|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
fong posted:No no guys he's right you could literally be born anywhere and it would make no difference. When someone asks where you're from you just give them a GPS location because it matters about the same. Noxin of Shame posted:That nothing to do with being proud. It's loving luck.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
I really wish I was born in North Korea
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:"Haha shame oval office, born in Bangladesh. What a fuckin loser bro" Same except replace Bangladesh with New Zealand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
fong posted:Let's call off parliament, that shits expensive yo Or vote to reduce the number of MPs to 99
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Patriotism is a cancer. I am proud that we banned nukes. I am proud that we allowed prostitution to be legal and banned assaulting children. I am disgusted that our current govt didn't want to bring in refugees, and when they finally acquiesced it was with a pitiful offer. I am disgusted that any opposition to nationals policy only called for doubling the quota and are happy for our quota to match other countries quotas because if everyone else is doing it then it must be right. Patriotism is willful ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I am proud that we banned nukes. Why are you proud of this? Nuclear weapons are terrible, but that's neither here nor there seeing as we'll never have any. Nuclear power is A Good Thing and will now never happen because of retarded, ill-thought-out crowd pleasing policy from decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Patriotism is a cancer. Patriotism doesn't mind blindly accepting everything your country does as awesome. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: to blindly love your country regardless of fault is not patriotism, because somebody who actually gave a drat would see their country's faults and try to improve it for the better. A patriot sees their country for what it is, and it proud of the things that work, and tries to fix the things that don't. The word you're looking for is jingoism, which is a different beast entirely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Because it was taking an insignificant but socially right stand against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as part of Mutually Assured Destruction. To boot, it was done through intelligently thought-out popular policy rather than the knee-jerk urgency crap we write now so the only obstacle to rolling out a power station is the same public opinion that asked for legislation against nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why are you proud of this? Nuclear weapons are terrible, but that's neither here nor there seeing as we'll never have any. Nuclear power is A Good Thing and will now never happen because of retarded, ill-thought-out crowd pleasing policy from decades ago. We didn't ban nuclear power, iirc. We banned nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Wut Well yes if you redefine what patriotism is, or rather how its practice, then you are correct. But if you accept my definition, then you are not. Either way, this disagreement can be resolved merely by agreeing on definitions of terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
klen dool posted:We didn't ban nuclear power, iirc. We banned nuclear weapons. We banned nuclear powered vessels irrespective of whether they had nuclear armament or not, from what I know. As far as the public at large is concerned there's effectively no difference anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Nuclear power is A Good Thing From what frame of reference? Yeah, it's better than burning coal. But surely wind and solar energies are cheaper, don't have radioactive waste to bury, and once the plant/turbine has passed it's used by date it doesn't take decades to decommission and make safe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:We banned nuclear powered vessels irrespective of whether they had nuclear armament or not, from what I know. As far as the public at large is concerned there's effectively no difference anyway. Out of curiosity: how much radiation leakage is possible with a crashed/blown up nuclear vessel, anyone know?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
How much fuel would leak from a crashed ship? That's an impossible question to answer dude way way too many variables
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:How much fuel would leak from a crashed ship? That's an impossible question to answer dude way way too many variables Ahhh, true. I would assume that the reactors are heavily shielded and I have no idea of the strength of the fuel. Time for some research I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:We banned nuclear powered vessels irrespective of whether they had nuclear armament or not, from what I know. As far as the public at large is concerned there's effectively no difference anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:We banned nuclear powered vessels irrespective of whether they had nuclear armament or not, from what I know. As far as the public at large is concerned there's effectively no difference anyway. We banned nuclear weapons (ship-bourne or otherwise), not ships. The US decided that they would not confirm or deny if their ships carried nuclear weapons - the US banned their own ships. We would have at the time been happy to have nuclear powered ships and subs, as long as they didn't carry weapons. I mean, I wouldn't be happy but that's not because of nuclear power. It is unfortunate that we effectively banned nuclear power in the minds of the public as a side effect. I hope one day that can change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Because the US wouldn't guarantee that we could inspect their nuclear powered ships for weapons while they were docked here, and to this day the number of nuclear ships that aren't warships is incredibly small due to the expense of running them. We banned them because it was a loophole that would've ended in the US parking their nuclear warships here while insisting they had no weapons on board, refusing access to verify that, and without holding liability for any nuclear accident. We banned nuclear vessels because we were against nuclear-powered war, not just nuclear weapons. Or maybe this is correct, and I recall wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:Out of curiosity: how much radiation leakage is possible with a crashed/blown up nuclear vessel, anyone know? IANAP but I reckon that worst case scenario would be the core falling into cook strait or something, and water is pretty good at shielding radiation, and the effects would be negligible. But maybe someone who is a physicist would better be able to answer that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:From what frame of reference? Yeah, it's better than burning coal. But surely wind and solar energies are cheaper, don't have radioactive waste to bury, and once the plant/turbine has passed it's used by date it doesn't take decades to decommission and make safe. The problem with solar is you need constant sunlight which NZ doesn't have because we're a little short on deserts and tend to have changeable weather at best, but this might change if there's a drastic advance in solar cell technology. Wind is hilariously expensive when you take into account the public resistance to having turbines anywhere useful or practical; putting them out in the sea is neither cheap nor efficient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:From what frame of reference? Yeah, it's better than burning coal. But surely wind and solar energies are cheaper, don't have radioactive waste to bury, and once the plant/turbine has passed it's used by date it doesn't take decades to decommission and make safe. That is the key point for New Zealand. We've got so much untapped, totally renewable power generation potential in this country that we really don't need to worry about how efficient or safe nuclear power is, relative to anything. Right at the moment we're sending up to 15% of the entire power generation of New Zealand down to a single aluminium smelter in the South Island, and that is just going to get freed up when that closes down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I've read a Massey research paper that shows the cost/benefit ratio of a single nuclear power station in NZ does not really make it any more economically viable than renewables.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72497269/john-key-announces-one-of-the-worlds-largest-ocean-sanctuaries Hey look, we can be proud of something our government did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
klen dool posted:It is unfortunate that we effectively banned nuclear power in the minds of the public as a side effect. I hope one day that can change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Yea I'm not opposed to nuclear power but given our earthquake risk and abundant renewable resources it doesn't make sense here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72497269/john-key-announces-one-of-the-worlds-largest-ocean-sanctuaries How long until Key sells them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
I'm a big proponent of nuclear in most cases but I agree, we are simply not hungry enough to need it given the other natural options available. That said, not every country has that luxury.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
We could push for deep-sea current turbines, apparently the Strait is a pretty good spot to experiment, and there are plenty of coastal nations in need of a long-term and stable energy supplement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why are you proud of this? Nuclear weapons are terrible, but that's neither here nor there seeing as we'll never have any. Nuclear power is A Good Thing and will now never happen because of retarded, ill-thought-out crowd pleasing policy from decades ago. Is what people said before a combination of Fukushima and the Christchurch earthquakes reminded everyone how what a terrible idea a terrestrial nuclear power plant in New Zealand would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:Is what people said before a combination of Fukushima and the Christchurch earthquakes reminded everyone how what a terrible idea a terrestrial nuclear power plant in New Zealand would be. So, space nukes?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Pararoid posted:Is what people said before a combination of Fukushima and the Christchurch earthquakes reminded everyone how what a terrible idea a terrestrial nuclear power plant in New Zealand would be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:But to be fair, those people are obviously unaware that Fukushima weathered the earthquake in a textbook manner, it was the 13 foot tsunami that killed it. Yes exactly, the outcomes of major seismic events are extremely unpredictable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72497269/john-key-announces-one-of-the-worlds-largest-ocean-sanctuaries Does anyone know wtf they were on about? There's nothing about any negative aspect on their own site.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
truther posted:I saw a preview for a 3News article on this which said 'but how many livelihoods will it destroy?' I assume they're talking about the livelihoods of British Petroleum, and ExxonMobil?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
That's a ridiculous angle to take, even for 3News...
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
On the wireless they said it was 'the fishing industry' who were whining.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:On the wireless they said it was 'the fishing industry' who were whining. Oh no not 15% of our waters, where ever shall they go in the entire Pacific Ocean????
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
truther posted:I saw a preview for a 3News article on this which said 'but how many livelihoods will it destroy?' Let me guess: 3News' resident angry rodent Paddy Gower trying to sensationalise something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
It will destroy a lot of fish livelihoods, because they won't be able to find work as human food anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Fukushima did very well considering, even the radiation leak has been over blown all out of proportion, that said, back up generators in the basement is dumb as hell. If you do put down a nuke plant in NZ, you would do it on the shores of Lake Taupo. If Taupo blows, we would all be kissing our asses goodbye anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 09:46
|
|