past on some other planet it STILL IS a disaster! THE RADIATION IS SPREADING! The uranium that mixed with melted sand (creating glass) is turning into DUST and there is still no containment of the reactor OR the highly contaminated ground that continues to leech radioactive isotopes into the trees, plants, animals and groundwater.
Penn & Teller are a bunch of fucking idiots. I wonder how much they got paid for this.
What the fuck does this have to do with building new reactors? You know ANYTHING about the new reactor designs? First lets look at the safety record of all the existing plants in the US. The biggest and the only thing that has EVER happened was Three Mile Island. And as the video shows you, no one died or was even hurt. The amount of radiation that leaked was no more than what you get in a normal X-ray.
Since the 50's this is the only problem they have ever had here in the US. New plants are virtually meltdown proof. The cooling system is integrated into the reaction in such a way that w/o any coolant there can be no reaction and thus no meltdown. Chernobyl, AGAIN, was a poorly designed plant from the beginning. It was a disaster waiting to happen as far as anyone was concerned when it was built. Chernobyl was the Pinto of nuclear power plants.
You are just repeating word for word what you saw in this video. I suppose Penn & Teller are nuclear experts that can out-debate and out-wit any well informed person. What a joke. Keep repeating this video word for word... oh, wait.. I could just watch it again if I wanted to hear what you are going to say next.
Hello... it's been known for a LONG time that Chernobyl was a POS reactor. I have actually lived in Russia for a while and know first hand they do don't care too much about safety. They cut corners whenever they can. They did the same thing in the building of the Chernobyl plant. You see the same disregard in most things they make. I think it's hilarous that you feel I can't state somethng that is well known simply because it also happens to be pointed out in the video. You fail at logic.
God this video makes me mad. Nuclear power is NOT safe, NOR economical, NOR environmentally friendly.
#1: Acquiring Uranium. It must be extracted and MINED FROM THE FUCKING GROUND just like Coal or anything else, Penn & Teller you fucking morons! It makes a RADIOACTIVE MESS with DUST, too!
#2: For every 1 POUND of uranium used in a reactor, 99 POUNDS of "unusable" Depleted Uranium is leftover.
#3: THERE IS NO SOLUTION for spent nuclear fuel. NONE. NO long term storage - NOTHING.
1. Solar, wind, and geothermal will be the answer will never be able to supply us like fossil fuels have.
2. If you piled up ALL of the waste generated by ALL of the existing nuclear reactors since their initial launch it wouldn't even fill a high school gymnasium.
3. There IS a solution as explained in the video. It's the Yucca Mountain storage site. You really need to do some research before launching into these silly arguments based on ignorance and emotion.
HA!!! And I suppose YOU have "Silly arguments based on ignorance and emotion" about so called "Fossil Fuels". I bet you think CO2 is the worst thing ever to exist on planet earth. I bet you think Global Warming is going to destroy us all like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. I just happen to READ a lot and watch a lot of documentaries. I DO NOT watch TV anymore, since 1999.
Ice-core samples dating about 300,000 years ago show that CO2 levels were 14 TIMES higher than they are today.
My god you're an idiot. First, CO2 doe snot drive temperature changes. First temps rise THEN CO2 levels rise. Pretty damn basic. Climatologists have knwon this for a long time. 2nd, according to NASA's own data Earth is not the only planet inour system warming up. Most of the planets in our system have been going through a wamring trend AT THE SAME TIME. What does this mean? That most likely the sun the cause of the warming.
Then we had the drastic drop in GLOBAL temps. 100 years worth of global warming was virtually undone in just 12 months. the experts who were monitoring the drop said the only plausable cause was the sun. They also predicted that 2008 will be another cool year. Then we had a news article from the BCC with a headline that read "World heading towards cooler 2008." The article pretty much varified what they said.
CO2 does nto and never did drive climate changes. This had been known for a long time. Al Gore and his church of Human Caused Globla Warming have taken advantage of the ignorance of the general population of this fact to put fear into them to further their political ends.
Check out the following videos I posted for the SCIENTIFIC data:
watch?v=BFfCL-JPYw4
watch?v=dYMP10gQqIE
Nowhere did I ever say I bought into the fear mongering human caused global warming claims.
I loved how you assumed you knew my thoughts on this subject and were 100% wrong. You really should check out what someone has submitted before launching a baseless attack and make yourself look like a douchebag. I also read a lot seek out scientific data on these subjects. You do realize that The Day After Tomorrow was just a movie right? It was meant for entertainment not to educate. You aren't the only one in the world who looks at things with a critical eye and seeks out real answers.
cool video .. thanks for posting .. keep it up =)
kortneydaisey 3 months ago
LMAO. You've heard the asshole, now let's interview the guy who's right!
BrianDavid79 10 months ago
the manufacturer saved money, my point was i wish companies, did not save money by using less material, or cheaper or substandard, in buildings etc etc. there are corporate examples all over the place. i just wish money was not there primary goal. they could make money and not cut corners. it was just my thoughts on large corps. nuclear power may not be the end solution for all times, but is perhaps a better choice for this age.
canadiankewldude 11 months ago
@canadiankewldude
The only reason anything happened was because the backup generators were built in a basement prone to flooding. So even the oldest and worst of reactors made was pretty reliable, only brought down by a half-assed easily preventable oversight in backup electrical system.
In Newer reactor designs meltdowns are theoretically impossible, produce marginal waste that is easily stored.
Chinomareno 10 months ago
i am not bashing nuclear power shuggy555, my point was that the jokes in this video are not reasonable and i wish penn and teller would take things more seriously.
after some research however, i have learned that the nuclear power plants made for japan, those specific models, originally had designs for a stronger and larger containment area, the company cheaped out to save money by making the containment area perhaps efficient, but not as good as it could have been or was even designed
canadiankewldude 11 months ago
@canadiankewldude
please stop calling reading stuff on the internet as "research" ... that's called review.
undead105 11 months ago
Hey guys not you have you cowering or anything but I hope you know if you have a smoke detector then you have americium, an element that is highly radio active. Also if you have an old gas lantern then you have thorium which is... you guessed it radio active.
Now how many of you right now have:
A) grown a third arm
B) died and become a zombie
C) anything else people say is going to happen if you are exposed to highly radio active elements.
BobbyWin1000 11 months ago
@shuggy555 Besides which that plant is 40 years old, and a newer plant would be safer than one of those older ones, just as that one nuclear expert from the Competitive Enterprise Institute said.
xtreme1002003 11 months ago
Sorry Penn & Teller, but still, Japans reactor isn't shit? They can be dangerous, oh wait, thats just because they save money when they build them. Put more cash into there back up systems and maybe. ?Thank God you two don't actually control any agency.
canadiankewldude 11 months ago
Jesse have you kept an eye on Japan recently?
canadiankewldude 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"asshole scientist expects us to believe that the desert is dry." GREAT LOLOLOLOLOL
HeilLoki 11 months ago
"asshole scientist makes us believe that the desert is dry" i loled so much!
HeilLoki 11 months ago
I don't have an opinion on the topic at hand. I just wanted to express how much I can't stand the narrator. What an obnoxious obese twat. People should stop fueling his rants, in my opinion of course.
derman077 1 year ago
I wish every Nevadan had seen this well before 11/2/2010. There would have been much less of a chance that the Harry Reid dill weed, who prides himself on stopping Yucca Mountain, would have been reelected.
xtreme1002003 1 year ago
I have been watching a few videos about nuclear power, and although I am interested in nuclear, I know fuck all about it... So naturally, I don't have a biased opinion about whether it is good or not.
I have seen many videos which are either completely against or for nuclear - I am yet to see a video which states true facts about the pros and cons of nuclear power. And I get the feeling that, although this video is rather convincing, it seems to be a one sided argument.
Fucking funny though!
Hamtosss 1 year ago
I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that nuclear waste is still useful. It can still be used as fuel, the only problem is our reactors are note efficient enough. They are saving it for later.
Original USA and Russia were working hard to make the reactors achieve this level of efficiency but then they found a whole bunch more uranium deposits and lots interest in efficiency.
In theory, you can fission something until all that's left is hydrogen.
ArcaneInquisitor 1 year ago
It is pretty scary the level of cognitive dissonance and poor logic people accept as skepticism today. Your source of information is the nuclear regulatory commission, and you expect to be taken seriously? What a fucking joke. And again, if an attack is targeted at a nuclear power plant, you are potentially looking at entire countries wiped out, it's a very old military tactic which the US has used in the past. Attacking a subway line has no range at all, so that's a really stupid argument.
IPossessAHugePenis 1 year ago
@IPossessAHugePenis:
"And again, if an attack is targeted at a nuclear power plant, you are potentially looking at entire countries wiped out"
LOL!!! You have been watching WAY too much bad Hollywood movies. The only nuclear plant to melt down did not take out the Ukraine. You really should try backing up your arguments with hard facts not stuff you pull out of your arse.
searcher619 1 year ago
@IPossessAHugePenis I don't mean to troll here, but your arguement is asinine. Do you even know how radiation works? Better yet, do you understand anything about modern engineering?
schase10353 1 year ago
@IPossessAHugePenis When in the fuck did the United States Military ever target a nuclear power plant in a foreign country?
Halo4Lyf 6 months ago
The thing with chernobyl is that it took ten days before someone trusted the scientist that the a burning pile of radioactive feul rods were dangerous.
boonw 1 year ago
Here in Sweden we recently amended the old ban on building new nuclear power plants to allow us to replace our old ones. I'm all for it. I've only heard one argument against that concerned me and that was that it might stall the research and development of renewable energy.
SilkSwe 1 year ago
@SilkSwe
That's a weak argument against using nuclear power. Research into cheaper safer energy sources is on going regardless.
searcher619 1 year ago
@searcher619 Certainly. What I meant was that the public and political will to support and strive for more sustainable energy might falter. However, as you said that is in no way reason enough not to renew our nuclear power plants. Especially since the alternative is buying dirty coal energy from Germany and Poland.
SilkSwe 1 year ago
@SilkSwe Nuclear energy is renewable, you asshat. Even if you wanted to stay away from breeder reactors the amount of time it would take to deplete the world's supply of nuclear fuel would run from 50 to 100 years.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone Well true, but the mining still has the same environmental and political issues as oil drilling. I just don't want to trade the addiction to oil for one of uran.
And don't worry. I'm not that easily offended. ;)
SilkSwe 1 year ago
@SilkSwe An addiction to uranium??? First, did you miss the part where I said that Nuclear power was renewable? The right kind of reactor makes more fuel than it uses. Now I'm not claiming that you can't become addicted to something that is in constant unlimited supply but unless that addiction is to something dangerous, who cares? As for danger, Nuclear energy has a better safety record than any other kind. My argument is that there is a solution for every single objection to N.E.
willparadigm 1 year ago
@willparadigm You can't use one objection to play off another and have it both ways though. Don't want to mine? Build breeder reactors. Don't want breeder reactors? Mine uranium! Don't want to be addicted to oil? Build reactors! What's going to have to happen is someone is going to have to beat the special interests over the head with some common fucking sense and get this shit done before we end up a third world country in the dark because we're too worried about being the "bad guys".
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@SilkSwe A large part of the "Manmade Global Warming" thing could be dealt with by going to nuclear as well. It's as clean a practical energy source as man has ever invented and because the general public is fucking ignorant we're sitting around wringing our hands going "Whatever will we do when the oil runs out???" The answer is obvious, we're going to build the reacors anyway so why not just do it now and get on with a life that makes sense.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@SilkSwe Sorry about the asshat thing. See what a bad influence Penn Gillette is?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@SilkSwe There are two types of Nuclear energy Fission and Fusion.
Fusion is Renewable There are about 5 Fusion Reactors in the world. however Fusion Research has been struggling for money due to the failiure in the last century to achieve it however now we have in france the First comercial reactor that is being built. its been delayed for about 10 years tho. if we did enough research on Nuclear energy even Fission plants can be Renewable.
krnr 1 year ago
30 years since we built any new reactors and at the time this was taped there was 107 (I believe he said) reactors operating and generating electricity.
Over 30 years operating X 107 reactors / 1 incident on US soil = 1 Pretty impressive safety record.
Infrared63 1 year ago
lol@7:05
ceasewon 1 year ago
I hate it when people bring up Chernobyl as a reason to never rely on nuclear power. That's like arguing to never use airplanes as mass transit because North Korea had 100,000 die because they made an airliner out of a washing machine and a weed whacker and OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN KILLED BY THOSE PLANES, IMAGINE THAT DISASTER HAPPENING HERE!!
abyschan 2 years ago 2
Or wanting to ban cars because of the Pinto.
searcher619 2 years ago
@searcher619 A pinto might kill three or four people at most, a serious disaster at a nuclear energy plant is potentially an extninction event. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to get rid of cars or airplanes, either, they are a massive threat to the longterm health of our planet.
IPossessAHugePenis 1 year ago
@IPossessAHugePenis Extinction? Really?..........................and did you really ever expect to be taken seriously when you choose the name for your youtube account?
ArcaneInquisitor 1 year ago
@abyschan
"I hate it when people bring up Chernobyl as a reason to never rely on nuclear power"
Right on. I find it insane people actually beleive that nuclear power is dangerous because they ran an unauthorized test in a shitty outdated plant any engineer would have called stupid and dangerous, then waited waited days until they brought in a scientist to ask if a burning pile of spent feul rods was dangerous.
We have standards here in the west : )
boonw 1 year ago
Comment removed
jenaardell 1 year ago
@abyschan Chernobyl was the most publicized nuclear disaster but there are MANY that are swept under the rug:
In October 2006, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel concluded that the SRE meltdown near Simi Valley, CA caused the release of more than 458x the amount of radiation released by the Three Mile Island accident.
Why doesn't anyone talk about that one?! B/c Boeing has $ and the gov let them get away w/ murder. BTW that site has yet to be cleaned up. Superfund sites = jokes.
jenaardell 1 year ago
2:38
achildwithoutaneye 2 years ago
Having read the argument between jenaardell and searcher619... I'm very confused about what you two talk about half the time. It has nothing to do with this video. I suggest you watch it again. Nuke is clean, cheap, safe, and produces real people amounts of power, unlike solar, wind, or geothermal. You, yourself, contain radiation: natural Potassium. You won't die from it. And as for the waste causing cancer... do you know how they treat cancer these days? Oh yeah! Radiation therapy. Win.
redneckrabbi0 3 years ago 10
Yeah jenaardell and i went off on a tangent. I am in 100% agreement with all you just said.
searcher619 3 years ago
That's like saying you treat cancer with chemo therapy, so swallowing a container of sleeping pills must be good for you.
Also, Potassium is waaaaay less radioactive than the stuff used in nuclear plants. I'm not saying nuclear power necessarily a bad idea, just that you should be making good arguments for it, not stupid arguments.
intuos 2 years ago
I understand that radiation can cause harm, but it's not all bad. We've managed to perform amazing feats with it.
As to an argument for nuclear power, it's easier to hear any objections you may have than to guess and take shots in the dark. I'm well aware K is much less radioactive than the material found in a nuclear plant, having received working dose from a fission reactor. However, of the amount of radiation a person is exposed to during a year, 1% or less is from nuclear power.
redneckrabbi0 2 years ago
@redneckrabbi0 Ok if radiation therapy is so safe... go get some now. See what happens to you. Radiation is constantly linked to cancer, as a carcinogen. That's nothing new.
Nuclear energy is NOT a clean energy because there is toxic radioactive waste involved. It can NEVER be labeled a "clean" energy. (There are no solar spills or wind leaks btw). AND nuclear energy is nowhere near cheap... do some research before posting words other people have implanted in your head.
jenaardell 1 year ago
@redneckrabbi0 I like pen and teller but they are far from impartial. I think that many people exaggerate the problem with nuclear power but saying its cheap, safe, and clean is asinine. The only reason its "cheap" is because of subsidies from the government. Its cost 4 billion dollars to make a plant, its expensive to mine uranium, and its expensive to dispose of the waste responsibly. Its clean in that it does not produce co2 but it does produce waste. And how is is safer than a solar panel?
brockunc 1 year ago
So it's acceptable that the U.S. uses more energy than any other nation because we made ourselves dependent on technology. I love how most Americans like yourself can't "inconvenience" themselves to save energy. I never said anything about living like Amish people. I'm just bringing up the fact that we do not need to consume as much energy as we do. And P.S. only people on life support would die without electricity.
jenaardell 3 years ago
You ar incredibly short sighted. What do you think makes it possible for us to produce and sroe the amount of food needed by the world's population? What do you think makes it possible to research and produce vaccines and cures for various illnesses? Electricity does. Refrigeration units do not run on hope and good will. It amazes me how people like you are filled with guilt/envy over the prosperity of a country like the US. Spend some time in some of these developing nations.
searcher619 3 years ago
Yes. Many people would starve to death world wide not just here in the US. You forgetting how the US produces and sells food to natios whch can nnot produce enough food to feed their own people? Please tell me how it's "unfair" that we can afford to buy the resources we do to support our lifestyle.
searcher619 3 years ago
I will repeat: I'm just bringing up the fact that we do not need to consume as much energy as we do. I understand our lifestyles are dependent upon electricity but it is possible to live without it. And P.S. f we weren't continuously polluting our environment (with things like radioactive waste), there would be less illness and lower cancer rates. Then we wouldn't need as much electricity to manufacture vaccines and drugs that are doing more harm than good, yay!!
jenaardell 3 years ago
You DO know that the US has the strictest environmental regulations in the world right? You seem to be buying into the bull being pushed by groups like Greenpeace.
searcher619 3 years ago
Get your facts straight before jumping to overgeneralized conclusions. GERMANY has the strictest environmental regulations. Then New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, United Kingdom, France, Australia, Malaysia, Taiwan THEN the US.
I love how pessimistic close-minded argumentative ppl like yourself love to jump to conclusions & ASSUME that the people who give a sh*t about the environment are all Greenpeace tree-huggers. I personally have never been to the Greenpeace website but thanks for judging me.
jenaardell 3 years ago
The US SELLS food to other nations to make a profit, not to do a good deed. And we import most of our food and products from places like China because it's cheaper than making it ourselves. Humans are inherently greedy and are born with a chip on their shoulder that makes them expect to receive far more than they actually deserve. That's what's unfair. Just b/c you can afford to be wasteful shouldn't give you the right to consume as much as you possibly can, especially when it comes to energy.
jenaardell 3 years ago
So you are one of those who feels it's evil to turn a profit? Give me a break. Human nature is NOT love, peace, and happiness. If it were we wouldn't have thise problems. Hell our history wouldn't be as bloody as it is. Grees and selfishness are part of our survival instincts. Pretending we arne't the way we are is naive. In the real world NOTHING is fair. Things just are. Your guilt for not having to suffer and struggle comes through loud and clear in your comments.
searcher619 3 years ago
I never said profit was evil. I brought it up because you made it seem like the world relies on the good ole U.S. to provide everything for them. Our history is bloody because people are greedy. I already mentioned that so how you thought I was pretending otherwise is beyond me. You don't like to listen to other people huh?? I never said the world is fair. I don't have guilt... I have frustration for people who are STUBBORN and unwilling to change their habits.
jenaardell 3 years ago
You are frustrated with people who refuse to see things as yu do is more like it. And yes if the US stopped selling food to other countries many would starve to death. We are one of the few nations who is producing MUCH more food than it needs and sells it. Many starving nations actually do depend on us for their food. The US is the most generous nation. We give away more money and food than any other country on the planet. Did you ever stop and wonder maybe YOU are the stubborn one?
searcher619 3 years ago
I'm actually one of those who feels we need to stop supporting these nations. We have been feeding them and supporting them financially for decades w/o ANY kind of change or improvement. We are enabling them. Keeping them dependant on us for survival is pretty sick to me. They need to be forced to start standing on their own. The people in those countries need to stop having children they can't support as well as dealing with the rampant corruption which has a large hand in their suffering.
searcher619 3 years ago
Oh also forgot to point out the obvious but since it's not all that obvious to you... All modern treatments and vaccines which are saving lives and easing suffering world wide were developed becasue there was money to be made in their production. Profit is a motivator. W/O it the world would be a much darker place as well as much less populated. Greed is not evil by itself. ater all it's one of the many things we have to thank for our continued existence.
searcher619 3 years ago
@jenaardell "Inconvenience" You mean like switching to lightbulbs that require hazmat procedures every time you break one? I had to throw away an entire set of bedding when my son broke one in the reading lamp in his bedroom.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I know!! Compact florescent lights are horrible! Florecent light itself is bad enough; very cold and unpleasant. I remember my dorm had cheap florescent lights everywhere and they gave me headaches and made me lethargic.
Incandescence FTW!
ArcaneInquisitor 1 year ago
There are nuclear power sites in the US that STILL contaminate our water supply. Google info about the Hanford site. The government should clean up these sites before ever thinking about building more sites.
Also, nuclear power relies on uranium mining and in our case, mining from FOREIGN sources which will put us back in the same mess we are in already with foreign oil.
There are NO safe, permanent storage facilities for nuclear waste in the world, only temporary containment sites.
jenaardell 3 years ago
They woudl if they were allowed to scrap them and bild NEW sites. Unfortunately they can't becasue the environmental lobby has been preventing that. Many of our existing nuclear powerplants need to be retried and replaced with the much more efficient and better designed modern plants.
searcher619 3 years ago
They would... what??? You can't just "scrap" a nuclear site. There is a huge, EXPENSIVE decommission process. The Hanford site alone requires $1.2 BILLION/year for cleanup. Why should we make more of a mess???
jenaardell 3 years ago
And? So you actually think they shouldn't retire tehse old nuke power stations simply because it's expensive? LOL!!! They have been trying to do just that like I said because they have to. This isn't a whim. These stations provide us with much needed power and MUST be replaced.
searcher619 3 years ago
No, you're missing my point. I realize they have to decommission nuclear plants. My point is they cost too much to build, too much to maintain, are dangerous, emit radiation and radioactive waste AND it costs billions for decommissioning and cleanup. In my opinion, the cons out weigh the pros. ESPECIALLY when taking uranium mining into consideration. There are better, safer, cleaner energy alternatives.
jenaardell 3 years ago
And it seems like your are missing the obvious here. Their importance makes their cost acceptable. They last for a very long time and provide much needed power. If they were a luxury then ues you would be riht but they are not. They are a necessity. We will never move away from nuclear power. It will be quite the opposite. As our energy needs continue to grow we will have to embrace nuclear power much mor than we do today.
searcher619 3 years ago
In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption.
Electricity WAS a luxury, we made it a necessity, which is great BUT the U.S. consumes far more energy than any other country -- more than China and Russia put together.
The bottom line is we need to conserve energy. Then we wouldn't need nuclear energy. If the rest of the world can do, why can't we???
jenaardell 3 years ago
You are missing the forrest for the trees. You can preach conservation all you like but it does not deal with the very hard fact that our lives are becoming more and more dependant on technology. This means a constantly growing need. Our power here in the US would be more than that 20% figure you quote if it weren't for the environmentalists lobby blocking the building of more plants. MUCH needed plants may I add. In countries like France they get over 70% of their power from nuclear.
searcher619 3 years ago
That's right. Electricity WAS a luxury. That was only until we learned what we coudl do with it. How it can improve the quality of life for the human race as a whole. We wouldn't be living as well and as healthy as we are w/o electricity. Our MODERN civilization os society as a whole requires it to function. Mosr people don't look longingly at the lives lead by the Amish. Your argument is pointless given It is not a luxury. MANY peopel would die w/o the use of electricity.
searcher619 3 years ago
@jenaardell "There are better, safer, cleaner energy alternatives." ... NAME ONE.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone SOLAR & WIND.
jenaardell 1 year ago
@jenaardell Laughable, solar and wind will NEVER be practical, they're no better than fairytales at the moment and we need to power NOW! Do you realize how much acreage is needed for those two methods to produce even a tiny fraction of what's needed?
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@jenaardell solar and wind are kinda fun toys but they don't have the btu's that nuclear power does. Maybe solar and wind will be viable some day but they are not there yet.
pete5668 1 year ago
@MrMZaccone I'm just saying make the government clean up all the nuclear waste sites from reactor mishaps BEFORE spending the money to build more reactors and potentially contaminating more land and water.
It took our government FIFTY yrs to finally address the Santa Susana Field Lab site near L.A. & here's how they propose to clean-up ACRES AND ACRES of land... by shipping all of the contaminated radioactive soil to Utah. WOW.
jenaardell 1 year ago
@jenaardell That's like insisting no one is allowed to build a new house because some of the old ones contain asbestos.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@jenaardell The Hanford site can't be seriously compared to a modern nuclear reactor. Your mention of it in this context is laughable.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
@jenaardell Nuclear power doesn't have to rely on mining of any kind. Breeder reactors make more fuel than they use. In addition, in situ leech mining is very environmentally friendly and cannot be compared, even to the dangers of the petroleum or coal industries. As for the Hanford site, it cannot be compared to a modern reactor. "NO safe, permanent storage facilities for nuclear waste"? Not if you refuse to call 10,000 years "permanent", but then ...
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
I still think wind & solar energy power is better. We do have the technology to take it nation wide and in unrban and surburban development. I think it is more about radioactive waste than radiation I care about. Also the Russia melt down, their are still reports or poor children who develop abnormally near the melt down plant. It is not reported in mainstrean newspapers because they are too poor to go to the doctor.
hmmyeah 3 years ago
Well no it's not "better" since it can't provide the level of power nuclear plants and traditional power plants can but it is a great way to add to our power output. Try to remember our energy needs will only grow not decrease. Most people I see who advocate Solar and Wind seem to feel these two shoule replace existing reliable methods of power generation. What we need to do is use them all.
searcher619 3 years ago
AND ANOTHER THING - Chernobyl "WAS" not a disaster that happened in the distant past on some other planet it STILL IS a disaster! THE RADIATION IS SPREADING! The uranium that mixed with melted sand (creating glass) is turning into DUST and there is still no containment of the reactor OR the highly contaminated ground that continues to leech radioactive isotopes into the trees, plants, animals and groundwater.
Penn & Teller are a bunch of fucking idiots. I wonder how much they got paid for this.
mrjustin5 3 years ago
What the fuck does this have to do with building new reactors? You know ANYTHING about the new reactor designs? First lets look at the safety record of all the existing plants in the US. The biggest and the only thing that has EVER happened was Three Mile Island. And as the video shows you, no one died or was even hurt. The amount of radiation that leaked was no more than what you get in a normal X-ray.
searcher619 3 years ago
Since the 50's this is the only problem they have ever had here in the US. New plants are virtually meltdown proof. The cooling system is integrated into the reaction in such a way that w/o any coolant there can be no reaction and thus no meltdown. Chernobyl, AGAIN, was a poorly designed plant from the beginning. It was a disaster waiting to happen as far as anyone was concerned when it was built. Chernobyl was the Pinto of nuclear power plants.
searcher619 3 years ago
You are just repeating word for word what you saw in this video. I suppose Penn & Teller are nuclear experts that can out-debate and out-wit any well informed person. What a joke. Keep repeating this video word for word... oh, wait.. I could just watch it again if I wanted to hear what you are going to say next.
mrjustin5 3 years ago
Hello... it's been known for a LONG time that Chernobyl was a POS reactor. I have actually lived in Russia for a while and know first hand they do don't care too much about safety. They cut corners whenever they can. They did the same thing in the building of the Chernobyl plant. You see the same disregard in most things they make. I think it's hilarous that you feel I can't state somethng that is well known simply because it also happens to be pointed out in the video. You fail at logic.
searcher619 3 years ago
I also love how you attack the presenters of th info since you really can't discredit the information itself.
searcher619 3 years ago
God this video makes me mad. Nuclear power is NOT safe, NOR economical, NOR environmentally friendly.
#1: Acquiring Uranium. It must be extracted and MINED FROM THE FUCKING GROUND just like Coal or anything else, Penn & Teller you fucking morons! It makes a RADIOACTIVE MESS with DUST, too!
#2: For every 1 POUND of uranium used in a reactor, 99 POUNDS of "unusable" Depleted Uranium is leftover.
#3: THERE IS NO SOLUTION for spent nuclear fuel. NONE. NO long term storage - NOTHING.
BOGUS VIDEO!
mrjustin5 3 years ago
1. Solar, wind, and geothermal will be the answer will never be able to supply us like fossil fuels have.
2. If you piled up ALL of the waste generated by ALL of the existing nuclear reactors since their initial launch it wouldn't even fill a high school gymnasium.
3. There IS a solution as explained in the video. It's the Yucca Mountain storage site. You really need to do some research before launching into these silly arguments based on ignorance and emotion.
searcher619 3 years ago
HA!!! And I suppose YOU have "Silly arguments based on ignorance and emotion" about so called "Fossil Fuels". I bet you think CO2 is the worst thing ever to exist on planet earth. I bet you think Global Warming is going to destroy us all like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. I just happen to READ a lot and watch a lot of documentaries. I DO NOT watch TV anymore, since 1999.
Ice-core samples dating about 300,000 years ago show that CO2 levels were 14 TIMES higher than they are today.
mrjustin5 3 years ago
My god you're an idiot. First, CO2 doe snot drive temperature changes. First temps rise THEN CO2 levels rise. Pretty damn basic. Climatologists have knwon this for a long time. 2nd, according to NASA's own data Earth is not the only planet inour system warming up. Most of the planets in our system have been going through a wamring trend AT THE SAME TIME. What does this mean? That most likely the sun the cause of the warming.
searcher619 3 years ago
Then we had the drastic drop in GLOBAL temps. 100 years worth of global warming was virtually undone in just 12 months. the experts who were monitoring the drop said the only plausable cause was the sun. They also predicted that 2008 will be another cool year. Then we had a news article from the BCC with a headline that read "World heading towards cooler 2008." The article pretty much varified what they said.
searcher619 3 years ago
CO2 does nto and never did drive climate changes. This had been known for a long time. Al Gore and his church of Human Caused Globla Warming have taken advantage of the ignorance of the general population of this fact to put fear into them to further their political ends.
Check out the following videos I posted for the SCIENTIFIC data:
watch?v=BFfCL-JPYw4
watch?v=dYMP10gQqIE
Nowhere did I ever say I bought into the fear mongering human caused global warming claims.
searcher619 3 years ago
I loved how you assumed you knew my thoughts on this subject and were 100% wrong. You really should check out what someone has submitted before launching a baseless attack and make yourself look like a douchebag. I also read a lot seek out scientific data on these subjects. You do realize that The Day After Tomorrow was just a movie right? It was meant for entertainment not to educate. You aren't the only one in the world who looks at things with a critical eye and seeks out real answers.
searcher619 3 years ago
@mrjustin5 Breeder reactors can make more fuel than they use. Mining is technically not necessary.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
I love it when enviromental people believe that nuclear scientist and engineers are evil by default.
murtumaton 3 years ago
The oppressive regulations for USA nuclear plants is their OWN DAMN FAULT.
NRC (was the AEC) was in charge of safety AND promotion. Conflict!?
Their initial reports our of TMI were LIES.
France standardized TWO designs of plants, simplifying safety checks.
Sure, trust us.
Estamio 3 years ago