Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (7/14/14 - 7/20/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
That's like saying a coal plant is no different than a firebomb. You're arguing emotionally, not rationally. A nuclear plant has very different systems.Quote:
Two words: family planning. Another two words: birth control.Quote:
my rational point (along with my emotion, hehe) is this:
radiation can't be "scrubbed" * yet.
*(Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and its 2nd Gig, damnit japan, you were suppose to have created the nuclear "scrubbers" already... oh maybe its coming soon, as we're having the economic collapse, the failed state of mexico with the drug cartels... soooo scary-creepy at how accurate GitS:SAC predicted what would happen in the real world)
(needless to say I highly recommend GitS:SAC, jsut to see how accurately it predicting our current times, hehe, as well as it being an awesome anime series, hehe)
CH's (hydrocarbons), like methane (CH4), and others, and whatever other polutants of oil/coal/NatGas can be.
my rational reason is that we can clean up/fix/reverse/deal with the conventional pollution of oil/coal/fossil fuels, but we can't yet deal with radiation and radioactive waste.
(i had thought I seen a show where there's actually these bacteria that can eat/decompose radiation/radioactive waste, but I guess it was about something else, and not decomposing radiation/radioactive waste, doh!)
the need to reduce human population as its getting too big, and the ways it can be done naturally without us realizing its being done by nature:
wars, starvation, ww3/nuclear war/nuclear winter (iran/pakistan/north korea/terrorist cells start it off while the world continues its complacency just as we did with Hitler, sighs), genetic engineering (the sci-fi horror could happen soon), terminators (are the drones much different? some 10 year old in his mom's basement n new mexico, U.S., is telling the drones to shoot their missiles at a terrorist target in pakistan - okay let's hope its not a ten year old, but this is what is already happening - how much longer until the drones decide to fire themselves versus a military guy in his moms basement in new mexico U.S. firing the drones misssiles at a terrorist target in pakistan?), drought, flood, global warming, skin cancer, etc...
Last edited by HegemonKhan; July 01, 2011 at 08:30 PM.
The biggest issue about your point now is that we can't clean up/reverse/deal with conventional pollution. All of the things which account for conventional pollution are still out there and will be there for several decades because we can't just clean/reverse/deal with it. In turn, conventional energy production systems invariably produce waste (except for hydroelectric damns) while in turn nuclear energy won't necessarily bring about a nuclear holocaust. What happened in Japan was the result of gross negligence, not the result of decades of accumulating bad karma from using nuclear energy. If they have had something as basic as the means to turn off the damn thing then they would not have had the problems they had.
Frankly speaking, using nuclear energy is the way of the future, or was for some countries. This disaster has caused a lot of misunderstanding and fear of it, but it really is the best option in the world currently.
They do use what's called zeolites to help absorb radiation from animals exposed to radiation fallout. This could be used to help with clean-up or as a supplement for those in areas affected by nuclear fallout. A combination of iodine and zeolite would be good for areas affected with nuclear fallout.
Some have argued that nuclear energy could be very clean but one has to understand that their are two different types of nuclear energy. The most commonly used is called nuclear fission and another one is called nuclear fusion. Nuclear fission is most widely used whereas nuclear fusion is still in developmental stages. Many have argued that nuclear fusion is "clean." This might be attributed to the fusion process versus the fission process.
Fusion is not feasible. The massive amount of energy needed to overcome the Coulomb Barrier prohibits practical use of Nuclear fusion in the foreseeable future. While Fusion has been achieved in laboratory environments there is little chance of a breakthrough that would make fusion a practical source of energy during our lifetime. Fusion produces a massive amount of energy, as evidenced by the sun and stars, but requires a massive amount of energy to achieve.
Fusion would be cleaner, without a doubt. It is simply a matter of material used: fission requires radioactive uranium, the waste remains radioactive. Fusion would use an isotope of hydrogen, the smallest element and stable. The waste created in the fusion process would be helium, obviously not a radioactive material. The odds of fusion becoming a viable energy source are extremely low compared to other, cheaper potential clean fuels though. A combination of solar, wind, and biothermal is far more likely.
Sim City 2000 ...
we need to develop the middle of solar panels and fusion:
the Microwave Power Plant^tm Sim City 2000
we have a satelite (a big focusing mirrior) which directs the sun's light into a huge solar beam down to the power plant's dish which collects it into solar panels, hehe
let's just hope our aim is good... or people don't get any ideas for tilting the beam intentionally... or some space debris doesn't hit and move it...
or we could always go the Matrix movie series route... of using Humans as our energy source.... hehe
I still don't understand why we don't just cover all the deserts with solar panels, oceans hills mountains with wind turbines, and yellowstone other calderas volcanoes with geothermal, rivers coasts ocean floor with hydro, and etc ....
but the real hurdle is this:
not requiring electricity... as all of the "power sources" are merely methods of turning turbines to generate electricity, which is our actual one and only power source.
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM.
The reality has been a variety of different electrical generation technologies. I think that people do not generally take into consideration about the waste factor. Then, there are variables that one could also consider such as making thing more electrically efficient, environmentally-neutral energy production and so forth.
I also don't see why we can't just shoot nuclear waste up into outerspace, and pray nothing goes wrong on the way up-away from earth, lol.
Cmon Khan xD
Not only would that be super expensive, especially if you're thinking about continuously doing it, but we'd still need a place to store the waste while we wait for enough of it to build up into an amount that'd be worth the resources needed to send it to space anyway.
I don't think it would be possible or practical to throw garbage to outer space. Taking waste far enough of earth so that our own gravity would not get it back seems time consuming and expensive. On the other hand, we don't seem to be doing much with the moon nowadays lol. I wonder how practical would it be to simply take stuff to outer space and throw it back to the atmosphere though. It is already protecting us from radioactive from space and god knows how much stuff that would otherwise fall directly on earth (nothing large but a decent amount of space materials to say the least).
...we can easily go beyond our atmosphere (or rather our ozone or rather our van allen radiation belts), so we don't have to worry about the nuclear waste coming back to earth, lol. Heck if we really wanted to, we could shoot our nuclear waste into the sun, lol.
...THE PROBLEM is with not having any accidents on the way "up", lol.
Well does "expensiveness or practicality-pragmatism" matter when our survival is on the line (based upon projecting us far into the future when the nuclear waste starts to noticeably build up beyond where we can store it out of people's fear) ??
Same question with why not to build De-Salinization plants all along the coast, when we need more fresh water, and all the other geographic ways of producing electricity too (i.e. windmills all over the entire ocean hills mountain, hydros along all rivers beachs on ocean floor, geothermal on all calderas volcanoes and sea volcanoes-vents-geysers-calderas, solar panels covering all the deserts arctic antarctic, and etc...)
Last edited by HegemonKhan; January 31, 2012 at 12:45 AM.
I don't think waste disposal via space is really practical or safe until we have space elevators and/or orbital rings (assuming we get to a point where having them is even feasible).