if a nuclear power plant overheats and "explodes" it wouldn't cause nearly as big of an explosion as a nuclear bomb would. your fucking stupid if your against nuclear power.
@CPTownage567 You're a fucking shithead if you think that strawman is why anti-nuclear activists oppose the colossal insanity and drain on an economy that nuclear power is.
I prefer Freedom Call's version of this song.... and this video is a bit off in my mind... nuclear bombs and nuclear power are so vastly differnt. at :46 and 1:55 you show cooling towers as if thoes are bad.....thats nothing but steam.. XD
how ignorant is some people. That white fume coming out of the cooling towers is nothing else than vapour, taken from a river/lake/sea. nuclear plants need water as a refrigerant and water is 0 contaminant. 0 means 0. it means no contaminant at all. also, the system where the reaction is placed is a thermodynamic closed system, what it means that no mass can pass the system to the surroundings and only heat and work can be transferred. no mass means that there is no contact between
I'm not right wing anything, nor am I a nuclear cheeleader. I'm all for clean energy whatever it be, PROVIDED it can be feasible for everyone and anyone, anywhere. As of right now, there is NO energy source currently. I believe solar and wind are impractical for large scale situations, does it mean I'm against it? No. What I'm against is people who post crap like this video, if you're against something and are going to preach about it, maybe you should know what really can and can't happen
If the shithead anti-environmental activists and lobbyists had not interfered with the work of Greenpeace and solar and wind companies for the past half century, we'd have affordable solar and wind, we'd have a strong economy, fair distribution of money and resources based on actual work done (not stolen by banker welfare kings), and no economic collapse caused by (among others) trillions of dollars wasted on nuclear boondoggles.
Nuclear power is the third largest contributor to greenhouse gasses and global warming, after meat (needlessly feeding crops to cattle), and human overpopulation. It is also the fourth largest waste of tax dollars and water resources.
Nuclear power simply cannot compete against solar and wind without its massive government welfare bailouts.
@mphello how nuclear power is contributing to greenhouse gasses? Man please dont make an Idiot out of yourself! I am fucking engineer who work with this stuff and you are talking bullshit.In my contry solar power has 7-times buy out price guaranteed by government! And all it did it raised the price of power
@teac4444 I'm a chemical engineer, by training. So what? So what that YOU'RE an engineer who "works with this stuff"? Doesn't change the fact one bit that you don't see or add up all the external costs. Why is nuclear never insured by private companies? When there's a spill, it's always the PUBLIC (including the innocent anti-nuclear activists) who are forced to pay.
@mphello You sir are an idiot. I am fucking nuclear engineer, I work in research and you know NOTHING about nuclear engineering or nuclear power-plants. You bunch of stupid hippies always battle on the front of politics,but never on the front of physics,cuz you suck in it. Entropy is term in thermodynamics FYI it is TD property that can be used to determine the energy not available for work in TM process. This proves how stupid you are! how you know nothing about physics.
@teac4444 I have not nor ever have been a hippy, because I don't believe in (in fact I hate) bullshit singing and dancing and non-violence crap to solve social-political-legal problems. Anyone who does deludes themselves. But I defend hippies the same way I defend Jews: I'm not one, but I stand up to bullies.
However, I grew up BEING pro-nuclear, because I thought it was neat and cool. It still is. But, that does not change the fact that nuclear plants WILL decay over time and
@mphello and humans will NOT have the human-power to deal with such massively complex cleanups. And THAT'S if everything goes according to plan.
I'm not talking about "accidents". And, yes - I STRONGLY think this whole "terrorism" argument against nuclear plants has been idiotically overblown.
Still doesn't change the fact that the MASSIVE complexity and plans to deal with eventual decay of these plants, never mind the eternal babysitting of nuclear waste, makes nuke plants idiotic as a
If you want to have 2 or 3 nuclear plants on the planet, for research purposes, say, one way in the middle of Siberia, another - well, I'll let YOU decide - that's fine.
@mphello I will shortly move to another research I wanted to do. That is nuclear fusion. Only waste product is Helium, no danger of radioactive contamination of enviroment. It is still far way to go but still. What do you propose as replacement of nuclear power? Coal??Gas?? that will run out. What reliable, good source of energy do you propose? we could waste less for sure, but energy demand will rise.
@teac4444 First, let's make sure we do not conflate portable fuels for moving vehicles versus generating electricity for homes, buildings, etc. Deal with the former later.
For generating electricity, it's called wind and solar. There's also wave technology, although I don't know a lot about that. Just go to wwindea dot org. No reason we can't have solar and wind supply at least 90% of our electricity.
But, it's a multi-faceted approach: laws to limit human breeding are integral, too.
@mphello Buddy, Wind and solar energy will never by able to sub for coal,gas,water or nuclear. It is way too unreliable and it costs fortune to minimize inpact. you also dont have so much space to build it.it is very costly. Only reliable renewable source is tidal power.you can predict rides to 150years.Other concept will maybe supply parts of small houses and so on. And you cannot limit breeding. you just cannot
@teac4444 Listen, boy: FACT: you have never worked in the nuclear industry and you do NOT have any engineering credentials.
Fact: stupid hippies know more about nuclear power than you know about wind and solar energy.
"cannot limit breeding". Bullshit. Why not?
Fact: you CANNOT build nuclear reactors by private companies and insured by private industry. All the costs and waste are paid for and forced onto the public. Not practical.
@mphello Dear boy. I work in nuclear RESEARCH you IDIOT!!! And I have studied power engineering and nuclear engineering. I studied about wind and solar energy(i also did scientific projects with PV cells).I know more than you think! I have studied in Canada,Slovakia and Netherlands.
And how do you propose to limit breeding?
You cannot what??Nuclear reactors are also build by private companies, but LAW tell they have to be insured and controled by government. Have you heard of IAEA???
@mphello Sorry mate, you are and amazing asshole and idiot!! I dont even know why I waste time with you. I will continue my research and IT will continue, you can cry to your mama. Nuclear energy is here to stay and it cannot be replaced by wind or solar, who says otherwise is just plain stupid and know nothing about grid or physics involved in such technology
@mphello Dude, and what do you think research is here for? I am in developing of Gen.4 nuclear reactors, that are able to burn used fuel from todays reactors and no waste is produced on the way. Another unit here is in charge of decommisioning of nuclear reactors,which proves to be much easier than many people think. Radioactive parts of dismanteled NP will be stored for about 100 years and after that they can be reused.
This total bullshit about non-steady power from solar and wind completely ignores the fact that we ALREADY have non-steady loads. People turn their AC and heaters on and off at different times. Grids are already designed to deal with that. If it stops blowing in one area, a wind farm will pick up the slack in another area.
@mphello I am laughing my ass off. You know absolutely nothing! It is much different to have non-stedy load and non-stedy production!!! Problem with solar and wind is that you cannot predict 100% how it is. In Germany they have a lot of problems dealing with this stuff!
More people have been killed driving than by anything nuclear power related. Maybe ya'll should crusade against the real killer here. Nuclear power is for the most part the safest form of energy generation on the planet. The reason why nuclear accidents saturate the media is because otherwise when all is well, nobody pays them any mind. People fear what they don't understand, and to say that most of the worlds population doesn't understand nuclear science would be pretty reasonable assumption.
@ErikHartog It’s bordering on comedy that antinuclear activists claim nuclear power is not safe when it has killed only 56 people in 14,000 reactor years of operation, especially when you consider that the alternative, fossil fuels, kills more people EVERY DAY. Furthermore you can't consider intermittent sources such as wind and solar since there is no place on earth where the sun shines 365 days a year, or where the wind blows constantly with enough power to turn a turbine.
@ErikHartog Ignore rightwing conservaturds like BriandDavid79. They preach the pro-nuclear propaganda line as though it will be the savior of mankind's global warming, when, in fact, he - like all pro-nuclear religionists, are the biggest deniers of anthropogenic global warming. Mankind has had the multipart answer for energy problems for decades, but the pro-fossil pro-nuclear politicians refuse to listen and act: conservation, birth control, solar and wind farms and H2 fuel cells.
@mphello Solar and wind farms have killed NOBODY ever. And they have performed amazingly well, given the pathetic amount of support they receive from politicians.
@BrianDavid79 You know what's even safer than nuclear power? Reducing human consumption and overpopulation by mandatory birth control and outlawing meat so as to reduce half our cropland wasted on feeding livestock. Yet, ironically, I NEVER hear pro-nuclear activists lobby and support THESE policies.
@flotillaGo Are you an idiot? Have you never taken a physics class or gone to college? Nuclear power is the greenest energy source worth a damn. There's no risks of a nuclear explosion with power plants. Nuclear power is cheap, efficient, easy to harvest its fuel, very safe, and there's enough plutonium on earth to last us over a million years.
@ExploringBeyond i assume college is where u went wrong.. in buying the bullshit they feed u.. we dont know shit yet about what it does.. what we do know is the barium 80 leaks constantly.. cancer was cured in 1930. thnx to idiots like u.. people will suffer from cancer for many decades.. the good thing of nuclear power is all soldiers will be dead soon.. give more tours in nuke plants to politicians ;)
@ExploringBeyond its not the plutonium we would run out of, it the uranium, my book says if we would shut down all plants and convert it all to nuclear, we would run out of uranium in about 25 years. but that book was pub before the 4th gen reactors came out.
alright folks, When a nuclear meltdown occurs, the nuclear fuel assemblies just get really hot, (around 7000+ degrees) until the reactants run out. Then you are just left with the radiation. This radiation is mostly contained within a containment dome. in short, A POWER PLANT CANNOT EXPLODE!
Even in a situation like three mile island, relatively very little radiation was released int o the atmosphere. There was more radiation released from the granite in the courtroom within the week of trials.
malheureusement , l'emploi du nucleaire est aussi une question financiere car il permet de produire de l' energie sans trop de consommations , mais moi aussi je rêves d'un monde sans technologies nucleaires ....
This video depicts the steam coming from cooling towers as pollution or radioactive clouds. That's not correct. The cooling towers expel pure distilled water in the form of steam. I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than any other type, including hydroelectric, due to the chance of flooding.
The comparison with nuclear weapons is also not fair. Nuclear power is a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer as a weapon too, but you can also build a house with it.
@lemonrind bs.. o, what do we do with the waste? uhm, we put it in food, toothpaste and use it as weapon.. or we stick it in the ground till the population is dead..
@flotillaGo wow your ignorant, for one mercury is the second most poisnous chemical out there, its in the ground, hell its more in likely in your household thermometer.
Well, compare nuclear power to the industrial revolution. There were accidents down mines and in factories at first, but then people learnt from those mistakes and they are now very safe.
OK I get the point on Nuclear Bombs, but also remember, even in the 70s Three Mile Island did NOT explode. Time was spent and water was continually pumped thru the reactor. It did not get away, like Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a fatal flaw in design. It was bound to happen somewhere. The reactor at Three Mile Island was mishandled, yes, but in a short period of time, the hydrogen bubble was bled off, and no danger to anyone.Precautions were taken, where there was none in Russia. See the difference!
"Policies governing the disposal of high-level radioactive waste are defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as amended. This act specifies that high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of underground, in a deep geologic repository and that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, will be the single candidate site for characterization as a potential geologic repository. This act provides for a procedure and timetable for the site selection, construction, and operation of HLW mined geologic."
It's not about cars exploding it's the fact that there's a limited amount of uranium, and other nuclear elements. Just by the little amount that we're using right now is estimated to deplete within 40-years. If cars were suddenly equipped to be nuclear, there wouldn't be enough to last the next 2-years.
@ExploringBeyond You're thinking of the oil reserves of currently discovered drilling sites.
"We can withdraw 16 000 tonne/yr of uranium from seawater continuously for hundreds of millions of years. This is enough to produce 16 000 GWe or 480 quadrillion BTU per year, which is 6 times the world’s present electricity usage, and almost the world’s present total energy consumption." - Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source by Bernard L. Cohen, American Journal of Physics, 1983
C'est juste de la vapeur d'eau qui sort des centrales, rien de choquant. Les déchets radioactifs sont traités du mieux possible selon leur degré de radioactivité sur le court et sur le long terme.
Les centrales nucléaires servent aussi en médecine pour produire des isotopes radioactifs utilisés comme marqueurs biologiques (recherche contre le cancer etc ..)
Je pense que l'énergie nucléaire n'est pas l'énergie du futur lointain mais plutôt du futur proche. C'est sans doute la meilleur solution pour répondre aux besoins énergétiques actuels. Cependant, elle doit servir d'énergie de transition pour les énergies renouvelables qui demanderont du temps pour être bien au point. Laissons du temps à la Recherche! Et si vous êtes mécontents, n'utilisez plus l'électricité qu'on vous vent mais produisez la
and about chernobyl, it was an accident, and if those workers hadn't tried that experiment in order to achieve some savings, it never would have happend, so i say paticle yes to nuclear energy because like forrest gump said, you never know what you gonna get...
Well, also Chernobyl was an RBMK reactor, which isn't quite as well designed as TMI was. And even with the experimentation, from what I understand they just forgot to turn the coolant system back on. They were just assing around in the worst way with that thing.
@RawSteelUT that too yes... very unfortunate for people living there. I just cannot understand, how could they forget that... never mind, thanks for the updates. peace
@flotillaGo your just another hippie pot smoker that is to scared to deal with real problems, your fine going against everything but you dont make anyones life any better.
@coalandnuclear no, im dealing with serious problems. i have no scare, i died before now i can love and stand up for truth, see truth, study, learn, openmind. im going against mass-murderers.. but hey! i have no children and i dont care my mom dies a bit sooner. i showed her the proof but she trusts the doctor..
its like people who denie that the official version of 9/11 is BS. nuclear power will kill everybody. think for yourself, start sharing and loving, its really fun and then you'll grow.
@flotillaGo you just sound dumb, let me guess you died in an ufo attack where they probed ur ass. and quit hasseling your mother if shes on her deathbed, let her go out with a bit of dignity, rather than fighting some stupid cause that isnt there.grow up and get a job, and guess what if the gov. is trying to kill the popultion, good there are way too many people for the earth, we are starving it. people have to die, its the natural order
@coalandnuclear i wont let her die. i''l cure her if she gets sick. but people should learn to heal themselves.
how things sound depends on the finetuning of the broken receiver...
overpopulation is evil, lies, fearmongering, nazitactics.. if we starve, we will die because of monsanto.. fish and meat is allready too toxic to eat..
i'm fine, im enjoying my savings.. darwin and freud were fascists..
Chernobyl was one of few nuclear reactors that have actually malfunctioned and caused an explosion, however even that was not a nuclear explosion, that is a common misconception.
All the chernobyl reactor did was scatter radioactive material and killed several workers at the plant.
yes but, there was an explosion that blew the roof and side of the reactor building, which allowed the radioactive particles and fumes to escape into the atmosphere and later the clouds poured down tons and tons of radioactive rain throughout europe.
Big difference actually. A nuclear reactor has a lot more fuel than most nuclear bombs, but it is almost impossible to detonate even in the older reactors. Chernobyl was a steam powered explosion that took the roof and containment lid off the reactor.
New pebble bed reactor designs are actually not physically able to melt down at all.
Some other reactor types, such as the heavy-water reactors developed by Canada, are also unable to physically melt down, because the reactor coolant also keeps the reaction going. Overheat the core, the coolant boils off, thus killing the reaction.
A technology should not be judged by the fact that it prevents any conceivable problem, but by the fact that in case of problems the consequence are in the scope of design.
For this point of view the record of nuclear industry is outstanding. TMI was the worst ever accident in light-water reactos, i.e. those with good design. Reactor destroyed, a couple of billion dollars lost by the company who owned it, but nobody was injured.
Always the same questions, always the same answers: Chernobyl was crap design (carbon moderated, water cooled, positive power coefficient) it was meant to explode. US reactors are good design (water moderated, water cooled, power coefficient dominated by huge negative void coefficient).
Too bad Chernobyl happened. Now everyone is so afraid of nuclear power, when really we should be scrapping all our shitty fossil-fuel power plants and going 100% nuclear. Nuclear power is safer than most other forms, creates much less waste and is far better for the environment. The chance of a nuclear meltdown with todays technology is so small it's virtually impossible.
What a terrible propaganda video, mixing up several wrongly chosen facts and proving again what a narrow mind anti-nuclear activists have. Grow up and learn about the progress nuclear science has made since then for the benefit of mankind, like production of isotopes for medical use, recycling for reuse and transmutation of waste, material research, generation IV NPP's and so on.
1. Even Chernobyl disaster wasn't a nuclear explosion (it was exploding hydrogen + oxygen mix). Radiation in Pripyat is less than radiation in centre of big city (e.g. Warsaw)
2. Worse than NPP's are nuclear experiment and military facilities in Russia (search for Mayak in Russia - most contaminated area in world).
3. Nuclear bombs are the worst - they should be prohibited. Few big bangs and our planet is empty of life if not destroyed.
The release of radiation from Chernobyl was 400 times higher than the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima/Nagasaki........
93 % of all people involved in the accident became sick and 15 000 people+ has died of cancer. The accident has costed a country like Norway 650 million NOK, or about 325 million zloty in your currancy. Huge disaster, no??
there is no confusion with reactors and bombs, neither someone thinking that that vapor is smog or so. It is just a reminder that nuclear energy, is potentially fucking dangerous, and the nuclear waste is not easy to handle, neither this stuff is sustainable in long term (50-100 years is not long term).
And of course chernobyle was a human error. Any reactor even if the probabilitiees are low can create a great disaster any time. soon or later we need a beter alternative, so he is reminding it.
i still cant believe it happened, it is like our worst nightmare happening in front of us. a city rendered completely uninhabitable for virtually forever. i think the half life of uranium is like 245,000 years.
If I remember right there are still 11 reactors of the same design in operation to this day. I really hope that they shut these down and replace with modern reactors.
Tu as tout à fait raison, le nucléaire est une source d'énergie bien plus propre et rentable que les énergies fossiles, seulement je pense que l'homme n'est pas apte à la manipuler, et encore moins à s'en servir pour intimider les autres ...
Je dirais ensuite, même s'il ne faut pas confondre les centrales et les bombes, qu'Hiroshima et Nagasaki n'étaient pas des erreurs. Certes celà à mis fin à le WW2, mais ce fut selon moi le plus grand crime contre l'humanité jamais commit !
yea, but there is a small chance that it actually blows up, well... my sister was born in '85 when the one in Chernobyl blew up...the point is we can't do anything with nuclear waste and there is more and more of it and if we build more and more we might end up killing ourselves solar or wind power does not produce any waste
no you don't understand it is physically impossible for a negative void coefficient reactor to explode.
You would have a higher chance turning a car into a time machine.
As for Chernobyl that happened because they wanted to see if they could restart the cooling pumps before the turbines shut down. To do that they had to disable 5 separate safety devices and they did it during a shift change so no one know what was happening.
It's like testing your airbags by crashing into a wall.
So when the nuclear plant about 30 miles up river from my house explodes you are the first person I'll call to clean up the fall-out. Oh wait you can't. What about the tons of radioactive waste that is trucked past my house every year. I live in PA surrounded by neclear plants. It's a lot easier to clean up a plane crash than to reclaim a nuclear disaster zone. I beleive Chenobyl is pretty striking example. It will kill us all reguardless of what you have to say about it.
If is built by humans there is always the risk of failure. No matter how well built or maintained. Even the most well built canister is not impervious to human error and nature.
You obviously do not want to admit the truth that nuclear power has it's share of problems as could any-thing else. And what would you say about nuclear matirials and knowlege in the wrong hands. According to you there is no way that they could harm people with it. May'be that will put some in my cereal so it will "blow up" as you so aeertivly point out. I say this to prove my point, even with the most noble of intensions. Peopel can still get hurt with nuclear technolgies. The truth remains.
no i never said it couldn't hurt people if it fell in the wrong hands. that is why there is extremely tight security around it.
We learned that Airplanes can hurt people when in the wrong hands. Does that mean we stop flying airplanes?
An accident like Chernobyl is physically impossible because reactors are not made that way anymore. Hell when Chernobyl happend the Russians were the only ones using that design.
It's like saying an electric car could explode like a gas car.
are you comparing 3 mile island to Chernobyl? Do you know what happened at 3 mile island?
This is like comparing a fender bender to 9/11.
Even under the worst case scenario 3 Mile Island would have never been able to release enough radiation to get an x-ray.
The only reason 3 Mile Island is famous is because the same week that it happened the movie the China Syndrome came out. Which is a movie about a nuclear power plant melting through the earth.
well Chernobyl was a Positive void coefficient reactor. In other words think of it this way if you were driving a car and the brakes failed the engine would start to go faster. It was an incredibility stupid design even by the standers back then.
A modern plant if you lose all control of the plant the reactor will shut down on it's own. You could lose everything including the main coolant pumps
Aside from that there are numerous other safety systems in place.
@Ackbar60 - you are missing the point. The radioactive waste is "stored" in salt mines in Nevada, dumped in the ocean. Radioactive waste lasts for 10,000 years. The future generations will say "thanks for killing us." C'mon people, where is common sense????
putting nuclear waste in the sea and worrying if the radiation will kill things is like pissing in the ocean and worrying that the urea might kill things, if spread out propperly in the ocean we could dump all our spent waste there for all time and never cause the oceans radiation levels to rise higher than you find background levels where you find radon under the ground. @MaddZzee350
@myhearn - ok, here is liteary fact: "Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia."
@MaddZzee350 chemically very dangerous, made into glass and put into oceanic trenches completely safe, there are no organic systems down there, the glass is inert and the radiation down there will do nothing.
@TrolloftheTube RLY??How so? Chernobyl was very bad. But nobody died due to Fukusima. Contamination of water is minimal.Contamination of soil will be resolved soon. So dont just assume, LEARN. I am nuclear engineer I know something about this stuff. Well more than you, that is for sure
@underground1205 Si vous ne voulez pas de confondre les bombes avec des plantes, vous devriez même pas pu mettre des bombes dans votre vidéo sur le nucléaire!
@underground1205 Bon point, la guerre c'est l'enfer. Si seulement nous pouvions tous vivre en paix, les armes peuvent servir à leur objectif initial: la chasse.
J'ai utilisé Google, car je n'ai pas eu le temps de traduire manuellement, alors ... comme on dit en anglais, "Pardon my French".
@GodOnlyKnows87 yeah u just forgot about solar , ocean wave , hydroenergy , wind energy , geothermal , no fuckin emissions or enviromental changes ,, nuclear facilities are dangerous because of their nuclear waste , risk of infrastructure colapse, so on..
I don't get it, is the maker of the vid trying to say we should denounce nuclear weapons and instead use the science behind it for peaceful purposes by building nuclear reactors?
Because comparing nuclear energy with nuclear bombs is like comparing the oven in your kitchen with the gas showers in the death camps of the third reich.
No, it was the heat.And youre right, three mile island had melted fuel and a slight radiation leak, while chernobyl just blew radiation into the high heavens and killed hundereds(thousands?)of people.
Guys, you MUST remember this: Nuclear power plants DO NOT CREATE NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS! The amount of fissionable material in a nuclear reactor's fuel rod is carefully controlled, so the amount of said material never comes NEAR critical mass! And critical mass is an absolute necessity for a nuclear detonation! The safety systems may, I REPEAT MAY! fail, but no actual detonation occurs!
Military nuclear and civil nuclear are not the same thing =P Stupid ecologist ^^
samuel90100 2 weeks ago
This is a "ragged" video. =p
timothymanzella 1 month ago
This video went viral on Bolivia
randyrose512 2 months ago
if a nuclear power plant overheats and "explodes" it wouldn't cause nearly as big of an explosion as a nuclear bomb would. your fucking stupid if your against nuclear power.
CPTownage567 4 months ago
@CPTownage567 You're a fucking shithead if you think that strawman is why anti-nuclear activists oppose the colossal insanity and drain on an economy that nuclear power is.
mphello 1 month ago
good bless the mute button
jambo7388 8 months ago
no difference, same project and same effects...
CharlesNVA 8 months ago
no differences, same project, same effects !
CharlesNVA 8 months ago
I prefer Freedom Call's version of this song.... and this video is a bit off in my mind... nuclear bombs and nuclear power are so vastly differnt. at :46 and 1:55 you show cooling towers as if thoes are bad.....thats nothing but steam.. XD
dumbcow1 9 months ago
cool song & nice vid.
dunno414 10 months ago
Let us UNITE to demand NO NUKES and NO FLUKES Worldwide.
No corporations on WALL STREET can vouchsafe these weapons of MASS destruction. There is no way to safely store these RADIOACTIVE TOXINS.
We cannot believe the LIES of the Politicians or corrupt scientists to protect US.
Let us say NEVER AGAIN to the NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE on Earth.
OnenessNow 10 months ago
how ignorant is some people. That white fume coming out of the cooling towers is nothing else than vapour, taken from a river/lake/sea. nuclear plants need water as a refrigerant and water is 0 contaminant. 0 means 0. it means no contaminant at all. also, the system where the reaction is placed is a thermodynamic closed system, what it means that no mass can pass the system to the surroundings and only heat and work can be transferred. no mass means that there is no contact between
ukuleleles 11 months ago
I'm not right wing anything, nor am I a nuclear cheeleader. I'm all for clean energy whatever it be, PROVIDED it can be feasible for everyone and anyone, anywhere. As of right now, there is NO energy source currently. I believe solar and wind are impractical for large scale situations, does it mean I'm against it? No. What I'm against is people who post crap like this video, if you're against something and are going to preach about it, maybe you should know what really can and can't happen
BrianDavid79 11 months ago
If the shithead anti-environmental activists and lobbyists had not interfered with the work of Greenpeace and solar and wind companies for the past half century, we'd have affordable solar and wind, we'd have a strong economy, fair distribution of money and resources based on actual work done (not stolen by banker welfare kings), and no economic collapse caused by (among others) trillions of dollars wasted on nuclear boondoggles.
mphello 11 months ago
Nuclear power is the third largest contributor to greenhouse gasses and global warming, after meat (needlessly feeding crops to cattle), and human overpopulation. It is also the fourth largest waste of tax dollars and water resources.
Nuclear power simply cannot compete against solar and wind without its massive government welfare bailouts.
mphello 11 months ago
@mphello how nuclear power is contributing to greenhouse gasses? Man please dont make an Idiot out of yourself! I am fucking engineer who work with this stuff and you are talking bullshit.In my contry solar power has 7-times buy out price guaranteed by government! And all it did it raised the price of power
teac4444 1 month ago
@teac4444 I'm a chemical engineer, by training. So what? So what that YOU'RE an engineer who "works with this stuff"? Doesn't change the fact one bit that you don't see or add up all the external costs. Why is nuclear never insured by private companies? When there's a spill, it's always the PUBLIC (including the innocent anti-nuclear activists) who are forced to pay.
You don't know shit about this subject, moron.
It's called Entropy. Look it up.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello You sir are an idiot. I am fucking nuclear engineer, I work in research and you know NOTHING about nuclear engineering or nuclear power-plants. You bunch of stupid hippies always battle on the front of politics,but never on the front of physics,cuz you suck in it. Entropy is term in thermodynamics FYI it is TD property that can be used to determine the energy not available for work in TM process. This proves how stupid you are! how you know nothing about physics.
teac4444 1 month ago
@teac4444 I have not nor ever have been a hippy, because I don't believe in (in fact I hate) bullshit singing and dancing and non-violence crap to solve social-political-legal problems. Anyone who does deludes themselves. But I defend hippies the same way I defend Jews: I'm not one, but I stand up to bullies.
However, I grew up BEING pro-nuclear, because I thought it was neat and cool. It still is. But, that does not change the fact that nuclear plants WILL decay over time and
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello and humans will NOT have the human-power to deal with such massively complex cleanups. And THAT'S if everything goes according to plan.
I'm not talking about "accidents". And, yes - I STRONGLY think this whole "terrorism" argument against nuclear plants has been idiotically overblown.
Still doesn't change the fact that the MASSIVE complexity and plans to deal with eventual decay of these plants, never mind the eternal babysitting of nuclear waste, makes nuke plants idiotic as a
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello ..power source.
If you want to have 2 or 3 nuclear plants on the planet, for research purposes, say, one way in the middle of Siberia, another - well, I'll let YOU decide - that's fine.
But not 400 to 500 of them all over the planet.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello I will shortly move to another research I wanted to do. That is nuclear fusion. Only waste product is Helium, no danger of radioactive contamination of enviroment. It is still far way to go but still. What do you propose as replacement of nuclear power? Coal??Gas?? that will run out. What reliable, good source of energy do you propose? we could waste less for sure, but energy demand will rise.
teac4444 1 month ago
@teac4444 First, let's make sure we do not conflate portable fuels for moving vehicles versus generating electricity for homes, buildings, etc. Deal with the former later.
For generating electricity, it's called wind and solar. There's also wave technology, although I don't know a lot about that. Just go to wwindea dot org. No reason we can't have solar and wind supply at least 90% of our electricity.
But, it's a multi-faceted approach: laws to limit human breeding are integral, too.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Buddy, Wind and solar energy will never by able to sub for coal,gas,water or nuclear. It is way too unreliable and it costs fortune to minimize inpact. you also dont have so much space to build it.it is very costly. Only reliable renewable source is tidal power.you can predict rides to 150years.Other concept will maybe supply parts of small houses and so on. And you cannot limit breeding. you just cannot
teac4444 1 month ago
@teac4444 Listen, boy: FACT: you have never worked in the nuclear industry and you do NOT have any engineering credentials.
Fact: stupid hippies know more about nuclear power than you know about wind and solar energy.
"cannot limit breeding". Bullshit. Why not?
Fact: you CANNOT build nuclear reactors by private companies and insured by private industry. All the costs and waste are paid for and forced onto the public. Not practical.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Dear boy. I work in nuclear RESEARCH you IDIOT!!! And I have studied power engineering and nuclear engineering. I studied about wind and solar energy(i also did scientific projects with PV cells).I know more than you think! I have studied in Canada,Slovakia and Netherlands.
And how do you propose to limit breeding?
You cannot what??Nuclear reactors are also build by private companies, but LAW tell they have to be insured and controled by government. Have you heard of IAEA???
teac4444 1 month ago
@mphello Sorry mate, you are and amazing asshole and idiot!! I dont even know why I waste time with you. I will continue my research and IT will continue, you can cry to your mama. Nuclear energy is here to stay and it cannot be replaced by wind or solar, who says otherwise is just plain stupid and know nothing about grid or physics involved in such technology
teac4444 1 month ago
@mphello Dude, and what do you think research is here for? I am in developing of Gen.4 nuclear reactors, that are able to burn used fuel from todays reactors and no waste is produced on the way. Another unit here is in charge of decommisioning of nuclear reactors,which proves to be much easier than many people think. Radioactive parts of dismanteled NP will be stored for about 100 years and after that they can be reused.
teac4444 1 month ago
@teac4444
= Radioactive parts of dismanteled NP will be stored for about 100 years and after that they can be reused.=
But to do everything you just said requires dong more work, and hence requiring more energy, faster than the energy you can get out.
And, no - I do NOT believe Helen Caldicott is right about everything regarding the risks of radiation.
mphello 1 month ago
This total bullshit about non-steady power from solar and wind completely ignores the fact that we ALREADY have non-steady loads. People turn their AC and heaters on and off at different times. Grids are already designed to deal with that. If it stops blowing in one area, a wind farm will pick up the slack in another area.
mphello 11 months ago
@mphello I am laughing my ass off. You know absolutely nothing! It is much different to have non-stedy load and non-stedy production!!! Problem with solar and wind is that you cannot predict 100% how it is. In Germany they have a lot of problems dealing with this stuff!
teac4444 1 month ago
More people have been killed driving than by anything nuclear power related. Maybe ya'll should crusade against the real killer here. Nuclear power is for the most part the safest form of energy generation on the planet. The reason why nuclear accidents saturate the media is because otherwise when all is well, nobody pays them any mind. People fear what they don't understand, and to say that most of the worlds population doesn't understand nuclear science would be pretty reasonable assumption.
BrianDavid79 11 months ago
@BrianDavid79 Did you spend your entire life in a hole? It's not very clever to call nuclear energy safer than solar and wind energy.
ErikHartog 11 months ago 2
@ErikHartog It’s bordering on comedy that antinuclear activists claim nuclear power is not safe when it has killed only 56 people in 14,000 reactor years of operation, especially when you consider that the alternative, fossil fuels, kills more people EVERY DAY. Furthermore you can't consider intermittent sources such as wind and solar since there is no place on earth where the sun shines 365 days a year, or where the wind blows constantly with enough power to turn a turbine.
BrianDavid79 11 months ago
@BrianDavid79 Even at night solar energy works, it doesn't matter if there are clouds. By the way: Biogasses are not fossil, so don't blame me @ that.
14 kills in 14.000 reactor years? Haha, that's ridiculous. Only from Chernobyl, more then 4000 people died of cancer ED.
Second problem: the uranium is exhausted in 50 years
Third problem: How do you want to guarantee that the nuclear waste will be stored safe for 400,000 years?
ErikHartog 11 months ago 2
@BrianDavid79 Where do you pull up bullshit likes like that?
mphello 1 month ago
@ErikHartog Ignore rightwing conservaturds like BriandDavid79. They preach the pro-nuclear propaganda line as though it will be the savior of mankind's global warming, when, in fact, he - like all pro-nuclear religionists, are the biggest deniers of anthropogenic global warming. Mankind has had the multipart answer for energy problems for decades, but the pro-fossil pro-nuclear politicians refuse to listen and act: conservation, birth control, solar and wind farms and H2 fuel cells.
mphello 11 months ago
@mphello Solar and wind farms have killed NOBODY ever. And they have performed amazingly well, given the pathetic amount of support they receive from politicians.
mphello 11 months ago
@mphello Thanks :-)
ErikHartog 11 months ago
@BrianDavid79 You know what's even safer than nuclear power? Reducing human consumption and overpopulation by mandatory birth control and outlawing meat so as to reduce half our cropland wasted on feeding livestock. Yet, ironically, I NEVER hear pro-nuclear activists lobby and support THESE policies.
mphello 11 months ago
@BrianDavid79 Stupid comparison between cars vs nuclear power -
unless you've got nuclear-powered cars to compare to oil-powered cars.
Then that would make a reasonable comparison.
mphello 1 month ago
Just because it can be done don not mean we should do it Find another way PUT SICENCE TO THE MAX.. Easy is not always better.
Antilleotheclown 11 months ago
Just because it can be done don not mean we should do it Find another way PUT SICENCE TO THE MAX.. Easy is not always better.
Antilleotheclown 11 months ago
Just because it can be done don not mean we should do it Find another way PUT SICENCE TO THE MAX.. Easy is not always better.
Antilleotheclown 11 months ago
hey tart nuclear explosions r not funny search up chernobyl and dude a bomb is really diferent than a plant
bigman5055 11 months ago
Sure, lets compare a nuclear explosion to a nuclear power plant because they are obviously the same thing! WHAT A MORON
kroberts05 1 year ago
Your a retarded hippy.
PaintballTF12 1 year ago
how big ignorant you are mr underground or maybe uneducated ?
These are COOLING TOWERS. And everething what they produce is STEAM.
sivy84 1 year ago
stop polution explothe all of nuclear power
codyboy1996 1 year ago
althrought chernobyl was a thermo-chimical explosion and not nuclear.
Nuclear explosion would have blow up the plant and prypiat.
MrStaxxy 1 year ago
good music and good video!
2010juha 1 year ago 2
gay music.
rainerfilm 1 year ago
nuclear power is suicide!! its always leaking and only good for food poisoning or weapons... double money for the government.. and less people..
flotillaGo 1 year ago
@flotillaGo Are you an idiot? Have you never taken a physics class or gone to college? Nuclear power is the greenest energy source worth a damn. There's no risks of a nuclear explosion with power plants. Nuclear power is cheap, efficient, easy to harvest its fuel, very safe, and there's enough plutonium on earth to last us over a million years.
ExploringBeyond 1 year ago
@ExploringBeyond i assume college is where u went wrong.. in buying the bullshit they feed u.. we dont know shit yet about what it does.. what we do know is the barium 80 leaks constantly.. cancer was cured in 1930. thnx to idiots like u.. people will suffer from cancer for many decades.. the good thing of nuclear power is all soldiers will be dead soon.. give more tours in nuke plants to politicians ;)
flotillaGo 1 year ago
@ExploringBeyond its not the plutonium we would run out of, it the uranium, my book says if we would shut down all plants and convert it all to nuclear, we would run out of uranium in about 25 years. but that book was pub before the 4th gen reactors came out.
coalandnuclear 1 year ago
Ignorance breeds fear. Arrogance resists education which perpetuates ignorance.
acoow 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrphipps360 1 year ago
alright folks, When a nuclear meltdown occurs, the nuclear fuel assemblies just get really hot, (around 7000+ degrees) until the reactants run out. Then you are just left with the radiation. This radiation is mostly contained within a containment dome. in short, A POWER PLANT CANNOT EXPLODE!
Even in a situation like three mile island, relatively very little radiation was released int o the atmosphere. There was more radiation released from the granite in the courtroom within the week of trials.
mrphipps360 1 year ago
@mrphipps360 Great. Wonderful. A power plant cannot explode. Now tell us something we don't know.
Windmills also do NOT kill loads of birds.
mphello 1 month ago
malheureusement , l'emploi du nucleaire est aussi une question financiere car il permet de produire de l' energie sans trop de consommations , mais moi aussi je rêves d'un monde sans technologies nucleaires ....
escapeoftheworld6 1 year ago
This video depicts the steam coming from cooling towers as pollution or radioactive clouds. That's not correct. The cooling towers expel pure distilled water in the form of steam. I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than any other type, including hydroelectric, due to the chance of flooding.
The comparison with nuclear weapons is also not fair. Nuclear power is a tool, like a hammer. You can use a hammer as a weapon too, but you can also build a house with it.
lemonrind 1 year ago
@lemonrind bs.. o, what do we do with the waste? uhm, we put it in food, toothpaste and use it as weapon.. or we stick it in the ground till the population is dead..
flotillaGo 1 year ago
@flotillaGo wow your ignorant, for one mercury is the second most poisnous chemical out there, its in the ground, hell its more in likely in your household thermometer.
coalandnuclear 1 year ago
@coalandnuclear no
flotillaGo 1 year ago
It costs so much less for Wind and Solar power...how about we do that instead of taking the risk of killing millions of people?!
YellowRubberDuckie 1 year ago
Well, compare nuclear power to the industrial revolution. There were accidents down mines and in factories at first, but then people learnt from those mistakes and they are now very safe.
It's like that with Chernobyl and nuclear power.
RectalSpoonNinja 1 year ago
@RectalSpoonNinja b.s. mines crash everyday.. its just some people want metal real bad..
flotillaGo 1 year ago
Guys, remember, the longer the half-life, the less radiation it emits a year.
RazgrisFloob 1 year ago
OK I get the point on Nuclear Bombs, but also remember, even in the 70s Three Mile Island did NOT explode. Time was spent and water was continually pumped thru the reactor. It did not get away, like Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a fatal flaw in design. It was bound to happen somewhere. The reactor at Three Mile Island was mishandled, yes, but in a short period of time, the hydrogen bubble was bled off, and no danger to anyone.Precautions were taken, where there was none in Russia. See the difference!
yaesuham 1 year ago
i dont get it
applesause1998 1 year ago
"Policies governing the disposal of high-level radioactive waste are defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 as amended. This act specifies that high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of underground, in a deep geologic repository and that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, will be the single candidate site for characterization as a potential geologic repository. This act provides for a procedure and timetable for the site selection, construction, and operation of HLW mined geologic."
MaddZzee350 1 year ago
It's not about cars exploding it's the fact that there's a limited amount of uranium, and other nuclear elements. Just by the little amount that we're using right now is estimated to deplete within 40-years. If cars were suddenly equipped to be nuclear, there wouldn't be enough to last the next 2-years.
ExploringBeyond 1 year ago
@ExploringBeyond You're thinking of the oil reserves of currently discovered drilling sites.
"We can withdraw 16 000 tonne/yr of uranium from seawater continuously for hundreds of millions of years. This is enough to produce 16 000 GWe or 480 quadrillion BTU per year, which is 6 times the world’s present electricity usage, and almost the world’s present total energy consumption." - Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source by Bernard L. Cohen, American Journal of Physics, 1983
hotdogfilms 1 year ago
@hotdogfilms If true then i would like a word with a certain professor who said otherwise >_>;
ExploringBeyond 1 year ago
fuk u U.S.A.
ergo012 1 year ago
@ergo012 you want your country invaded next? shut the fuk up
YoureRacist 1 year ago
@YoureRacist lol, you dont even have the authority to send forces to that person's country.
redrooster241 1 year ago
whats the music?
GangstaMikePL 1 year ago
C'est juste de la vapeur d'eau qui sort des centrales, rien de choquant. Les déchets radioactifs sont traités du mieux possible selon leur degré de radioactivité sur le court et sur le long terme.
Les centrales nucléaires servent aussi en médecine pour produire des isotopes radioactifs utilisés comme marqueurs biologiques (recherche contre le cancer etc ..)
LaManipulation 1 year ago
Je pense que l'énergie nucléaire n'est pas l'énergie du futur lointain mais plutôt du futur proche. C'est sans doute la meilleur solution pour répondre aux besoins énergétiques actuels. Cependant, elle doit servir d'énergie de transition pour les énergies renouvelables qui demanderont du temps pour être bien au point. Laissons du temps à la Recherche! Et si vous êtes mécontents, n'utilisez plus l'électricité qu'on vous vent mais produisez la
LaManipulation 1 year ago
and about chernobyl, it was an accident, and if those workers hadn't tried that experiment in order to achieve some savings, it never would have happend, so i say paticle yes to nuclear energy because like forrest gump said, you never know what you gonna get...
pirellimothafucka 1 year ago
Well, also Chernobyl was an RBMK reactor, which isn't quite as well designed as TMI was. And even with the experimentation, from what I understand they just forgot to turn the coolant system back on. They were just assing around in the worst way with that thing.
RawSteelUT 1 year ago
@RawSteelUT that too yes... very unfortunate for people living there. I just cannot understand, how could they forget that... never mind, thanks for the updates. peace
pirellimothafucka 1 year ago
@pirellimothafucka you get a lot of cancer.. pv solar is demonized
flotillaGo 1 year ago
@flotillaGo your just another hippie pot smoker that is to scared to deal with real problems, your fine going against everything but you dont make anyones life any better.
coalandnuclear 1 year ago
@coalandnuclear no, im dealing with serious problems. i have no scare, i died before now i can love and stand up for truth, see truth, study, learn, openmind. im going against mass-murderers.. but hey! i have no children and i dont care my mom dies a bit sooner. i showed her the proof but she trusts the doctor..
its like people who denie that the official version of 9/11 is BS. nuclear power will kill everybody. think for yourself, start sharing and loving, its really fun and then you'll grow.
flotillaGo 1 year ago
@flotillaGo you just sound dumb, let me guess you died in an ufo attack where they probed ur ass. and quit hasseling your mother if shes on her deathbed, let her go out with a bit of dignity, rather than fighting some stupid cause that isnt there.grow up and get a job, and guess what if the gov. is trying to kill the popultion, good there are way too many people for the earth, we are starving it. people have to die, its the natural order
coalandnuclear 1 year ago
@coalandnuclear i wont let her die. i''l cure her if she gets sick. but people should learn to heal themselves.
how things sound depends on the finetuning of the broken receiver...
overpopulation is evil, lies, fearmongering, nazitactics.. if we starve, we will die because of monsanto.. fish and meat is allready too toxic to eat..
i'm fine, im enjoying my savings.. darwin and freud were fascists..
flotillaGo 1 year ago
Chernobyl was one of few nuclear reactors that have actually malfunctioned and caused an explosion, however even that was not a nuclear explosion, that is a common misconception.
All the chernobyl reactor did was scatter radioactive material and killed several workers at the plant.
Hamishowns 1 year ago
yes but, there was an explosion that blew the roof and side of the reactor building, which allowed the radioactive particles and fumes to escape into the atmosphere and later the clouds poured down tons and tons of radioactive rain throughout europe.
pirellimothafucka 1 year ago
There is a little different between a nuclear power station and a nuclear bomb. remember that !
ALHAREZ 2 years ago 8
Big difference actually. A nuclear reactor has a lot more fuel than most nuclear bombs, but it is almost impossible to detonate even in the older reactors. Chernobyl was a steam powered explosion that took the roof and containment lid off the reactor.
New pebble bed reactor designs are actually not physically able to melt down at all.
eternalfire1244 2 years ago
Some other reactor types, such as the heavy-water reactors developed by Canada, are also unable to physically melt down, because the reactor coolant also keeps the reaction going. Overheat the core, the coolant boils off, thus killing the reaction.
TheMann2000 1 year ago
A technology should not be judged by the fact that it prevents any conceivable problem, but by the fact that in case of problems the consequence are in the scope of design.
For this point of view the record of nuclear industry is outstanding. TMI was the worst ever accident in light-water reactos, i.e. those with good design. Reactor destroyed, a couple of billion dollars lost by the company who owned it, but nobody was injured.
caracaracolcol 2 years ago
That and TMI-1 is actually still operational.
RawSteelUT 1 year ago
Always the same questions, always the same answers: Chernobyl was crap design (carbon moderated, water cooled, positive power coefficient) it was meant to explode. US reactors are good design (water moderated, water cooled, power coefficient dominated by huge negative void coefficient).
caracaracolcol 2 years ago
I agree the nuclear power is the future
quelquunify 2 years ago
Too bad Chernobyl happened. Now everyone is so afraid of nuclear power, when really we should be scrapping all our shitty fossil-fuel power plants and going 100% nuclear. Nuclear power is safer than most other forms, creates much less waste and is far better for the environment. The chance of a nuclear meltdown with todays technology is so small it's virtually impossible.
Aspenly 2 years ago 3
@Aspenly i am not afraid of nuclear power i go fishing on lake ontario and me and my fishing friend go right in front of a nuke plant
Mr70ChallengerRT 1 year ago
What a terrible propaganda video, mixing up several wrongly chosen facts and proving again what a narrow mind anti-nuclear activists have. Grow up and learn about the progress nuclear science has made since then for the benefit of mankind, like production of isotopes for medical use, recycling for reuse and transmutation of waste, material research, generation IV NPP's and so on.
tjerk3 2 years ago
I want test Tsar 2 120 Mt Big EXPLODE xD!!!
pepsitu 2 years ago
The song is by Ultravox- "Dancing With Tears In My Eyes"
zooropa2day 2 years ago
I don't know if it is propriety question but i would like to know what is the title of the song
hawaiioahu 2 years ago
ukraine..
hippydude89 2 years ago
Tschernobyl no thx ;(
marcdernette 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sersha88 2 years ago
1. Even Chernobyl disaster wasn't a nuclear explosion (it was exploding hydrogen + oxygen mix). Radiation in Pripyat is less than radiation in centre of big city (e.g. Warsaw)
2. Worse than NPP's are nuclear experiment and military facilities in Russia (search for Mayak in Russia - most contaminated area in world).
3. Nuclear bombs are the worst - they should be prohibited. Few big bangs and our planet is empty of life if not destroyed.
formatdyskuc 2 years ago
The release of radiation from Chernobyl was 400 times higher than the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima/Nagasaki........
93 % of all people involved in the accident became sick and 15 000 people+ has died of cancer. The accident has costed a country like Norway 650 million NOK, or about 325 million zloty in your currancy. Huge disaster, no??
janerik87 2 years ago
where did you hear that bull.
at most 52 people died from the accident and another maybe 4,000 at most died from radiation.
This number has been reported by 8 different independent studies.
Oh and your comment about the radiation levels is also complete and utter bs.
Ackbar60 2 years ago 3
@ 1:10 there are a couple of smoke trail next to the mushroom cloud. I wonder what that is. I see it almost every nuke explosion.
Onypop2 2 years ago
@Onypop2
I've heard that those are smoke trails of some measuring rockets.. These measure the temperature and stuff like that.
Dedicati0n 2 years ago 2
yes, and the scientists can see how heavy the explosion was. the shockwave deformes those lines.
sry for my bad english, I'm from germany ^^
xXEnermaXx 2 years ago
The funny part is that a couple of those cooling towers that were shown are not cooling towers for nuclear reactors but for coal burning plants.
Ignorance and self righteousness what a scary combination.
crozz131 2 years ago 3
there is no confusion with reactors and bombs, neither someone thinking that that vapor is smog or so. It is just a reminder that nuclear energy, is potentially fucking dangerous, and the nuclear waste is not easy to handle, neither this stuff is sustainable in long term (50-100 years is not long term).
And of course chernobyle was a human error. Any reactor even if the probabilitiees are low can create a great disaster any time. soon or later we need a beter alternative, so he is reminding it.
troncx 2 years ago 2
Another uneducated self-appointed know-it all.
mstaff657 2 years ago
Comment removed
Sersha88 2 years ago
no actually they can not. It is physically impossible to have another nuclear power plant disaster anywhere near Chernobyl size.
Chernobyl used a positive void coefficient reactor which is just stupid even by the 1950 reactor tech standers.
It is like having a car that if the breaks fail it will increase the speed.
More people have died because of Hydro electric plants. Hell more people have die every year in car crashes. Yet we let anyone drive.
Ackbar60 2 years ago 2
yea, Russia was characteristically cheap and made the plant the cheapest way possible. idiots
CoonBabble 2 years ago
don't forget the big error in management, like running at 100% and over...
RoyBellingan 2 years ago
i still cant believe it happened, it is like our worst nightmare happening in front of us. a city rendered completely uninhabitable for virtually forever. i think the half life of uranium is like 245,000 years.
CoonBabble 2 years ago
If I remember right there are still 11 reactors of the same design in operation to this day. I really hope that they shut these down and replace with modern reactors.
eternalfire1244 2 years ago
what is at 2:35?thats cernobyl?
ppkonzul 2 years ago
noo fuck no. stop being retarded man,.
IceCreamSteve1 2 years ago
the smoke coming out of the reactor is steam. Clean H2O2.
The hippies like to make us think its smog.
okrabay 2 years ago 4
No it's not, moron! It's H2O.
G0nny 2 years ago
Comment removed
GodOnlyKnows87 2 years ago 5
Tu as tout à fait raison, le nucléaire est une source d'énergie bien plus propre et rentable que les énergies fossiles, seulement je pense que l'homme n'est pas apte à la manipuler, et encore moins à s'en servir pour intimider les autres ...
Je dirais ensuite, même s'il ne faut pas confondre les centrales et les bombes, qu'Hiroshima et Nagasaki n'étaient pas des erreurs. Certes celà à mis fin à le WW2, mais ce fut selon moi le plus grand crime contre l'humanité jamais commit !
underground1205 2 years ago
seeing as we have had more accidents with Hydroelectric power I think we can handle it.
Nuclear power has the highest safety rating then any other source of power including Solar and Wind.
Should we not fly because there have been plane crashes and terrorist attacks?
Ackbar60 2 years ago 20
yea, but there is a small chance that it actually blows up, well... my sister was born in '85 when the one in Chernobyl blew up...the point is we can't do anything with nuclear waste and there is more and more of it and if we build more and more we might end up killing ourselves solar or wind power does not produce any waste
Szymek019 2 years ago
no you don't understand it is physically impossible for a negative void coefficient reactor to explode.
You would have a higher chance turning a car into a time machine.
As for Chernobyl that happened because they wanted to see if they could restart the cooling pumps before the turbines shut down. To do that they had to disable 5 separate safety devices and they did it during a shift change so no one know what was happening.
It's like testing your airbags by crashing into a wall.
Ackbar60 2 years ago 24
@Ackbar60 What can go wrong will go wrong. & waste?
bluenail90 1 year ago 2
@Ackbar60 One Motherfucking word...FUKUSHIMA!!!
EpicButtSecks 11 months ago
So when the nuclear plant about 30 miles up river from my house explodes you are the first person I'll call to clean up the fall-out. Oh wait you can't. What about the tons of radioactive waste that is trucked past my house every year. I live in PA surrounded by neclear plants. It's a lot easier to clean up a plane crash than to reclaim a nuclear disaster zone. I beleive Chenobyl is pretty striking example. It will kill us all reguardless of what you have to say about it.
inn22 2 years ago
ok let me explain this to you. It is physically impossible for a modern nuclear plant to explode. This is not something you could even argue.
As for the truck load of nuclear waste. The canisters containg the nuclear waste has to withstand being hit directly by a Train going 100 mph.
If you live in PA then you should be more afraid of a Dam failure then a nuclear accident.
Nuclear has a higher safety record then Solar and Wind.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
If is built by humans there is always the risk of failure. No matter how well built or maintained. Even the most well built canister is not impervious to human error and nature.
inn22 2 years ago
that's like saying there is a chance your cereal could suddenly burst into flames. It's just not possible.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
You obviously do not want to admit the truth that nuclear power has it's share of problems as could any-thing else. And what would you say about nuclear matirials and knowlege in the wrong hands. According to you there is no way that they could harm people with it. May'be that will put some in my cereal so it will "blow up" as you so aeertivly point out. I say this to prove my point, even with the most noble of intensions. Peopel can still get hurt with nuclear technolgies. The truth remains.
inn22 2 years ago
no i never said it couldn't hurt people if it fell in the wrong hands. that is why there is extremely tight security around it.
We learned that Airplanes can hurt people when in the wrong hands. Does that mean we stop flying airplanes?
An accident like Chernobyl is physically impossible because reactors are not made that way anymore. Hell when Chernobyl happend the Russians were the only ones using that design.
It's like saying an electric car could explode like a gas car.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
What about 3 Mile Island? The main factor attributed was human error, not the reactor design. Thus going back to my previous statement.
inn22 2 years ago
are you comparing 3 mile island to Chernobyl? Do you know what happened at 3 mile island?
This is like comparing a fender bender to 9/11.
Even under the worst case scenario 3 Mile Island would have never been able to release enough radiation to get an x-ray.
The only reason 3 Mile Island is famous is because the same week that it happened the movie the China Syndrome came out. Which is a movie about a nuclear power plant melting through the earth.
Thats the reason people remember 3MI
Ackbar60 2 years ago 2
what diference is between a " modern" plant, than chernobyl? please let me know, give me peace of mind.. :(
N0RTHWEST 2 years ago
well Chernobyl was a Positive void coefficient reactor. In other words think of it this way if you were driving a car and the brakes failed the engine would start to go faster. It was an incredibility stupid design even by the standers back then.
A modern plant if you lose all control of the plant the reactor will shut down on it's own. You could lose everything including the main coolant pumps
Aside from that there are numerous other safety systems in place.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@Ackbar60 -- oh ok, so is basically impossible to have another accident like in 1986?
Thank u much for the info...
N0RTHWEST 2 years ago
@Ackbar60 - you are missing the point. The radioactive waste is "stored" in salt mines in Nevada, dumped in the ocean. Radioactive waste lasts for 10,000 years. The future generations will say "thanks for killing us." C'mon people, where is common sense????
MaddZzee350 1 year ago
putting nuclear waste in the sea and worrying if the radiation will kill things is like pissing in the ocean and worrying that the urea might kill things, if spread out propperly in the ocean we could dump all our spent waste there for all time and never cause the oceans radiation levels to rise higher than you find background levels where you find radon under the ground. @MaddZzee350
myhearn 1 year ago
@myhearn - ok, here is liteary fact: "Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia."
MaddZzee350 1 year ago
@MaddZzee350 chemically very dangerous, made into glass and put into oceanic trenches completely safe, there are no organic systems down there, the glass is inert and the radiation down there will do nothing.
myhearn 1 year ago
@myhearn - interesting. I would like to see the data you are getting your information from.
MaddZzee350 1 year ago
@Ackbar60 Waste
bluenail90 1 year ago
@Ackbar60 Waste and corruption.
bluenail90 1 year ago
@Ackbar60
Google "Chinese mining accidents" then Google "thorium"
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@Ackbar60
That's not the issue. The issue is, that ONE nuclear disaster is more than 10x worse than any Hydroelectric could ever be.
TrolloftheTube 11 months ago 3
@TrolloftheTube RLY??How so? Chernobyl was very bad. But nobody died due to Fukusima. Contamination of water is minimal.Contamination of soil will be resolved soon. So dont just assume, LEARN. I am nuclear engineer I know something about this stuff. Well more than you, that is for sure
teac4444 1 month ago
@underground1205 Si vous ne voulez pas de confondre les bombes avec des plantes, vous devriez même pas pu mettre des bombes dans votre vidéo sur le nucléaire!
Darkwizzrobe 1 year ago
@underground1205 Bon point, la guerre c'est l'enfer. Si seulement nous pouvions tous vivre en paix, les armes peuvent servir à leur objectif initial: la chasse.
J'ai utilisé Google, car je n'ai pas eu le temps de traduire manuellement, alors ... comme on dit en anglais, "Pardon my French".
EricTheHax 1 year ago
@GodOnlyKnows87 yeah u just forgot about solar , ocean wave , hydroenergy , wind energy , geothermal , no fuckin emissions or enviromental changes ,, nuclear facilities are dangerous because of their nuclear waste , risk of infrastructure colapse, so on..
micistan 1 year ago
Tchernobyl c'est une grosse erreur humaine, ne pas l'oublier!!!
bricolo5809 2 years ago
We must do these things because a sad animal, the ape was our ancestor .
We cant escape our nature.
432player 2 years ago
I don't get it, is the maker of the vid trying to say we should denounce nuclear weapons and instead use the science behind it for peaceful purposes by building nuclear reactors?
Because comparing nuclear energy with nuclear bombs is like comparing the oven in your kitchen with the gas showers in the death camps of the third reich.
jimius 2 years ago
Chernobyl was a STEAM EXPLOSION inside a nuclear reactor! Three Mile Island NEVER EXPLODED!
PyroDesu 2 years ago 3
No, it was the heat.And youre right, three mile island had melted fuel and a slight radiation leak, while chernobyl just blew radiation into the high heavens and killed hundereds(thousands?)of people.
Tabby266 2 years ago
all reports say they killed at most 4,000 people. this number is widely accepted to be the truth.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
oh right
the people confuse nuclear reactor with A bomb
there is a bad information in media
dDuck001 2 years ago 2
yeah right. its because chernobyl...
kleinesmaenchen 2 years ago
Guys, you MUST remember this: Nuclear power plants DO NOT CREATE NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS! The amount of fissionable material in a nuclear reactor's fuel rod is carefully controlled, so the amount of said material never comes NEAR critical mass! And critical mass is an absolute necessity for a nuclear detonation! The safety systems may, I REPEAT MAY! fail, but no actual detonation occurs!
PyroDesu 2 years ago