Danger Signs: America's So Nuclear Wasted

[FAGGATRON_3000 !!PEF7BVl3fW0 No.3804208]

>Let's go through it again, shall we?

>We'll keep it simple, and not even wander into the economics of it.

>First of all, human beings make mistakes. You simply can't argue with that -- no one can argue with it. Historically proven beyond all doubt. Therefore, having humans run devices that (when they go out of control, for instance windward of a large population center) can kill literally millions of people is a mistake. A bad idea. A seven-year-old can tell you that. This is what gave us Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

>Secondly, Mother Nature can (I hope you'll forgive the phrase) kick our asses any time she decides to. Anywhere she pleases. And to any degree she feels like.

>"We're engineered here... we're prepared for a 7.0 earthquake and the biggest that's ever happen here was only a 5..."

>...which is fine until she does a 9.6. That kind of thinking gave us Fukushima.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-crosby/danger-signs-americas-so-_b_974335.html

Hoe does this make you feel?

[Trap No.3804218]

>Therefore, having humans run devices that (when they go out of control, for instance windward of a large population center) can kill literally millions of people is a mistake.

Yeah, good work making sure we don't build any of those newer, safe designs

fucking hell, I mad

[FAGGATRON_3000 !!PEF7BVl3fW0 No.3804222]

>what will it take to start shutting down nukes. This stuff is toxic for 10,000 years, longer than there has been civilisati­on. Accidents will create wastelands like Chernobyl or know in Japan. Hopefully fiture will bring better way with waste already created. I rfemeber to a paper about nuke wste back in high school during th 70's. Before three mile Island, I could not beleive that we were creating such toxic material.

dohohoho

[Anonymous No.3804229]

I don't really care.

[Anonymous No.3804230]

>>3804218
me too, trap
gosh we have SO much in common...
so maybe, can i see you all sexy-like sometime?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3804231]

And yet the world still has nuclear weapons. I bet most of the people who don't like new nuclear facilities being built don't have a problem with nuclear weapons kept ready to launch.

[Anonymous No.3804233]

So a 40 year old due for decommissioning nuclear reactor gets hit by a huge earthquake and tidal wave?

Sounds scary, wouldn't it be amazing if nobody died in that situation and fuck all actually happened....


Ow wait...

[Anonymous No.3804234]

>>3804218

ITT:

Luddites, afraid of rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels, and comfortabl­e with 50 and 100 year old nukes and fossil tech.

[Anonymous No.3804243]

I think most folks agree that Naval reactors are much safer that land based reactors because of the reduced threat of Quakes and other Nature caused problems but it is also good to remember there have been many Naval reactors problems also:
http://en..­wikipedia.­org/wiki/L­ist_of_mil­itary_nucl­ear_accide­nts

Nature can destroy any land based reactor any place anytime 24/7/365..­.

We cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disast­er here or anywhere on the Planet.
Ask The Japanese!

[Trap No.3804244]

>>3804234
>and comfortabl­e with 50 and 100 year old nukes and fossil tech.

Actually my entire point was I want modern nuclear power, not 50 yr. old stuff

nice reading comprehension bro

[Anonymous No.3804254]

>>3804244

Every reactor is just a cooling system failure away from meltdown and explosion spewing cancerous radioactiv­e waste all over the planet.

[Anonymous No.3804276]

>>3804243
>We cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disast­er here or anywhere on the Planet.
>Ask The Japanese!

Why, what happened to the japs?

[Trap No.3804277]

>>3804254
>every reactor
>the entire world

No, just no

[снайпер No.3804285]

The newest reactor designs are passively safe and cannot melt down.

[Anonymous No.3804299]

>>3804231
it depends on the world situation but since people are people, i don't mind certain, stable governments having a few nuclear weapons armed and ready. especially since north korea still exists and i'm of the belief that iran is a horrible horrible place. also, israel has nuclear weapons and if the country were ever to be overthrown or hit hard in an invasion or something and they were stolen i'd be piss.
i love nuclear power, and i do have a problem with keeping nuclear weapons armed and at the ready. but the way the world is right now i'd rather see people waiting for launch codes on my side of the border than dismantling/permanent storage of all our weapons in such an unhealthy climate.
also, having potential enemies know that we're ready to fire and the capabilities of modern nuclear weapons acts as a pretty big deterrent to certain sorts of behavior. i believe that if a malicious nuclear weapon ever did go off in the united states, we shouldn't launch all missiles and flatten their cities. it'd be a show of good faith to SEAL team 6 the motherfuckers, drag their leader/s to the U.N. security council and hold immediate, public trial. then use the fact that whoever is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon maliciously against anyone as fuel to the anti-armament movement and reduce nuclear caches in all countries that have them.

pic relatard

[Anonymous No.3804331]

Like this

[Anonymous No.3804336]

>>3804285
Actually that's not true. They're much much harder to melt down, as well as simpler in design and relatively less expensive, but hit them badly enough and they'll still melt down. Badly enough would be one of those freak events like at Fukushima, but even then the meltdown there didn't kill anyone.

[Anonymous No.3804338]

Uf

[Anonymous No.3804343]

More?

[Anonymous No.3804346]

Let me get this right. We can go to the moon. We can win WWII. We can conquer polio and smallpox forever. But we absolutely cannot, no we can't, just can't, because we are the can't do nation--do without nuclear power. O. Now I understand­.

[Anonymous No.3804350]

>weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Anonymous No.3804358]

How many more do I need to dump?

[Anonymous No.3804361]

>>3804346
it's a major source of non-CO2 emitting power, why would we want to do without it?

[Anonymous No.3804362]

This thread melted down to butthurt spamming in the span for 10 posts.

Stay mad, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3804365]

>>3804361

you might want to peruse these links:

http://www­.propublic­a.org/arti­cle/nuke-p­lant-inspe­ctions-fin­d-flaws-in­-disaster-­read
iness/­single

http://www­.propublic­a.org/arti­cle/nuclea­r-plants-a­nd-disaste­rs-nrc-ins­pection-re­sult
s

[Anonymous No.3804367]

More? Ok

[FAGGATRON_3000 !!PEF7BVl3fW0 No.3804377]

>>3804367

>Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

[Someone !1LTek3FWf. No.3804397]

>>3804367
>pic coming from tumblor

They aren't so different from /b/.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3804402]

>>3804299
>i don't mind certain, stable governments having a few nuclear weapons armed and ready.
That's the irony I was getting at, that human error makes running a nuclear power facility impossible and yet it is perfectly alright for something as poorly understood as geopolitics to control of human extinction. We all might as well tie a nooses around our necks and tie the other end to the axle giant chaotic waterwheel.

>i'd rather see people waiting for launch codes on my side of the border than dismantling/permanent storage of all our weapons in such an unhealthy climate.
You are the entire problem.

>having potential enemies know that we're ready to fire and the capabilities of modern nuclear weapons acts as a pretty big deterrent to certain sorts of behavior.
It doesn't matter how many wars your INSANE, ehm, excuse me, MAD policy stops. I'd sacrifice a billion human lives in an instant to preserve our species. If just 100 nuclear weapons go in major population centers - like if Pakistan and India went to war - our species would be doomed. We are on the clock and have nature at our throats. It's dangerous enough already without us juggling live grenades. Even if nuclear weapons saved thousands of lives by acting as a deterrent, if they were actually used ONCE we would have murdered the quadrillions upon quadrillions of humans that would have lived. Nothing can rationalize that.