The wind might not even have a factor, it would spread across the country.
Printable View
The wind might not even have a factor, it would spread across the country.
and many others.
If they had the blueprint of the damned thing, they still wouldn't be able to launch a meltdown of the reactor. A nuclear power plant is not just 15 workers sitting in a room with 1 or 2 guys controlling the rods/safety measures. It would require offices across the country in which it could be shut down safetly, near the site would also be a manual shutdown site - its such a massive and extensive network of safety nets that by you saying it would be that easy for a terrorist to blow one up shows just how George W Bush and Tony Blair have fooled you and many others into believing the west is facing a world war III against islamic terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
"If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster." - YES, nobody is saying it wouldn't be a disaster. What I am saying is that to reach a meltdown in a western nuclear reactor it would be a very, very, very, very, very freakish event with almost nil chance of anything happening.
Nobody is saying a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
Did you know that all across the world there is something called background radiation? - the doses in Wales from the Kiev plant were probably smaller than the radiation which is naturally present in southern England and Europe itself from the rocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voiceover.
If you are against nuclear, tell me what your solution is. You have 10 years from now to avert the energy crisis that the United Kingdom is facing - what are you going to do about it?
Nobody said it wouldn't. The fact I am disputing is that scare-mongering over the nuclear issue has no backbone or evidence behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
i know what background radiation is, its basically as powerful as the radiation of the sun that hits us on a rainy day :l
And telling me myself to find a new way to find an energy source was a bit pathetic i may know about science but i don't pop ideas in my head.
Nobody here is "scare-mongering" over it. Tbf i would give a **** what the country done, aslong as we do well. But the effects of radiation poisoning itself is totally disgusting.
I can say that, because if you don't agree with nuclear then what is the solution?. Ardemax and yourself are scare-mongering, i'd understand if we had a meltdown every few years then maybe the argument that its dangerous would have some substance, but it doesnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voiceover.
possibility 50/50 were both arguing pointless done and dusted.
What's that got to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Yeah, i'm saying it will be dangerous because it will, and if we were to debate nuclear energy then it's only fair the point is looked upon
It has something to do with it because you seem to think that we have terrorists walking around in our streets just waiting for us to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, yet I have explained that it would a) be impossible for a terrorist to cause a meltdown and b) there have been no terrorist attacks on the existing power plants which are due to be decommissioned within years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
On the last point, there isn't a point;- Chernobyl has been explained and we have not had a meltdown in the west, nuclear is safe.
nuclear is not safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.
if you'd like exampls, i'd be happy to give.
Nothing is safe, but to say its a imminent disaster waiting to happen is scare-mongering. We haven't got asteroid defences.. yet an asteroid could hit at any time. Our children go on swings.. but could easily break their neck if they fell off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
The only 'big' examples are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl being the only ever meltdown in history.
asteroid defences: Jupiter and our atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
A kid falling off a swing and breaking there neck is one person, not a whole country and effecting others.
Asteroids could still potentially hit the Earth, as they have done in the past. These are both just two examples of how anything can happen, there is no evidence that western reactors are incredibly unstable and dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voiceover.
anything as large as the one "we think" hit the earth to extinct dinosaurs usually gets pulled in by jupiters gravitational pull, or will hit something else well before it reaches our earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
My point exactly, just the same as how a nuclear plant more than 'usually' doesn't go into meltdowm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voiceover.
we've been discussing it as possibilities all the way through, yet we still managed to make around 4 pages still discussing possibilities anything is possible but anything dangerous always has safety measures, done and dusted. :P
But if we built more plants then surely the risk would increase?
and btw lots of asterioids/meteors hit the earth
Risks increase with everything, we'll just have to stick with everything has possibilities, like if more swings were built more children would have a chance of breaking there neck.
And lots of children do.
But we can't say a nuclear plant won't meltdown, as of course, it always can and most probably will (just one) in the near future (or future).
Where is the justification that a nuclear power plant in the west will meltdown anytime soon. When we are talking about nuclear, nuclear power is laughable. We have India and Pakistan on the brink of nuclear war over border disputes, India and China on the brink on nuclear war over border disputes and finally in the very near future we will have a nuclear standoff between NATO and China itself, as when China makes the move to take back Taiwan it could very possibly spell world war III for us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax
..so to worry about nuclear power plants is all a bit of a farce, don't you think?
But you told me nuclear was safe? I may be picking out things here, but you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Great, nuclear is a form of energy, highly toxic and dangerous. Anyone could start a great deal of harm from using it, either in an attack or a small radiation bomb.
Nuclear is safe, nothing is entirely safe but its safe to the extend where I wouldn't mind one in Liverpool. Nuclear weapons are dangerous of course, but they too also have a vital role and will have in the future. We are entering a nuclear age.
On the radiation, of course they could, but they wont and cant because so much security surrounds nuclear material its mind boggling.
Well you are correct in a way. Nuclear isn't something we should all play with because of the dangers it has. Although Nuclear power is safe and the plants will follow strict guidelines and procedures on how to handle any of the material and so on within that plant. They won't have anything relaxed due to what happened at Chernobyl. Like undertaker as said, they are covered by high security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardemax