Customize

Anonymous and anti-nuclear conflict

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by VendettaForAnonymous, May 1, 2011.

  1. [Translat with google traduction, original post: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/anonymous-dans-la-lutte-anti-nucléaire.79892]
    Pics of fukushima: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/fukushima-nuclear-photos.79898/

    Good morning,

    I thought that we could participate in another battle: antinuclear conflict. Nuclear technology represents a big danger for our future, has already typed the past: Hiroshima, Tchernobyl, Fukushima. To inform you, it is here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=904&q=nuclear anti&um=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=vw#sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=904&source=hp&q=nuclear danger&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=282d9d5433c41066
    It is in the demonstration of 30/04/2011 against the Scientology in the Bastille, seen that there was the antinuclear demonstration not far that I had this idea.

    By investing us in anti-nuclear conflict notably during demonstrations, and by distributing pamphlets during these last (pamphlets which could speak about the Scientology AND about the antinuclear, with a link towards www.whyweprotest.net), a packet of the world could join our ranks, and participate also in our other battles.

    Of what do you think of it?

    pict25.jpg
    pict32.jpg
    pict0.jpg
    pict58.jpg
  2. Anonymous Member

    It's possible that interest in such an event & issue exists here at WWP.

    At the present time, there is a large global awareness of the nuclear issue but conflating the Stop $cientology project with an Anti-Nuke protest project really doesn't work for me
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Loki's spawn Member

    The thing is, a lot of people support nuclear energy as an energy source. If you're going to protest it, don't mix it with $cientology, because that could potentially turn away new recruits. I would advise holding a separate rally for it.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Anonymous Member

    Personally I think you anti atomic energy people are a bunch of unwashed hippies without a concept of the global situation.

    So what do you propose to replace nuclear power ???
    Fossil fuels ??? they have done the planet so much good already, so why not add more, I like the heat anyway...
    Import Power ??? Like germany will have to, who then got re-protested by more hippies who don't want the new proposed power cables to disturb their view of the trees.
    Wind-Power, not fucking likely to support that kind of load and the price increase will result in even more protests because most of you tree hugging hippies are too poor to pay the premium, Solar, same issue... too expensive and you cannot store the amount the power a city would need at night.

    Time for you to join the real world, in terms of safety there have been fewer problems with Atomic Power supplies then fossil fuels. In terms of health, less pollution as the emission is steam and not green house gasses and noxious chemicals. In terms of cost it is cheaper then running huge open cast mines to support a coal habit like in South Africa. In terms of life cycle, they last 40 to 50 years and are reliable to say the least... It took an earhtquake to damage Fukushima, and the last incident before that was Chernobyl which was 24 years ago.
    Go ahead, shut down the reactors and move back in time to fossil fuels... but be prepared to pay more for your power and be prepared to have to raise your kids wearing breathing masks. You lot haven't a clue, fucking muppets.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Anonymous Member

    On the plus side, I didn't have to ask you to post tits.
  6. Nuclear power is good. It's a lot cleaner (less pollution/greenhouse gases), cheaper to run, more efficient...

    Sure, nuclear war would possibly end the world, but i don't think many people are really prepared to push the last button that would be pushed.

    Also, i will be fapping to picture 2. And maybe picture 3.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Anonymous Member

    Picture 3? C'mon man, picture 4 is where it's at. That face mask is making me horny.
  8. Nick_Nolte Member

    This thread smells of patchouli
  9. Anonymous Member

  10. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    http://news.uchicago.edu/multimedia/lessons-fukushima
    Here is a tl;dw on the nuclear accident in Japan and atomic power. The first half of the discussion is introducing everybody and all their degrees/awards/etcccccc "phd this MBA that. lalalalalala
    But still good info
  12. Anon-V Member

    Nuclear power is cleaner. Why would I use fossil fuels if I could use nuclear?
  13. Char. Limit Member

    I support nuclear power. However, I feel that top priority should be given to figuring out how to make a sustainable fusion reaction.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    You won't see fusion anytime soon. Unless you can recreate the conditions in the center of the sun here on earth.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Yeah... that will end well. Here is a preview:

    raaaage1.jpg
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Xoara Member

    I disapprove nuclear!
    what about the nuclear slag if u say that is a clean energy?
    and what about the solar energy, the wind and the water energy?
    we need just more research on this, to learn how can the humanity use this.
    we don't need petrol as we don't need nuclear.
    This is my think.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. PSKL Member

    Wind and solar energy don't have the subsidies that coal does. Also, they're becoming more and more viable every year. It should be obvious that the correct solution will be to use a mix of each of the available options, as, for right now, no single process creates enough energy--that can be processed with current our current means--to provide all the energy we consume.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. over9000OT Member

    Completely wrong on your last point. There is no reason that we couldn't have nuclear power plants running out of our asses and providing all the glorious power you could ever want. Sure, there will be accidents and there will be that pesky spent fuel left over but, as with many subjects bordered by Looney Tunes retards, the truth is much more pedestrian than the wing nuts would have you believe. FWIW, I have an acre of land I will cheerfully lease the USG for the storage of spent fuel rods.

    The ONLY reason we don't have rampant nuclear power is pants shitting hysterics fomented by hippies with agendas. Full stop.
  19. Zak McKracken Member

    Not so difficult as you might think.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

    fusor_plasma_Will.png

    We've been doing fusion since ~ 1952.
    fusion without blowing shit up since ~ 1960.
    self-sustaining fusion since ~ never not yet.

    Making hydrogen fuse is easy.
    http://www.fusor.net/
    Making it actually useful is another story...
    No, there's no "grand conspiracy". Its just really really hard to figure out.

    Or "sustainable" fusion may be impossible. Hasn't been proven yet one way or the other.
  20. PSKL Member

    Even if, *right now* we could provide for all the energy we need with nuclear power, that won't hold true in the future, as implied by Moore's Law and the growth of technology. Also, from an economics standpoint, it's always a good idea to diversify your assets (in this case, energy).
  21. DeathHamster Member

    We also need Anonymous operations against wind power (it might make people sick), coal (definitely bad for the environment), solar power (toxic chemicals to produce the panels), natural gas (green house and it'll run out), massive hydro projects (bad for the environment).

    Then all we have to figure out is how to power everything from Folgers Crystals.
  22. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    I suggest drinking it. It works well powering me in the morning!
  23. over9000OT Member

    What the fuck does Moore's Law have to do with nuclear energy? Are you implying that moar computing power will require moar energy? In that case, I invite you to consider the miracles found on your cell phone which, even if it's years old, has more computing power than the Cray-1 which, incidentally, used about 115kW (not counting cooling energy consumption) whereas your busted up cell phone uses somewhere on the order of 1.4~2.8W.
  24. Loki's spawn Member

    This is definitely where our nuclear program should be headed as a long term goal. It's just going to take a long time to get there.
  25. PSKL Member

    I'm no physicist, so I'm sure I'm missing something. But I don't see why a light/heat source can't be manipulated through mirrors and intensifying lenses to generate a self-perpetuating power supply. Obviously, I'm missing something. Halp please.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Heat loss. That's going to cause entropy in your system. There's always that little bit of wasted energy that's going to pull your system down if you don't keep providing energy. Perhaps it could work in theory, but I doubt it could in reality.
  27. PSKL Member

    Thanks. A follow up question, though: why can't the sun work as the power supply, making the intensifying lenses and mirrors all that remains to create such a reaction?
  28. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    I'm assuming that, in theory, it could. Of course, you would have to do all the work of designing such a system to make it feasible. It's probably a little more complicated than you think. You'd have to think of the costs of such a project. I would bet that the current lens intensification technology necessary to generate substantive power would cost more than traditional solar panels. Then again, who knows? Maybe nobody's given this idea any thought before. Better take a patent out quick:p
  30. PSKL Member

    What would be the issue preventing the combination of the mirrored lens from the video and a solar panel at the focus of the heat refraction?
  31. Anonymous Member

    I don't see any issue with using it with a solar panel. Though, from the looks of the video, the heat it would generate would be pretty intense. The solar panel might have to be fortified so it wouldn't melt under the focused heat. I'm not exactly sure how much heat it could withstand.
  32. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  33. over9000OT Member

    [IMG]
    • Like Like x 3
  34. Anonymous Member

    Nuclear energy is clean and safe.

    Private waste disposal contracts and military sidelines are poisonous and dirty.

    Anybody thinking nuclear energy plants can be efficiently maintained for at least 60 years, with full disclosure of waste and water offloads, in an unstable country either politically, geologically, or financially, is clearly just here to pass the time whilst sucking cocks for crack money.

    Nuclear fission is a stop gap on the way to even cleaner fuel, but this planet needs no more 10,000 year radiation problems.

    Anyone in doubt of that should look at what happened to Pripyat.

    [IMG]
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Anonymous Member

    The theoretical limiting efficiency of a crystalline silicon panel is 29%. Therefore even with the best possible panel, 61% of the energy you dump on the panel is going to end up as heat.
  36. over9000OT Member

    More people die in coal mines in China in two months than were killed by the Chernobyl accident. The second and third order effects of pollution caused by the mining/drilling/refining/use of non-renewable energy resources, such as coal and oil, are difficult to judge scientifically but even the most conservative estimates put that number far higher than any conceivable nuclear power plant event. The Fukushima-Daichi "disaster" ranks in the top five nuclear power disasters on the planet yet you've got more fingers than casualties from that event.

    Ah yes, alternate energy, of course. Google Banqiao Dam.

    If you're going to use casualties as a reason not to employ nuclear power, you are going to lose. But, hey, don't let me ruin your vibe. I'm sure everything will be just fine when we figure out how to run our cars on hippie's overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness and power our homes with hysterical falsities parroted in an attempt to fight evil nuclear power man.
    • Like Like x 3
  37. PSKL Member

    I just talked to my father, who's an engineer/executive of a wind power company, and he says the things I've mentioned are in the works, that in the long run the idea is viable, and that the current barriers to its being used widely are largely economic. He's currently in DC to meet with senators about renewable energy projects.
  38. over9000OT Member

    My dad can beat up your dad.
    • Like Like x 1
  39. PSKL Member

    Most likely

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins