Discussion in 'Europe' started by getbeckyout, Mar 12, 2011.
Shit that's awesome
Win. Made me smile and the music selected was awesome. Downloading for keeps.
White and Circusfag, with Fuckeye in the middle:
...Why is it that everyone is comparing me to the totally-polar-opposite White and Fuckeye?! XD
Because we can. And because they'e probably suffering for it.
Nevermind that, why am I being compared to White?
Because you're both grumpy bastards?
I keep getting confused about which of you is which.
I'll give you a hint: I'm the one that wears all white.
Oh, that twat that fails at gay chicken?
Wait, how did he manage that?
He lost a game of gay chicken. Badly. Really funny to watch.
Yes. Yes it was.
"Lose" in what sense? I'm not following.
Oh for fuck sake.
Now, I may not be a nuclear engineer, but how the fuck is there meant to be so many explosions and fires in a single nuclear power plant without it becoming a bloody meltdown?? Nuclear energy is safe my arse... *grumble grumble*
Surely the fact there've been so many explosions and fires without it becoming a meltdown shows how safe it is.
Anybody else paranoid about Japan? I mean I know it's far fetched, but just the fact that there were protesters at the time of the earthquake.
The Goverment have no morals as far as I'm concerned.
Just how circus fag mentiond it above.
Well, considering that there were explosions and fires at the plant kinda gives me the impression that we have different ideas of the word "safe" here... I mean, its explosions and fires! Radiation is already leaking and at potentially harmful levels!
The radiation levels there after these leaks are still lower than the usual background levels of radiation in NYC.
There has been no meltdown due to safety protocols. Just because there are explosions doesn't mean it'll melt down, I know it sounds weird but think about it. These builds are designed with more safety protocols than probably even the white house. They're designed so that if there is an explosion then it'll blow outwards affecting the outer building but doing little damage to the important parts. (infact that did happen and there are before / after pictures...)
They're using sea water as an emergency coolant and boric acid is being used to stop meltdowns. (boric acid is used to slow down the rate of fission)
It's a combination of good design, thorough and effective safety protocols and people working around the clock with balls of steel (due to mutation) that there has been no meltdown.
Hopefully they'll start to have less issues and get everything stable.
Yes, because Japanese goverment created a massive eartquake itself to kill thousands of its own people and destroy billions of £s (or billions of billions of japanese yen...) of its own property.
Possibily one of the stupidest things I've heard all week.
You know what I meant ¬_¬....
Besides, it was conspiracy with 9/11, I suppose that has more logic though.
But hey, that's just me thinking to much, just saying, possibilities.
A big ass earthquake will fuck up pretty much anything. You can't argue the safety of nuclear power when the earthquake caused an oil refinery to explode on the first day. Should we stop using oil because the refinery exploded? No, we shouldn't. The nuclear power plants aren't brand new and they still managed to last longer than the oil refinery.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Well, ok, a big ass earthquake will fuck up pretty much anything, so was it really a good idea to build a nuclear power plant on one of the most active fault lines on the planet in the first place? Surely it would have been significantly safer if it was a oil refinery or, better yet, a windmill or other types of generators which have significantly less potential danger to them to have been fucked up rather than a nuclear power plant?
The plant was built to withstand the strongest earthquake ever recorded in Japan previously, and then stronger. This one just happened to be even stronger, owing to being something like the fifth strongest EVER recorded. And as has been pointed out, the oil refinery exploded too, so that's no safer anyway.
So you want Japan to stick to fuel sources that, aside from slowly becoming inefficient, are also running out? What people seem to forget is that not every power plant has suddenly had a tantrum and threatened to bitchslap Japan. Eleven reactors across four power plants failed because of the cooling systems. Most of them were dealt with quickly, leaving three power plants in trouble. There are fifty-five active power plants in Japan, if I remember correctly. Three out of fifty-five is pretty damn incredible, considering it was the worst earthquake Japan has seen in a thousand years, and the fifth worst earthquake in the world since records began in the early 1900s.
Yes, the Japanese should have been more careful and checked that their power plants could have survived an earthquake. But they will learn from this like they did in 1995. If they can make earthquake-proof skyscrapers, I'm pretty sure they'll pimp out their power plants once this is all over.
Sorry for having any form of opinion, grumpy fuckers.
Damn you all >: (
Not to mention this will be a valuable lesson to the entire world. I'm sure they'll have learnt a few neat new tricks to handling situations like this more effectively.
It's a hobby.
It's not that you had an opinion, it's the level of thought or intelligence that went into it that offended peoples brains.
Don't take it personally. After all, it's the internet. Just, maybe think about your opinions a bit more before you voice them next time?
I suppose you're right, I'll keep it in mind. I still think you're all bastards.
But yeah, I'm off, night guys.
We're Anonymous. It's kinda a theme around here.
Well, no, oil is only one of a multitude of alternatives to nuclear power. Personally I'm actually opposed to both nuclear and oil, but at least oil (if it explodes, which it did), doesn't have the potential to spread highly dangerous radiation to the common populace.
The thing is about nuclear, it doesn't matter how much we prepare our buildings for earthquakes and other disasters, there will always be a chance of a disaster, or a catastrophic scenario - surely it would be better to employ the vast multitude of other viable energy plants such as wind, tidal, and solar energy, rather than re-employing potentially hazardous nuclear energy once again but with better safety standards.
Better safety standards, by the way, won't change the whole nuclear waste lasting for 100,000 years issue either - anyone heard of Onkalo? It's a massive underground storage facility in Finland designed to permanently store nuclear waste (there's a documentary on it, watch 'Into Eternity', freakin' scary shit). We're designing structures that are meant to last a vastly longer period of time than anything else we have attempted before (the pyramids have so far lasted a puny 5,000 years), just to deal with the waste that this stuff produces! And we're going to need hundreds of these facilities!
There's a chance of disaster in everything we do. Look what happened when Scientology released the initial Tom Cruise video.
Well, yes, but do we really need to take unnecessary risk with nuclear energy when disaster at a nuclear power plant will have much more far-reaching consequences than a disaster at a wind farm?
Yes. Actually, we do. The amount of power they can supply is stupid, especially compared to wind farms and the likes.
Problem is that wind farms are inefficient at the moment. Also, you need the fuels to build the things to begin with.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!