|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:...murder and organ reclamation? When you think about it the matrix robots were pretty chill. Nice pods, free broadband, and all the goo you could digest.
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Dancer posted:As cool as nuclear may be, it's not renewable. Even without reprocessing or transitioning to non-uranium fuel sources the available supply of uranium at commercially viable prices is incredibly huge. We're talking about even the most conservative estimates being several hundred to several thousand years. The more reasonable ones are in the range of longer than the entire run of human civilization to date. cheese posted:Struggling to think of what the negative consequences could be. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:I don't really consider them green. When something goes wrong, it goes colossally wrong and stays there for a long time. Longer than oil accidents. The worst nuclear disaster in history killed 62 people and now it's a nature preserve.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:Then what the gently caress have I been worrying about this whole time. How long does an area remain unsafe after a meltdown? So if this is true, why isn't Chernobyl cleaned up and inhabited? Or is it because it's only like 30-40 years old, and in another 20 it will be fine? There are risk levels. You pick what's an acceptable risk and work from there. For example, Chernobyl was an active nuclear generating station until only a few years ago. People worked there every day. People still work there to monitor the site, do research, and maintain the environmental defenses around the most polluted areas. This is all perfectly safe because they take precautions to monitor their radiation doses and avoid areas where they know radioactive materials can collect and produce dangerous levels of radioactivity. However, it'd be a lovely idea to build a kindegarten anywhere nearby because children love to eat dirt, and eating dirt in Pripyat would be a very bad thing to do. Another example is Bikini Atoll. Perfectly safe to live there, bad idea to eat the local flora. The US nuked the poo poo out of it a whole bunch of times and certain plants have a tendency to suck nasty isotopes out of the ground and concentrate them to dangerous levels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:Ok, so to me that makes the whole area generally un-livable. The sort of thing you have to remember is that not all accidents are equal. At Chernobyl the Soviets pretty much had a giant nuclear bomb factory burn to the ground in a totally uncontrolled shitstorm. Their reaction was a pretty minimal evacuation that came very late in the game. The result was a lot of preventable exposure that lead to fewer than 100 deaths. Fukushima on the other hand was a generating station that got obliterated when the ocean decided to come visit. Because the Japanese aren't totally insane and actually build safe plants it didn't go totally tits-up immediately. A few design flaws allowed some of the reactors to get out of control before they could be fully shut down and they destroyed themselves and breached containment. The Japanese government reacted with an abundance of caution and evacuated a HUGE zone. The result was a lot of people displaced, no serious exposures to the public, and some mildly radioactive fish. Three Mile Island went all wonky and melted down but because it was a safe design, and not under a mountain of water or on fire, its containment system worked as intended. The result was no danger to anyone, and a very expensive remediation process.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Continuing to run older less safe reactors beyond their original service life instead of building new efficient and incredibly safe reactors makes tons of sense when you think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Economically, it makes more sense to use an energy source that doesn't create dangerous waste that needs to be securely housed for thousands of years. Many industrial processes produce dangerous waste. For some reason nuclear fission just breaks people's brains when it comes to waste management.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Regardless, a carbon tax will raise the price of burning fossil fuels, which we desperately need to do. All increasing the price of burning fossil fuels will do is gently caress the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:Unless the carbon tax is redistributed per capita directly to the population down with slavery posted:"All legislation will gently caress the poor" might honestly be accurate, but I mean, where does that leave us? No legislation fucks the poor, politically viable legislation fucks the poor, no win situation there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 03:20
|
|
