Hackers 'expose global warming con'

[Accipiter]

I know it was found in Wales, which is my point; if one of these did go off in France, it would be the same effect as one going off here. The same with our Trident submarines. We are surrounded by nuclear power so that if one of them did go off, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether it was a plant of the coast of France, a plant in Liverpool or a Trident submarine in Bristol.

On that last case, the reactors are that strong the only force which could partially destroy one would be something equal to the force of the reactor overrheating itself, and terrorists don't have any weapons that powerful.

At before, you mention the poles having oil, you do realise that land is no mans land, aka. wars will be caused other trying to get that oil. So i think that oil, if tbf it exists, cause i cannot see anyone even going out there to drill or even check.

At we do not have little space, only news i've heard is of one being built on the coast of scotland. Anywhere else is at danger, and would most probaly provoke locals. As they don't want to be growing 3rd arms.

At how could melt downs be caused, Most nuclear reactors these days will be ran on computer data keeping it perfect, That can be easily hacked, Some terrorists might not have brains but they'd most probaly try and bomb a plane in, that won't work either cause jets would blow the ******s up before they even got into a 5 mile radius, passengers or not. But there is still accidental meltdowns, cherynobl would have put us one step forward on safety, but tbf that was only 1 step theres bound to be much more accidents with many more being built.

And at crude oil is dangerous anywhere, its only dangerous to wildlife, humans don't go splashing in the *******. We wash it up and get along. At gas, yh its dangerous if its lit, but its probaly got a safer technique than nuclear. Im all for nuclear, but the dangers are slap bang in everyones face.

And im pretty sure the nuclear reactors on a submarine will be much smaller than one producing power for a city.

But i personally believe theres ways of producing electricity that we havent discovered.

[-:Undertaker:-]

At before, you mention the poles having oil, you do realise that land is no mans land, aka. wars will be caused other trying to get that oil. So i think that oil, if tbf it exists, cause i cannot see anyone even going out there to drill or even check.

That oil will be drilled, as oil technology improves and as other sources start to end their lives them sources will be used, thats exactly why countries are having the scramble for Antartica/Arctic already.

At we do not have little space, only news i've heard is of one being built on the coast of scotland. Anywhere else is at danger, and would most probaly provoke locals. As they don't want to be growing 3rd arms.

Actually the 10 new ones which have been approved are all located in England on existing nuclear sites, as for the communities which live around them - suprisingly they actually want the plants to be built as they provide jobs in the remotest parts of the United Kingdom.

Again, as shown by your last comment, distorting the facts over nuclear to make it appear like some kind of evil - totally wrong.

At how could melt downs be caused, Most nuclear reactors these days will be ran on computer data keeping it perfect, That can be easily hacked, Some terrorists might not have brains but they'd most probaly try and bomb a plane in, that won't work either cause jets would blow the ******s up before they even got into a 5 mile radius, passengers or not. But there is still accidental meltdowns, cherynobl would have put us one step forward on safety, but tbf that was only 1 step theres bound to be much more accidents with many more being built.

The systems are monitered by workers, there will be many manual shutdown methods that could be used in an event like that. That has never happened before though, so again you are just playing a wild guessing game. On a jet, a jet would not be able to blow up a nuclear reactor, these things are built to withstand reactions which are comparable to that of the Sun.

And at crude oil is dangerous anywhere, its only dangerous to wildlife, humans don't go splashing in the *******. We wash it up and get along. At gas, yh its dangerous if its lit, but its probaly got a safer technique than nuclear. Im all for nuclear, but the dangers are slap bang in everyones face.

The dangers are not slap bang in everybodys faces, there has only ever been one meltdown in a Soviet reactor (which are poorly built).

And im pretty sure the nuclear reactors on a submarine will be much smaller than one producing power for a city.

But i personally believe theres ways of producing electricity that we havent discovered.

Of course there are, but we are facing an energy crisis in this country. Do you not understand, in 10 years the lights will start going off, electricity will have to be rationed amongst areas - a step back to the 1970s.

I know I want my showers, running water and lights provided by cheap, safe nuclear power rather than having none at all, all because the loony left tell us how nuclear is going to kill us all.

[Accipiter]

you do realise some of the best dams in the world have been built by the russians.

And i think your confusing yourself alot, Nuclear plants are not built to withstand the heat of the sun, there is a project in leeds or i think newcastle (somewhere) were there is a machine that has been built to withstand the suns energy and recreate the reactions of the sun. Its basically a tiny lhc machine but for total different use.

Nuclear reactors get hot but they don't get sun hot.

And the nuclear reactor would probaly be about 50 metres down to stop any disturbances but enough damage to cooling towers or any other surrounding buildings would also malfunction the whole building.

yes little chance, still possibilities though, and we live in a world of safety.

i would also like to mention how on earth did this got onto global warming, and by a news read i've just read, britain is closing all but 3 of there power plants (old news but i haven't seen anything about 10 new ones) 10 new ones scattered litterally up the country if were to blow up would make around most of the country untouchable.

And most of britains power is produced abroad already, in russia etc were we get gas, which tbf i find much safer. But im sure i heard yesterday that we are trying to become independant for producing electricity.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you do realise some of the best dams in the world have been built by the russians.

What have dams got to do with nuclear power in the United Kingdom?

And i think your confusing yourself alot, Nuclear plants are not built to withstand the heat of the sun, there is a project in leeds or i think newcastle (somewhere) were there is a machine that has been built to withstand the suns energy and recreate the reactions of the sun. Its basically a tiny lhc machine but for total different use.

Actually i'm not confusing myself, the Tsar Bomb was a nuclear bomb which was 1% the power of the Sun, a nuclear plant will be much less but still far more powerful than most other things on Earth. The reactors are so strong and certainly a small home made bomb would not destroy one.

Nuclear reactors get hot but they don't get sun hot.

And the nuclear reactor would probaly be about 50 metres down to stop any disturbances but enough damage to cooling towers or any other surrounding buildings would also malfunction the whole building.

The reactor would then be manually shut off, thus averting any danger.

yes little chance, still possibilities though, and we live in a world of safety.

There are possibilities with everything, there is a possiblity that we could have a nuclear stand off/war with China next month, theres a possibility that the poles could flip at any given time, theres a possibility that Yellowstone Volcano could erupt at any minute, theres a possibility that a French nuclear reactor could explode in 100 years time - we live in a world of safety yes, but common sense over safety.

i would also like to mention how on earth did this got onto global warming, and by a news read i've just read, britain is closing all but 3 of there power plants (old news but i haven't seen anything about 10 new ones) 10 new ones scattered litterally up the country if were to blow up would make around most of the country untouchable.

10 new ones where announced a week or so ago, the old ones such as Sellafield are already decommissioned/in that process very soon. The country would be untouchable yes, but 10 nuclear power plants are not going to blow up.

And most of britains power is produced abroad already, in russia etc were we get gas, which tbf i find much safer. But im sure i heard yesterday that we are trying to become independant for producing electricity.

Russia will hold us to its political advantage in the future just as they have with Ukraine, thats just why Europe and the United Kingdom tread so carefully around Russia now. You may want to rely on the Russians holding us to ransom, but personally I look past all the scare-mongering school and Greenpeace spout out about nuclear power and use common sense.

[Ardemax]

I know it was found in Wales, which is my point; if one of these did go off in France, it would be the same effect as one going off here. The same with our Trident submarines. We are surrounded by nuclear power so that if one of them did go off, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether it was a plant of the coast of France, a plant in Liverpool or a Trident submarine in Bristol.

On that last case, the reactors are that strong the only force which could partially destroy one would be something equal to the force of the reactor overrheating itself, and terrorists don't have any weapons that powerful.

If they had knowledge of a nuclear power plant, which wouldn't be too hard if they learnt about it.
If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster.
At the top bit, ye? If it did go off lots of people would die? That's what I've been saying

[Butterfly]

Now this is what I respect about the skill.

[GommeInc]

As far as I remember from Geography lessons, there is absolutely no point in wasting money building dams, when there are no appropriate locations to build them. Unless you think building them in "areas of beauty", which are in National Parks which are protected areas is a good idea? Besides, they're in quiet areas, so having the dams and sending the power across the country would be far too much effort, when something like Oil, Gas or Nuclear could do a better job. Nuclear is a good idea as it will cut dependence on foreign fuels such as oil and gas, but there are risks, but as Undertaker pointed out, the risks aren't any greater if somewhere like France had a terrorist attack on one of theirs, or as pointed out, Russian Nuclear radioactivity was found in Wales, so the risk isn't any greater really :/

It's really down to money at the end of it, other countries lapping up out dependence on them, paying for nuclear and the risk. If only they could perfect decent, clean energy

[Ardemax]

Cats on rollerblades I say!

no but really, the effects caused by a failure at a nuclear power plant can be dangerous.

radiation isn't like playing in a sandbox, ykno.

[Kiovado]

Here is my view after watching a very interesting documentary called "The Obama Deception"...

Presidents exist purely for show. They are extremely good actors.. There is a group of mega powerful people who are in control of the president. and whos overall plan is to get every country in debt to them.

There are many ways they do this.. for example, they order soldiers who have gone to afganistan to destroy certain targets (the soldiers believe this to help in their mission), then the group will lend millions and millions of dollars to afganistan so they can rebuild what has been destroyed. This now means afganistan will be in debt to them, which is eventually what they will aim to have with every country in the world. They want every country to be in debt to them, because that will mean they control the world.

So what does this have to do with global warming?...

Global warming is just another very clever tactic to tax people more and more money for nothing. Think of all the new taxes that are coming in to help "prevent global warming".. they are trying to tax cars per mile, petrol is taxed more, your being taxed more for rubbish collections, its becoming compulsory to buy numerous bins to split up all garbage (which is taxed).. there's all sorts. And they will get away with it, because its to help stop "global warming" of course!..

All absolute crap. If you watch that documentary, you will think different about the world...

My view anyways

[Accipiter]

I can expect them to be safe, but with more being built, there is more possibilities than "just that one"

and if one did go off anywhere we could even be effected, like the radiation that blew to scotland and poisoned the grass. even if one was to go off and the wind was in a bad direction for us the radiation could travel the whole country.