Report, edit, etc...Posted by Middle_Finger on 2006-03-18 at 14:06:45
nimadude, u misunderstand something... Bombs based on URANIUM (1st) & PLUTONIUM (2nd) exploded in Hirashima & Nagaswaky. they didnt know how to make hydrogen bombs in taht time. Hydrogen bombs were created in the 50's. + i'm not saying "use hydrogen in bombs" (allthow they do that in all countries now), i say "we should use hydrogen for powerplants". Yes, a Hydrogen bomb is more devastating then a uranium/plutonium, but hydrgen bomb leaves LESS radioactive shiz then a Uranium/plutonium one.
I see most of the people think taht nuclear power is not so "dirty", nomatter what ecologysts say & do
I see most of the people think taht nuclear power is not so "dirty", nomatter what ecologysts say & do
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Freedawk on 2006-03-18 at 15:35:22
Nuclear power isn't good. You can risk anyone's life, including everyoen that you love. If you bomb someplace that someone you love is vacationing, then it is your fault. This world was meant for peace, not Nukes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-03-18 at 15:41:57
These powerplants are fine. The more you know about them, the more you realize how much better they are. Don't associates these with atom bombs at all.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kyuubi. on 2006-03-18 at 15:58:03
nuclear power is decent for using, but can be dangerous if people working with them doesn't know anything about them. But nuclear power i think is abundant, stars in space radiate them.
i agree with some people here that using nuclear power isn't healthy for us...but neither other energy sources are too efficient either
i agree with some people here that using nuclear power isn't healthy for us...but neither other energy sources are too efficient either
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-03-18 at 22:50:12
QUOTE(Middle_Finger @ Mar 18 2006, 02:06 PM)
nimadude, u misunderstand something... Bombs based on URANIUM (1st) & PLUTONIUM (2nd) exploded in Hirashima & Nagaswaky. they didnt know how to make hydrogen bombs in taht time. Hydrogen bombs were created in the 50's. + i'm not saying "use hydrogen in bombs" (allthow they do that in all countries now), i say "we should use hydrogen for powerplants". Yes, a Hydrogen bomb is more devastating then a uranium/plutonium, but hydrgen bomb leaves LESS radioactive shiz then a Uranium/plutonium one.
I see most of the people think taht nuclear power is not so "dirty", nomatter what ecologysts say & do:wallbash:
[right][snapback]448223[/snapback][/right]
I see most of the people think taht nuclear power is not so "dirty", nomatter what ecologysts say & do:wallbash:
[right][snapback]448223[/snapback][/right]
Hydrogen reactors make uncontrolled fusion, which is a bad thing. Big fiery boom.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Middle_Finger on 2006-03-19 at 04:48:45
QUOTE(Demaris @ Mar 19 2006, 06:49 AM)
Hydrogen reactors make uncontrolled fusion, which is a bad thing. Big fiery boom.
[right][snapback]448442[/snapback][/right]
Demaris, about a year ago Japaneese scientists(if i remember it correctly) made a Hydrogen reactor, that could work for a minute or so. "friendly hydrogen" like "friendly uranium" is possible. hydrogen nuclear reaction doesent give so much radiation.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vibrator on 2006-03-19 at 11:28:59
Radiation has never been a problem for nuclear reactors, they don't give off gamma rays so we can be protected easily. It's the by products it gives off that matter the most.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-20 at 08:32:07
QUOTE(Vibrator @ Mar 19 2006, 07:28 PM)
Radiation has never been a problem for nuclear reactors, they don't give off gamma rays so we can be protected easily. It's the by products it gives off that matter the most.
[right][snapback]448664[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]448664[/snapback][/right]
That's what i'm trying to tell: hydrogen reaction has no or small radioactive by products
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-03-21 at 23:55:49
But it results in an uncontrolled explosion, at our current level of technology and understanding.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-22 at 07:53:25
yes, but it's a perspective way of nuclear power. btw, almost every SERIUOS invention was first of all used in warfare, then started to work for civil needs.
let's hope hydrogen does the same as uranium & plutonium...
let's hope hydrogen does the same as uranium & plutonium...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by 5(U) on 2006-03-22 at 11:55:58
QUOTE(DeadlyInnocence @ Mar 13 2006, 06:36 AM)
Space is full of our... useless garbage. We cannot just dump them out there. It is very similar to the environment. I think it is wrong to pollute space as if it wasn't ours to begin with.
I also think that all the natural energy plants are pretty good except they cost too much and are hard to find the right place for it.
[right][snapback]444626[/snapback][/right]
I also think that all the natural energy plants are pretty good except they cost too much and are hard to find the right place for it.
[right][snapback]444626[/snapback][/right]
I say we should bump or stuff in space before leaving it on earth lol.. put our garbage in space is much better than leaving it here.. but theres only 1 problem.. someone said (plz tell me who, i dont remember.. was it newton or something?)
Nothing is created and nothing is lost (how ever u say it in english..)
so by sending stuff in the space.. we lose it..
QUOTE(Soulshifter @ Mar 13 2006, 08:06 AM)
Just aim it towards the Sun. Nothing will stop it (unless you get really, really farking unlucky) and it will eventually fry and become part of the big bright ball that gives us light and warmth.
[right][snapback]444639[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]444639[/snapback][/right]
yeah i totally agree.. beside the fact that we "lose" some ressources..
ADDITION:
QUOTE(Vibrator @ Mar 17 2006, 05:49 PM)
Chernobyl happened because the engineers there decided to test how many safety precautions they could turn off before a meltdown occured.
[right][snapback]447637[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]447637[/snapback][/right]
O RLY??? wow they are kinda dumb.. i didn't know that one..
QUOTE(Vibrator @ Mar 17 2006, 05:49 PM)
Really nuclear energy is very safe, reliable and cheap but like all other types of energy there are still kinks.
[right][snapback]447637[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]447637[/snapback][/right]
Vouch they are the safest (is that corect?) way to make energy... there are so many advantages to use em instead of any other..
QUOTE(Middle_Finger @ Mar 18 2006, 02:06 PM)
nimadude, u misunderstand something... Bombs based on URANIUM (1st) & PLUTONIUM (2nd) exploded in Hirashima & Nagaswaky. they didnt know how to make hydrogen bombs in taht time. Hydrogen bombs were created in the 50's. + i'm not saying "use hydrogen in bombs" (allthow they do that in all countries now), i say "we should use hydrogen for powerplants". Yes, a Hydrogen bomb is more devastating then a uranium/plutonium, but hydrgen bomb leaves LESS radioactive shiz then a Uranium/plutonium one.
I see most of the people think taht nuclear power is not so "dirty", nomatter what ecologysts say & do
[right][snapback]448223[/snapback][/right]
I see most of the people think taht nuclear power is not so "dirty", nomatter what ecologysts say & do
[right][snapback]448223[/snapback][/right]
about hydrogen.. a good way to make energy with this is by using this method with the hydroelectricity barrage.. first they make electricity with the barrage.. they can use a part of this energy to electrolize the water... making more energy and making hydrogen at the same time..
this would make a ****load of energy
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Whisper_Blade on 2006-03-22 at 18:36:17
Nuclear power is probably gonna be the only alternative in a year or two. Damn fossil fuels.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-03-23 at 11:55:35
QUOTE(Whisper_Blade @ Mar 23 2006, 02:35 AM)
Nuclear power is probably gonna be the only alternative in a year or two. Damn fossil fuels.
[right][snapback]450868[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]450868[/snapback][/right]
yeah, i think most of the progressive countries will choose nuclear power due to it's high efficiency.