Iran Has No Right to Nuclear Technology

beandorkio · Post by **beandorkio** » 03 Oct 2009, 23:08

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Noyka"]I support having nuclear defense systems in particular[/quote]

Me too. You can't be too trustful of a few countries with a monopoly over such destructive weapons. [/quote]

I couldn't be the only one who thinks the more countries that have nukes, the greater the chance that they'll end up being used...am I?

I think anyone arguing that a country should GAIN nuclear weapons is arguing just to prove an abstract point. Down here on planet earth I'll have less nukes, thanks.

And if we can keep them out of the hands of countries whose leaders talk about wiping other countries off the map, that'd be great.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 03 Oct 2009, 23:36

The world would have been much better off if nuclear technology was never even discovered.

ANGEL OF DESEASE · Post by **ANGEL OF DESEASE** » 03 Oct 2009, 23:42

[youtube]ECXvmDmxVaM[/youtube]

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 00:13

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]

I think you've missed the bit where the Middle East has already been set ablaze.

I mean seriously, are you stupid?[/quote]

I'm not stupid, they don't have nuclear weapons yet and Iran having them would give another possibility of gaining them.[/quote]

So?

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Iranian leadership believes that they need to start world chaos to bring armageddon followed by the 12 Imam.[/quote]

Please cite evidence.[/quote]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said directly he believes in this, the Mullahs put him in power there is your evidence.[/quote]

No that's not evidence. That's your hunch.

Evidence would be presenting actual statements by the president of Iran to the effect of: "We are going to bring Armageddon so that the 12 imam can enter/take form" or an actual policy of that government that reflects that goal.

Either show us this evidence or stop cheapening the discussion with hunches.

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Noyka"]The US, despite it's corruption, would gain nothing from firing a nuc[/quote]

If they have nothing to gain then why do they have nuclear weapons?[/quote]

They have them to defend against others who might attack.[/quote]

By that logic, Iran should also have nukes to defend against those who might attack.

[quote name="Noyka"]I support having nuclear defense systems in particular[/quote]

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Noyka"]while the Iranian leadership (in their minds) would gain everything.[/quote]

Such as what?

What will they ever gain that the US isn't getting from its real actual aggression around the world?[/quote]

The IRanian government is part theorocracy this would mean in their minds they'd gain absolute chaos and the ability to Eliminate israel,[/quote]

You're confusing "in their minds", with "in my mind" (yours).

[quote name="Noyka"]If I'm missing something please feel free to explain, I admit to not being 100% up on everything pertaining to this topic.[/quote]

Well you've missed lots of fundamental things. For one you've completely failed to answer the questions I've raised.

I would try to explain things to you to bring your awareness level from 0% to something more respectable, but seeing as you don't read more than two lines and dictionary definitions, I think it would be wasted effort.

[quote name="Noyka"]Sorry about earlier grammar/quoting mistakes, I'm a bit sleep deprived at the moment

[/quote]

I think you are not just sleep deprived, but also intelligence deprived.[/quote]

“OMG IF THERE’S NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE THINGS CAN’T BE TRUE”

If someone in charge is going to another country and saying on TV he wants to eliminate other countries and the people really in power are doing nothing something is wrong.

I’m not cheapening the argument with pseudointellectual bullshit, this whole argument is all opinions and guess work with little absolute fact.

“ALL YOU READ ARE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARIES”

Not true in the slightest. Stop assuming things just because I’ve posted a few things like that on a casual message board. Again I'm a nutrition major my interest is in biology. In particular, parasitology, physiology, neurology, and Oligochaetology (particularly flatworms).

Imran, get over yourself just because I disagree with you based on logic and common sense doesn’t make me less intellgent only a pseudointellect would truly believe that.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 00:14

[quote name="Redd"]The world would have been much better off if nuclear technology was never even discovered.[/quote]

What about the fact that it serves as a cheap and fairly safe energy source?

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 04 Oct 2009, 00:15

Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 00:19

[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

Most countries contain their waste in fairly safe ways.

You are aware geothermal can't be used everywhere, right?

For the US it would work great and NEw Zealand already is geothermal but in other countries it wouldn't work.

Nuclear energy runs most of France, do we see Chernobyl there?

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 04 Oct 2009, 00:25

Yeah, great reason to use energy that produces waste that remains radioactive for centuries.

What about tidal and wave power? Wind? Solar? There's no reason to use nuclear when we have so many other renewable resources that don't pollute.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 01:07

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

Most countries contain their waste in fairly safe ways.

You are aware geothermal can't be used everywhere, right?

For the US it would work great and NEw Zealand already is geothermal but in other countries it wouldn't work.

Nuclear energy runs most of France, do we see Chernobyl there?[/quote]

there is no safe way to contain radioactive waste. period.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 01:55

[quote name="Teignub"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

Most countries contain their waste in fairly safe ways.

You are aware geothermal can't be used everywhere, right?

For the US it would work great and NEw Zealand already is geothermal but in other countries it wouldn't work.

Nuclear energy runs most of France, do we see Chernobyl there?[/quote]

there is no safe way to contain radioactive waste. period.[/quote]

lol

ever heard of outer space? i hear it's fairly big

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 01:56

yeah ok. way to keep it realistic. lets just blast all our garbage into space too

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:03

Yeah, that way it can rain back to Earth.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:06

Redd has it.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:30

of course it will rain back to earth.

both of your levels of intelligence seem to be approaching that of ndmg. and the rate of convergence is increasing

i am truly dumbfounded by your apparent lack of any, even of the very basic kind (high-school-grade), physics knowledge. einstein was right, human stupidity is truly boundless

[quote name="Teignub"]yeah ok. way to keep it realistic. lets just blast all our garbage into space too[/quote]

it IS realistic, you dumb fuck. it's just not financially feasible. retard (btw, it is you who implied absolute terms in your ignorant statement)

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:36

sorry, but launching nuclear waste into space is not a safe or a realistic way to contain it.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:43

[quote name="Teignub"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

Most countries contain their waste in fairly safe ways.

You are aware geothermal can't be used everywhere, right?

For the US it would work great and NEw Zealand already is geothermal but in other countries it wouldn't work.

Nuclear energy runs most of France, do we see Chernobyl there?[/quote]

there is no safe way to contain radioactive waste. period.[/quote]

I said fairly safe. No form of energy is 100% safe

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:46

[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, great reason to use energy that produces waste that remains radioactive for centuries.

What about tidal and wave power? Wind? Solar? There's no reason to use nuclear when we have so many other renewable resources that don't pollute.[/quote]

Wind and solar are wasteful, you spend more energy getting the power than is produced.

Tidal is great, if you can use it. I agree, tidal and geothermal are the best forms of energy but they aren't feasable for all countries. Nuclear is the next best thing currently.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:50

i agree but nuclear waste is a bit different.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:55

[quote name="Teignub"]i agree but nuclear waste is a bit different.[/quote]

It at least takes less energy to create then it emits. That's a huge plus. I don't exactly like it but under current conditions for a lot of countries it is the best choice and we are coming up with better ways of containing the waste. Wind and solar are expensive and unfeasable but still being shoved down our throats.

Geothermal is expensive right now but we have the ability to harnest it and make it affordable same with tidal. A lot more ability iwth those than solar or wind.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 04 Oct 2009, 03:10

Saying "it's too expensive" is a stupid reason not to do something. The planet is more important than saving a few fucking dollars.

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 04 Oct 2009, 03:58

I actually spoke to a hard-on bearer from Iran some months ago. He just graduated with an engineering degree and can't find a job. Go fucking figure.

Maybe if we stopped embargoing countries into the stone-age, they wouldn't want to kill us.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 04 Oct 2009, 04:43

[quote name="Redd"]The world would have been much better off if nuclear technology was never even discovered.[/quote]

I disagree. I would prefer if there weren't any nuclear bombs though.

[quote name="Noyka"]It at least takes less energy to create then it emits.[/quote]

What?

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 05:01

[quote name="Redd"]Saying "it's too expensive" is a stupid reason not to do something. The planet is more important than saving a few fucking dollars.[/quote]

Expensive doesn't necessarily mean just in money terms. I said before it takes more energy to create wind and solar power than we get from it. Nuclear not so much.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 05:15

[quote name="Teignub"]sorry, but launching nuclear waste into space is not a safe or a realistic way to contain it.[/quote]

how the FUCK is it NOT SAFE or REALISTIC?!

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 04 Oct 2009, 05:18

We should also be sure to on use only recyclable satelites.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 04 Oct 2009, 05:36

[quote name="Teignub"]

there is no safe way to contain radioactive waste. period.[/quote]

Nuclear power = the way to go. No greenhouse gas/toxin emissions, large availability of Uranium, extremely efficient. The only problem is that refining Uranium uses quite a bit of energy, but I think the amount that is produced from fission is far greater. One would have to look at the kW consumed to refine a certain amount of nuclear fuel vs. kW that amount of nuclear fuel can produce via fission.

Trying to launch it out into space is retarded(wasted rocket fuel, risk of the rocket blowing up) and unnecessary. Underground chambers made with lead dug in geologically stable sites is very safe. Safer than how we dispose of plastic bags at least. Once the short-lived isotopes decay it becomes even less of a concern. The vast majority of the anti-nuclear power talk comes from people who know diddly squarsh.

[quote name="Redd"]Saying "it's too expensive" is a stupid reason not to do something. The planet is more important than saving a few fucking dollars.[/quote]

Wise words. People need to learn to prioritize.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 06:06

[quote name="Lavabug"]

Trying to launch it out into space is retarded(wasted rocket fuel, risk of the rocket blowing up) and unnecessary.[/quote]

retarded only from the economical/resources standpoint (oh, and ground transportation vehicles can blow up too, you know?

not to mention hijacked, for example)

[quote name="Lavabug"]

Underground chambers made with lead dug in geologically stable sites is very safe. Safer than how we dispose of plastic bags at least. Once the short-lived isotopes decay it becomes even less of a concern. The vast majority of the anti-nuclear power talk comes from people who know diddly squarsh.[/quote]

yes. it's much safer than people think. still, outer space is still (theoretically, which was my whole point) the best (although the least feasible and cost-efficient, by far, with the available technology). not to mention it could offer the means to unload all the other wastes produced, thus freeing a considerable amount of space on our beloved planet

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Redd"]Saying "it's too expensive" is a stupid reason not to do something. The planet is more important than saving a few fucking dollars.[/quote]

Wise words. People need to learn to prioritize.[/quote]

agreed

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 06:22

[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Redd"]Saying "it's too expensive" is a stupid reason not to do something. The planet is more important than saving a few fucking dollars.[/quote]

Wise words. People need to learn to prioritize.[/quote]

agreed[/quote]

We have three people who don't understand.

Wind and solar power are expensive not only money wise but energy wise. It takes a lot of power to create solar and wind energy more power than is produced. Therefore they're too expensive to be feasable with today's technology.

Geothermal, tidal, and yes nuclear are the way to go if you ask me.

"LETS BE UNREALISTIC AND SAVE THE PLANET"

Lets be environmentally savvy but rational as well

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 04 Oct 2009, 06:38

I wish people didn't talk about things they know nothing about as if they did.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 06:40

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Redd"]Saying "it's too expensive" is a stupid reason not to do something. The planet is more important than saving a few fucking dollars.[/quote]

Wise words. People need to learn to prioritize.[/quote]

agreed[/quote]

We have three people who don't understand.

Wind and solar power are expensive not only money wise but energy wise. It takes a lot of power to create solar and wind energy more power than is produced. Therefore they're too expensive to be feasable with today's technology.

Geothermal, tidal, and yes nuclear are the way to go if you ask me.

"LETS BE UNREALISTIC AND SAVE THE PLANET"

Lets be environmentally savvy but rational as well

[/quote]

tbh, i do not think people are disagreeing with you (i know i am not). i am agreeing with that sentiment on an absolute level, not really in the context it was stated

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 06:46

Sorry, Redd made that statement in response to my remarks on wind and solar

captain twat. IV. · Post by **captain twat. IV.** » 04 Oct 2009, 07:25

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="mabb_"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Somebody give me one good reason why the US should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons and not Iran.[/quote]

Personally I just think the whole region is too unstable and I already know what you will respond with (It's the wests/Israels fault).[/quote]

And?[/quote]

You asked a question and responded.You are clearly looking for something that isn't in my response.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 04 Oct 2009, 12:05

I think commies go against our position just for the sake of disagreeing.

Their ideology defies logic, so why not?

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 04 Oct 2009, 12:23

[quote name="beandorkio"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Noyka"]I support having nuclear defense systems in particular[/quote]

Me too. You can't be too trustful of a few countries with a monopoly over such destructive weapons. [/quote]

I couldn't be the only one who thinks the more countries that have nukes, the greater the chance that they'll end up being used...am I?[/quote]

On the other hand, the fewer countries that have them, the greater the chance that those few countries will be able to use the nukes to bully the others who don't have them into submission.

[quote name="beandorkio"]I think anyone arguing that a country should GAIN nuclear weapons is arguing just to prove an abstract point. Down here on planet earth I'll have less nukes, thanks.[/quote]

I'll take that a step further. Down here on planet earth, i'll have NO nukes at all. But while some countries have nukes, I fully support the right of others threatened by the nuclear powers to have them as well.

[quote name="beandorkio"]And if we can keep them out of the hands of countries whose leaders talk about wiping other countries off the map, that'd be great.[/quote]

Please extend this reasoning to the country which bombed Iraq back to the stone age as well.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 04 Oct 2009, 12:44

[quote name="Noyka"]“OMG IF THERE’S NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE THINGS CAN’T BE TRUE”

If someone in charge is going to another country and saying on TV he wants to eliminate other countries and the people really in power are doing nothing something is wrong.[/quote]

You said...

[quote name="Noyka"]"Iranian leadership believes that they need to start world chaos to bring armageddon followed by the 12 Imam.[/quote]

followed by

[quote name="Noyka"]Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said directly he believes in this, the Mullahs put him in power there is your evidence.[/quote]

Please cite evidence of these statements by the President, or an actual policy to achieve that.

Otherwise, stop cheapening the discussion.

[quote name="Noyka"]I’m not cheapening the argument with pseudointellectual bullshit, this whole argument is all opinions and guess work with little absolute fact.[/quote]

The discussion becomes cheapened whenever you make guess work based on little absolute fact.

[quote name="Noyka"]“ALL YOU READ ARE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARIES”

Not true in the slightest. Stop assuming things just because I’ve posted a few things like that on a casual message board. Again I'm a nutrition major my interest is in biology. In particular, parasitology, physiology, neurology, and Oligochaetology (particularly flatworms).[/quote]

Pardon me if I am unimpressed by your nutrition major in biology that

a) has nothing to do with the debate on the right of Iran to have nuclear technology

b) does nothing to detract from your lack of knowledge of things outside your college course

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 04 Oct 2009, 13:33

[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]

Trying to launch it out into space is retarded(wasted rocket fuel, risk of the rocket blowing up) and unnecessary.[/quote]

retarded only from the economical/resources standpoint (oh, and ground transportation vehicles can blow up too, you know?

not to mention hijacked, for example)

[/quote]

A truck accident = no explosion, depleted nuclear fuel is not explosive. A Challenger-esque disaster = Uranium scattered across the atmosphere, reaching wide areas of the world. Launching it into outer space = Hollywood.

[quote name="Noyka"]

Lets be environmentally savvy but rational as well

[/quote]

Lets be rational by weighing the long-term effects on mankind's survival heavier than the immediate costs of a sane energy policy.

In 5 generations no one is going to give a fuck what their ancestors' tax money was used on if they've left the planet a waste with an even shorter supply of natural resources.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 04 Oct 2009, 15:17

Imran: I'll get back to you tomorrow wiht evidence I'm too tired tonight and am going to go to bed in a few minutes so I don't feel like sifting through shit right now

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 17:44

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]

Trying to launch it out into space is retarded(wasted rocket fuel, risk of the rocket blowing up) and unnecessary.[/quote]

retarded only from the economical/resources standpoint (oh, and ground transportation vehicles can blow up too, you know?

not to mention hijacked, for example)

[/quote]

A truck accident = no explosion, depleted nuclear fuel is not explosive. A Challenger-esque disaster = Uranium scattered across the atmosphere, reaching wide areas of the world. Launching it into outer space = Hollywood.

[/quote]

oh, don't be a fucking idiot. there's plenty of other means for space transportation that are being developed, there's even mention of it in the fucking wikipedia article about radioactive waste. hollywood? you're even more stupid than i initially thought... you sure you're not related to ndmg?

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 04 Oct 2009, 19:49

oh, don't be a fucking idiot. there's plenty of other means for space transportation that are being developed, there's even mention of it in the fucking wikipedia article about radioactive waste. hollywood? you're even more stupid than i initially thought... you sure you're not related to ndmg?

Space disposal is an attractive notion because it permanently removes nuclear waste from the environment. However, it has significant disadvantages, not least of which is the potential for catastrophic failure of a launch vehicle. Furthermore, the high number of launches that would be required — due to the fact that no individual rocket would be able to carry very much of the material relative to the material needed to be disposed of—makes the proposal impractical (for both economic and risk-based reasons). To further complicate matters, international agreements on the regulation of such a program would need to be established. [3] This method would also be energy intensive and thus is not necessarily economically feasible.

In the future, alternative, non-rocket spacelaunch technologies may provide a solution. It has been suggested that through the use of a stationary launch system many of the risks of catastrophic launch failure could be avoided. A promising concept is the use of high power lasers to launch "indestructible" containers from the ground into space. Such a system would require no rocket propellant, with the launch vehicle's payload making up a near entirety of the vehicle's mass. Without the use of rocket fuel on board there would be little chance of the vehicle exploding.[4]

One possibility involves encasing the waste in glassified form inside a steel shell 9 inches (230 mm) thick, which in turn is tiled with shuttle tile to its exterior. If the launch vehicle fails just before reaching orbit, the waste ball will safely re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. The steel shell would deform on impact, but would not rupture due to the density of the shell. Also, this would potentially allow the waste to be shot into the Sun.[54]

I hadn't heard of encasing the waste in a safe shell nor non-rocket propelled means of transportation. Regardless, launching it is certainly more wasteful than burying it in a safe place, and the personal attack was unnecessary.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 04 Oct 2009, 20:23

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

Most countries contain their waste in fairly safe ways.

You are aware geothermal can't be used everywhere, right?

For the US it would work great and NEw Zealand already is geothermal but in other countries it wouldn't work.

Nuclear energy runs most of France, do we see Chernobyl there?[/quote]

Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, run by Entergy, is a shit. They're constantly running into troubles with the plant and having to shut down because they're mismanaging a plant that should be closed. Their radiation radius keeps expanding also, so they keep buying land around the plant so their fence-line reading stays the same. The NRC is retarded.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 04 Oct 2009, 20:26

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, great reason to use energy that produces waste that remains radioactive for centuries.

What about tidal and wave power? Wind? Solar? There's no reason to use nuclear when we have so many other renewable resources that don't pollute.[/quote]

Wind and solar are wasteful, you spend more energy getting the power than is produced.

Tidal is great, if you can use it. I agree, tidal and geothermal are the best forms of energy but they aren't feasable for all countries. Nuclear is the next best thing currently.[/quote]

Then why do I know people receiving checks from the local power company each month for the excess energy they're putting into the grid (you know, after their usage) due to wind and solar? These are typical households, by the way, with ACs and computers and such.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 20:38

[quote name="Lavabug"]I hadn't heard of encasing the waste in a safe shell nor non-rocket propelled means of transportation. Regardless, launching it is certainly more wasteful than burying it in a safe place[/quote]

really? how so? i think it's far more wasteful to bury it since it wastes space, a more important commodity (imho) than whatever resources would go into launching it into the sun or whatever

[quote name="Lavabug"]and the personal attack was unnecessary.[/quote]

agreed, and you have my apologies

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 04 Oct 2009, 21:06

[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]I hadn't heard of encasing the waste in a safe shell nor non-rocket propelled means of transportation. Regardless, launching it is certainly more wasteful than burying it in a safe place[/quote]

really? how so? i think it's far more wasteful to bury it since it wastes space, a more important commodity (imho) than whatever resources would go into launching it into the sun or whatever

[/quote]

A large part of the world is uninhabited and/or not worth inhabiting like many deserts, so it's not like we'll miss that space at all. Digging up a few tons of sand and covering the waste up with some material that resists wind deflation(otherwise the sand would eventually blow off) sounds cheaper than all the rocket fuel you'd need/steel casings/laser tech needed to launch the waste. Apologies accepted.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 21:15

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]I hadn't heard of encasing the waste in a safe shell nor non-rocket propelled means of transportation. Regardless, launching it is certainly more wasteful than burying it in a safe place[/quote]

really? how so? i think it's far more wasteful to bury it since it wastes space, a more important commodity (imho) than whatever resources would go into launching it into the sun or whatever

[/quote]

A large part of the world is uninhabited and/or not worth inhabiting like many deserts, so it's not like we'll miss that space at all. Digging up a few tons of sand and covering the waste up with some material that resists wind deflation(otherwise the sand would eventually blow off) sounds cheaper than all the rocket fuel you'd need/steel casings/laser tech needed to launch the waste. Apologies accepted.

[/quote]

those "uninhabited/ not worth inhabiting" areas are usually indigenous peoples' land. see Ward Valley, Yucca Mountain, and just about every nuclear waste site in America.

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 21:51

[quote name="Teignub"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="i am the pink lizard"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]I hadn't heard of encasing the waste in a safe shell nor non-rocket propelled means of transportation. Regardless, launching it is certainly more wasteful than burying it in a safe place[/quote]

really? how so? i think it's far more wasteful to bury it since it wastes space, a more important commodity (imho) than whatever resources would go into launching it into the sun or whatever

[/quote]

A large part of the world is uninhabited and/or not worth inhabiting like many deserts, so it's not like we'll miss that space at all. Digging up a few tons of sand and covering the waste up with some material that resists wind deflation(otherwise the sand would eventually blow off) sounds cheaper than all the rocket fuel you'd need/steel casings/laser tech needed to launch the waste. Apologies accepted.

[/quote]

those "uninhabited/ not worth inhabiting" areas are usually indigenous peoples' land. see Ward Valley, Yucca Mountain, and just about every nuclear waste site in America.[/quote]

this. plus, you excluding the possibility that those "uninhabitable places" might one day be inhabitable by use of advanced technology and/or climate changes

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 22:00

i think that the fact we are discussing the possibility of launching nuclear waste into space because its not safe enough to keep it on Earth, means to me that we should look elsewhere for our energy needs

djonni greazo · Post by **djonni greazo** » 04 Oct 2009, 22:34

[quote name="Teignub"]i think that the fact we are discussing the possibility of launching nuclear waste into space because its not safe enough to keep it on Earth, means to me that we should look elsewhere for our energy needs[/quote]

jesus fuck, you're dense. for every post of yours that makes some kind of sense you have at least 15 that could challenge ndmg. please read the last 2 paragraphs in the 1st section

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 04 Oct 2009, 23:12

are you serious? youre going to attack me personally and than show me some statistics to try and say something? first, did i say fossil fuel? NO. Second, OF COURSE there are more deaths by fossil fuel. The statistics about deaths per year are skewed due to there being FAR MORE hydropower and fossil fuel plants than nuclear plants. Third, those stats probably dont include deaths by cancer from people who live near radioactive nuclear waste sites or uranium mines, such as the Navajo who have cancer rates through the roof. And fourth, I dont see your point as I never once mentioned fossil fuels or hydropower. All i said was that maybe we should look to fill our energy needs through some other method besides nuclear energy.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 04 Oct 2009, 23:56

[quote name="Teignub"]

those "uninhabited/ not worth inhabiting" areas are usually indigenous peoples' land. see Ward Valley, Yucca Mountain, and just about every nuclear waste site in America.[/quote]

But you're mentioning inhabited places, I am not. Who the hell lives in 90% of the Sahara? There are plenty of barren areas with no life or vegetation in every major continent.

Uranium is perfectly safe on the Earth, it's where we get it from after all, most of the planet's crust has quite a bit of it(99.7% of which is the non-fissile depleted kind, which is later refined to obtain the radioactive isotope for power/bombs. An educational video on the element:

[youtube]B8vVZTvJNGk[/youtube]

and even more relevant to this thread, info on how Uranium is enriched to obtain U-235 for power generation and bombs:

[youtube]69UpMhUnEeY[/youtube]

By the way, everyone should watch "The President's Guide to Science" BBC documentary, they go into the Iran/nuclear threat and nuclear power subject quite a bit:

[youtube]nMa74J2RlEI[/youtube]

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 05 Oct 2009, 01:14

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, fairly safe if the waste is properly sealed and not dumped into the ocean or rivers as it commonly is. Geothermal energy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/quote]

Most countries contain their waste in fairly safe ways.

You are aware geothermal can't be used everywhere, right?

For the US it would work great and NEw Zealand already is geothermal but in other countries it wouldn't work.

Nuclear energy runs most of France, do we see Chernobyl there?[/quote]

Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, run by Entergy, is a shit. They're constantly running into troubles with the plant and having to shut down because they're mismanaging a plant that should be closed. Their radiation radius keeps expanding also, so they keep buying land around the plant so their fence-line reading stays the same. The NRC is retarded.[/quote]

that's because America is behind other countries now with nuclear storage and technology in general. This is why for our country I think we need to look into geothermal and tidal (for the east coast where geothermal wouldn't be a smart idea).

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Redd"]Yeah, great reason to use energy that produces waste that remains radioactive for centuries.

What about tidal and wave power? Wind? Solar? There's no reason to use nuclear when we have so many other renewable resources that don't pollute.[/quote]

Wind and solar are wasteful, you spend more energy getting the power than is produced.

Tidal is great, if you can use it. I agree, tidal and geothermal are the best forms of energy but they aren't feasable for all countries. Nuclear is the next best thing currently.[/quote]

Then why do I know people receiving checks from the local power company each month for the excess energy they're putting into the grid (you know, after their usage) due to wind and solar? These are typical households, by the way, with ACs and computers and such.[/quote]

Most people I know only have partial solar on their homes, I'm not sure if the people you know have the same or not. If things have changed recently I'll read up on it again but I seriously doubt it.