Thread: Nuclear

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

yes but the aviation industry is safer, they haven't left anyone up there yet.

MH370??

Originally Posted by Eevo

MH370??

nahh, that one crashed into a secret US neonazi coalition military bases underwater nuclear power plant and its a huge russian comunist cover up fueled by the flat earthers so no one discovers that what really happened is that due to the location of the reactor on the edge of the disc the force of the explosion ripped a whole in the the space time continuum and has slung the plane through a gravitational assist in the very narrow band of circumfrencial gravity wave distortion to allow it to "dive" past the periphery to the underside.

every ones ok they just dont want to come back to this side

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

nahh, that one crashed into a secret US neonazi coalition military bases underwater nuclear power plant and its a huge russian comunist cover up fueled by the flat earthers so no one discovers that what really happened is that due to the location of the reactor on the edge of the disc the force of the explosion ripped a whole in the the space time continuum and has slung the plane through a gravitational assist in the very narrow band of circumfrencial gravity wave distortion to allow it to "dive" past the periphery to the underside.

every ones ok they just dont want to come back to this side

you didn't use quantum anywhere Dave....

Originally Posted by RANDLOVER

Unfortunately the ladies who painted these dials thought it was safe, but developed "Radium Jaw" from licking the brushes to point them...Radium Girls - Wikipedia an apt demonstration of the law of unintended consequences, which is why I think nuclear is just too dangerous.

No ones asking you to lick the power station.

Regarding safety - coal has killed orders of magnitude more people over the years than Nuclear ever has - and continues to do so, however because it's impossible to collate exact numbers who have died of lung diseases and cancers caused by this it's all ok - nice and safe...

Yes, particularly from underground mining and respiratory diseases caused by burning coal for heating and cooking.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Yes, particularly from underground mining and respiratory diseases caused by burning coal for heating and cooking.

Not to mention all the greenhouse gasses being emitted from coal fired power plants and the effect that has concerning global warming.
Nuclear power in comparison is by far a much safer option.

Hi

Originally Posted by Homestar

Regarding safety - coal has killed orders of magnitude more people over the years than Nuclear ever has - and continues to do so, however because it's impossible to collate exact numbers who have died of lung diseases and cancers caused by this it's all ok - nice and safe...

This is fallacious logic. If one wishes to compare current coal versus nuclear safety you can't include all those that died from coal mining and coal burning from the 17th to the 19th century. You need to compare using "current world best practice" what might be the expected death rate from current coal and nuclear for a given power requirement.

For instance for coal one would include Black lung disease, mine accidents, etc. Black lung is preventable. Accidents do and will happen and if it was an entire underground crew it might be dozens of deaths. It's limited to the mine workers only. Costs are really limited by the mine cost and compensation (which is insurable against).

For nuclear it would include mine accidents (probably less than underground coal as uranium is open cut) and nuclear accidents. In the later it might be thousands of persons and is not limited to the reactor crew. Costs are unlimited and not able to be insured.

So it's a case of risk versus consequences. Coal power has limited consequences, spatially and monetary. Nuclear has potentially massive lethal consequences and costs.

Choose wisely :-)

Mike