Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Basing your opinion on modern nuclear reactor on what happened in Chernobyl is like refusing to buy a Honda Civic because somebody once died while driving a Ford Model T.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not basing my opinion on Russia, I base it on Human Nature and History. If you look at what I country has changed over the last 1000 years. You folks in the Nuke business had better hope that Man Kind is going to change over the next 1000 years.
For if you look at the last 1000, we had better hope that your nukes are hiddern where no one will ever find them. But I fear they are not !
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if you don't want nuke power, then you are down to coal. Wind, solar, tide, hydro, cannot provide the power in the quantities needed. Too bad though, there is more power stored in the radioactive impurities in coal than there is in the coal itself. I guess that stuff will just have to continue to go up the stack, because nukes are bad.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Far more people have been killed in conventional bombing than nuclear.
Yeah it is bad because its one bomb. But We were already able to wreck cities before nukes.
Nuclear power IS the only good option right now.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clean Co Gen is the only option other then hydro, for get those Nukes!
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There has never been a nuclear accident in Canada. Canada has been operating multiple nuke plants for decades now. Therefore nukes are dangerous?

The same holds true for France, Japan, and the UK I believe. You are just wrong about nuclear power, I don't know why you won't admit that. The worst nuclear incident in the US, zero people died or became ill. Let go of the 70s.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Nukes and their waste are clearly dangerous !
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Clean Co Gen is the only option other then hydro, for get those Nukes!


Maybe in 20 years when the technology has matured, but not now.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nicklan, are you aware that nuclear technology continued to advance after the 1950s? In fact, the state of the art is still moving to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....II_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

The first generation designs that you seem to be familiar with have long since been retired. The third generation designs are safer, more economical, and produce less waste. It is actually due to attitudes like yours that we are stuck with second generation reactor designs that still have some of the problems you talk about. People like you are so dead set against anything nuclear, that a better reactor cannot be built; the old one must remain in use because there is nothing to take its place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why wait 20 years for some thing that we have already been doing in North America and Europe
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No you do not have it correct I am not just aganst only the first and second but also the third generation Nukes. Untill their are no risks of failure at all from genaration and waste none! And I do not see any plans for a completly risk free nuke plant or its waste. When you have that to offer get back to me !
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how do you propose to perfect the technology without allowing any reactors to be built? Nothing you are saying makes any sense.
Nicklan





Joined: 10 May 2007
Posts: 544
Reputation: 16.6Reputation: 16.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never said anything about test plants or research!
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nicklan wrote:
Space Craft and Air craft do crash and Kill people infact two people in my family have been killed in plane crashes. One in Iran in a DC-3 in 1976 and the other in South Carolina in an F-18. They where both pilots and not only new what they where getting into but they both loved flying. While aircraft crashs kill in thousands of aircrafts each year around the world. I do not know of any aircraft or spacecraft crashes that will kill the whole population for hundreds of miles like the Nukes have !


More people have been killed by aircraft than nuclear power (used for electrical generation). More people have been killed by cars than nuclear power. Should we ban driving? I certainly hope your rational isn't that because only a couple people get killed in each car accident that it is therefore okay.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
More people have been killed by aircraft than nuclear power (used for electrical generation). More people have been killed by cars than nuclear power. Should we ban driving? I certainly hope your rational isn't that because only a couple people get killed in each car accident that it is therefore okay.

More people have been killed by doctors that all of those things combined! Should we ban doctors?

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB