Nuclear Power? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter loquasagacious
- Start date
S.H.O.D.A.N.
world
Australia was building a bunch of nuclear bombs during the Cold War but we gave up, on the premise that NATO had plenty. We're not talking about some policies or theories, either - we were probably about half-way there.
South Africa did develop nukes, then disposed of them when the Cold War ended in the 1990's.
South Africa did develop nukes, then disposed of them when the Cold War ended in the 1990's.
Fools
I been to one of their nuclear reactors before ^_^
Looked exactly like the one from the Simpsons lol
Uncle
Banned
No need for nuclear reactors or weapons.
The potential for misuse presents grave danger for all.
I've been fucking sterilised by nuclear testing.
The potential for misuse presents grave danger for all.
I've been fucking sterilised by nuclear testing.
Uncle
Banned
The way you replied makes you worse than a bag of flesh inflicted with Down Syndrome and lower than any uncouth ghetto-residing scum you vile, gelatinous, parasitic miscreant.
There are different fuels other than uranium. We could use Thorium, which Australia has in abundance, and is a whole lot cleaner than uranium, with half the half life as well as creating less waste than uranium. Plus you need less reactors to create the equivalent energy. And we already have a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights
with a current energy crisis looming as sydney and the rest of the state begins to grow, it is essential that more energy be generated and this cannot be done by curbing carbon emissions by building windfarms, solar etc. to stop repeats of the blackout experienced last month in Sydney CBD and continual blackouts throughout the metropolitan area a series of new powerplants must be constructed and if the government is really serious about curbing carbon emmisions a nuclear powerplant is a necessary evil.
thats my 2 cents
thats my 2 cents
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Joyce is a dick with most of his policies, but for now, he is a hero.
HumanDichotomy
Member
No...unless they can come up with an extremely safe, sustainable method of using it.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
It already is extremely safe and sustainable.
this
but have they yet found a safe and sustainable way to dispose of the waste and excess?? there is always the risk of a meltdown, contamination of soil and waterways, health risks for those working with it... why bother?? there are more enviro-friendly methods for energy, that are more sustainable and not as dangerous.
zombie omie jay
Banned
Plenty of empty desert the store the minute (on a scale of industrial waste lol) amounts of waste products.
There is always a risk that there could be a major accident in any industry, Dams could collapse in Hydro schemes so lets not build dams.
The health risk for people working there is smaller than the health risk or working in a coal fired plant. The health risk to the public is highly reduced by nuclear power compared to coal, and other industries are not fucking developed or viable why does no one understand this??
Dont you think that if there was money to be made out of building thousands of fucking wind turbines and solar panels that it would be happening?
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Yes, yes and yes.
Synroc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fact that there have only been two meltdowns in the entire history of civilian nuclear power (and 8 partial meltdowns, with 5 of those being military) just goes to show how safe nuclear power is. It is very sustainable (given Australia holds the world's reserves in uranium) and very safe. The health risks to those working at a reactor are minimal.
You are all unfortuntaely victim to the very successful scare campaign by the likes of Greenpeace.
Last edited:
youre using wikipedia as a source?? one of the most unreliable websites in the history of the internet.
this information is regarding the past, whereas here, we are dealing with the future. we cannot begin to imagine what could happen, and what may be the long term effects of this on our country. we're not just talking about the life on the planet, but the land as well. where are we going to dispose of the waste? let america ruin there part of the world, id rather keep australia as it is.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Lol okay, stupid comments about Wikipedia aside (you do realise that all of these articles have citations? They're summaries of existing research. Don't be an idiot), Synroc
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? There's no "long term risk" of burying waste in tectonically dead cratons away from the water table or, better, in a subduction zone.
Last edited:
Uncle
Banned
UNSW should officially reopen its School of Nuclear Engineering after it was closed a few decades ago.
wikipedia may have citations, but that doesnt mean its particularly reliable. its too easy to bs on it.
and im still sticking by my opiion. they were actually thinking of putting the power plant near where i live, and thats something im completely against.
zombie omie jay
Banned
It is very reliable if you have half a brain and can follow the links of the citations. Not that hard.
Nuclear power plants pose a significantly reduced risk to the public than current (coal fired) power plants. Significantly more radioactivity is leaked into the environment from coal fired plants than from nuclear plants. There is nothing to worry about in regards to having a nuclear power plant in your area, infact it would provide a boost to your shitty fucking economy.
Nuclear power plants pose a significantly reduced risk to the public than current (coal fired) power plants. Significantly more radioactivity is leaked into the environment from coal fired plants than from nuclear plants. There is nothing to worry about in regards to having a nuclear power plant in your area, infact it would provide a boost to your shitty fucking economy.