Page 11 of 87 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
21
61
... LastLast
  1. #201
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    what other buildings did the jets hit?
    Hundreds of others. Just like the hundreds of other nuclear disasters you cited.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    what other buildings did the jets hit?


    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    no. you confuse "saying something then later backpedaling on it" with "taken out of context."

    but hey. keep supporting people like that, im sure the republicans will do well.
    QED to get public support the Republican party needs to stop suffering from verbal diarrhoea?
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Seeing the disasters in japan, three mile, chernobyl, and hundreds of other occasions, I can't say I agree with the nuclear part.
    Yes, but compared to the benefits of using nuclear power, I'd much rather use it than be scared of what "could" happen.

    The majority (if not all) of nuclear disasters have been caused by humans.....being humans. Not nature, the most notable exception I suppose, would be Fukushima in Japan, and that only happened, because of loss of cooling to the reactor, due to the earthquake and tsunami.

    Think about it, that was already an old reactor, and it was nearly impregnable (It took a tsunami, and a earthquake that was around 8 on the richter scale [depending on the source] to cause loss of power to the machines that provided cooling, the reactor itself didn't really sustain damage from the earthquake/tsunami, it was only because the cooling had been knocked out that the disaster happened). A more modern reactor, with zealous regulations should have little to no troubles or incidents at all, we just need to figure out how to make it harder for human behaviour to cause nuclear disasters. (Some say that there were also lack of regulations at the fukushima plant that were partially responsible for the disaster, something to do with getting the information that the power generators for the cooling machines wouldn't be able to sustain certain environmental conditions [like the ones that happened to cause the disaster] and not doing something about it, I believe one of the managers is in some deep shit because of that from the government).

    Nuclear power has some risks yes, but they can be minimalized to such an extent that there wouldn't really be any chances of disaster, save for a human doing something incredibly stupid, and then we could reap the benefits of nuclear power. (Which, it is quite clean, compared to coal) And there are things that can be done to the spent fuel that can reprocess it and use it in different reactors, creating somewhat of a cycle for using it, Japan does this already.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    what other buildings did the jets hit?
    Just because I can't name them doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by Hastings95 View Post
    Yes, but compared to the benefits of using nuclear power, I'd much rather use it than be scared of what "could" happen.

    The majority (if not all) of nuclear disasters have been caused by humans.....being humans. Not nature, the most notable exception I suppose, would be Fukushima in Japan, and that only happened, because of loss of cooling to the reactor, due to the earthquake and tsunami.

    Think about it, that was already an old reactor, and it was nearly impregnable (It took a tsunami, and a earthquake that was around 8 on the richter scale [depending on the source] to cause loss of power to the machines that provided cooling, the reactor itself didn't really sustain damage from the earthquake/tsunami, it was only because the cooling had been knocked out that the disaster happened). A more modern reactor, with zealous regulations should have little to no troubles or incidents at all, we just need to figure out how to make it harder for human behaviour to cause nuclear disasters. (Some say that there were also lack of regulations at the fukushima plant that were partially responsible for the disaster, something to do with getting the information that the power generators for the cooling machines wouldn't be able to sustain certain environmental conditions [like the ones that happened to cause the disaster] and not doing something about it, I believe one of the managers is in some deep shit because of that from the government).

    Nuclear power has some risks yes, but they can be minimalized to such an extent that there wouldn't really be any chances of disaster, save for a human doing something incredibly stupid, and then we could reap the benefits of nuclear power. (Which, it is quite clean, compared to coal) And there are things that can be done to the spent fuel that can reprocess it and use it in different reactors, creating somewhat of a cycle for using it, Japan does this already.
    The Fukushima plant did have its reactor housing cracked, so it wasn't just a cooling failure.

    But the problem was massively made worse by human failure - protocols were not followed which resulted in it being nearly impossible for them to properly shut down the reactor quickly. It's been a while, but if I remember rightly they had improperly handled fuel rods.

    But that being said, it is important to reiterate that modern fission reactors are extremely meltdown-resistant, and fusion reactors simply will not be capable of undergoing meltdown.

  6. #206
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,069
    The majority (if not all) of nuclear disasters have been caused by humans.....being humans. Not nature, the most notable exception I suppose, would be Fukushima in Japan, and that only happened, because of loss of cooling to the reactor, due to the earthquake and tsunami.
    what makes you think humans will stop being humans?

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Just because I can't name them doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration.
    wikipedia is your friend!

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    what makes you think humans will stop being humans?
    Nothing makes me think that, what I do think though, is that enough safeguards can be put in, so that there can be little chance of human action causing a drastic failure, and there already is that to some extent, due to the very few amount of very major nuclear incidents.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    wikipedia is your friend!
    I feel like you're shitting me. Are you shitting me?

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Just because I can't name them doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration.
    LOL. I love how you keep pitching them out there and they consistently sail over his head.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I feel like you're shitting me. Are you shitting me?
    you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?

  12. #212
    Legendary! darenyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cho'gall (US)
    Posts
    6,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Hastings95 View Post
    Nothing makes me think that, what I do think though, is that enough safeguards can be put in, so that there can be little chance of human action causing a drastic failure, and there already is that to some extent, due to the very few amount of very major nuclear incidents.
    all it takes is a little corruption.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    Actually there's a lot they could do. Throngs of people are dissatisfied with both parties, but simply choose the lesser of two evils. I know I do.

    They're actually in a really good position to take back a massive amount of power and influence if they play their cards right.
    The fact that you have a thread with this title about the Party that currently controls the House of Representatives is proof that there's a certain amount of denial on the parts of the electorate that no future Republican Party will ever overcome.

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?
    i'm not sure whether this is falling on deaf ears or not but when you present a statement you also have to present all your evidence to support that statement.
    If you are particularly bold, you could use a Shiny Ditto. Do keep in mind though, this will infuriate your opponents due to Ditto's beauty. Please do not use Shiny Ditto. You have been warned.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?
    Are you saying that when someone says "hundreds of others", what they really mean is half a dozen or so incidents in the 50s and 60s in the Soviet Union?

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    The fact that you have a thread with this title about the Party that currently controls the House of Representatives is proof that there's a certain amount of denial on the parts of the electorate that no future Republican Party will ever overcome.
    They've maintained the house largely due to gerrymandering. They still lost the popular vote over all in the House, lost seats in the Senate and and pretty handily lost a presidential race that was theirs to win.

    Its silly to pretend that the GOP doesn't have a serious problem right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    all it takes is a little corruption.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
    Indeed, though I don't really find that example to be relevant, given the circumstances under which it was operated (World War II to end of Cold War, so it was under some significant pressure), and the age of it, mainly the age though.

    Regulations and safety precautions are a hell of a lot better now a days than they were in a plant operated in the 1940s-1970s?, and especially a plant that was the leading research plant under the threat of World War II and the Cold War.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    you're saying you gave an honest research as to nuclear disasters and didn't find anything other than chernobyl, japan, and three mile?
    There have been very few nuclear disasters. Only two in history which fall in to the category of major disasters; Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    There have been a small number of serious disasters, less than a dozen of varying degrees of damage.

    And again, these are all a result of old-style fission reactors, the kind of which are no longer built.

    Modern fission reactors are very resistant to meltdown, and fusion reactors will not meltdown.

  19. #219
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    The fact that you have a thread with this title about the Party that currently controls the House of Representatives is proof that there's a certain amount of denial on the parts of the electorate that no future Republican Party will ever overcome.
    There's only two parties. The fact that they currently control the house doesn't impress me much. Especially when their members can't even receive the majority of votes in the process.

    If you don't think the current Republican party has a serious problem right now, you've been living under a rock.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by dantian View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2012

    You have a problem with being wrong on just about every issue and never admitting it even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    It seems the problem you have is that you didn't get enough hardcore crazy gerrymandering to offset what the census created.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •