Forums → The Tavern → This Thread is Currently about: Dogs

From bears to Kirby to radioactivity eh?

Well since I don't have too much to say.. All I can say is.

Nuclear energy = good
Radioactivity = bad

Nuclear power is awesome, except for all the radioactivity.
Thus prevention of disasters is key.

Nuclear power is awesome, except for all the radioactivity.

Thus prevention of disasters is key.

How long did it take you to come up with that?

I don't understand why people are so worried about them, the last huge disaster they had was Chernobyl in 1986, I don't recall any others. It's a much cleaner source of power, that provides an incredible amount of energy, I think the pros outweigh the cons here.

As long as you work getting out the cons. It would be perfect.

Plus, there are people who are willing to work at nuclear factories. So why deprive them of something they want to do? If we don't try making them better (because we think they are too dangerous and cannot get better) then they won't get better/safer.

Exactly, and at the same time we save our selves a ton of trouble with energy, however one of the biggest cons is that Nuclear power plants are a bitch to build, maintain, and even decommission.

New Zealand. The only country to successfully implement the nuclear-free policy in law. There's no actual ban on having land-based plants but opposition to it is overwhelming and none of the political parties have it on their agendas.


I personally support nuclear energy as long as the proper rules and regulations are kept. It's the best solution we have right now. Clean, relatively safe, efficient and it provides jobs. More economically viable than solar, wind, etc. and cleaner than fossil fuels.

People are just worried about it because of hysteria. People are worried about the very bad things that could happen.

Yeah, nuclear power is a force to be reckoned with. Though if everything is done the way it should be done, accidents should be kept low.

Okay now you are on radioactive exposure?

I dunno. Ask Strop. I missed 20 pages of discussion while I was asleep and chatting with AG friends.

We're discussing what ever our randomness leads us too.

In my chemistry class, when we were discussing nuclear reactions our teacher showed us a diagram of a proposed fusion reactor.



Supposed to both contain the plasma and heat it enough to fuse through EM waves.

Radioactive exposure... Beetles can take more of the stuff than roaches! Roaches wouldn't be the only creatures alive in the wake of a nuclear holocaust, if they were alive, there would be more beetles.

How many rads would kill a human, though? Don't feel like looking back so many pages to see if this is addressed.

We're discussing what ever our randomness leads us too.

Lol, I haven't taken chemistry yet, so most of that diagram is incomprehensible to me. We haven't actually talked about how much radiation it takes to kill a human right out. From what I know must nuclear related deaths, happen from diseases caused by the long term exposure to radiation.

[link=http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-radiation-can-the-human-body-safely-receive.htm]Exact answer[/link]


However radiation is measured in rads and grays, 1 gray is equal to 100 rads. A few grays can kill humans. I also learned that humans are one one the species most susceptible to radiation.

Fixed. It's URL, not link.
I'll read that now.

Are you serious about that last statement? Wonder what reason there is for that if it's true.

I was, I think it has something to do with our tissues, as you know I'm sure cockroaches and beetles tissues differ radically from ours.