Atomic Theory - classic or dud? ( i r apoloogisiong in advance if this R offending anyone)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Since I R being accused of lowering tone, I R starting nice science ethics discussion!

I R wondering if this R doing more bad than good? nuclear power is more beneficial for environment than Coal powe, but nuclear weapons and waste can be very bad indeed!

― I R Repenting, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You didn't do new answers, you foolish FatNick.

― DG, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Isn't that a good thing though? I still might hit him.

― Graham, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, people demanded he contribute to a discussion and here he is, with a very sensible SCIENTIFIC question, and no-one wants to know.

― DG, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I didnt think there was much wrong with Fatnicks postings before. I wasnt particularly interested by all of them but people seemed to be so why not. Some were good too, and anyway surely pulp and b and s threads are significant.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

My dad worked with nukes most of his career in the Navy -- certainly didn't affect me any (*scratches second nose with third hand*) but I might finally ask him what the hell the Navy *did* do with the waste from the submarines, assuming that such waste was produced. My dad's a pretty strong environmentalist as well, to muddy (or is that contanminate?) the waters further.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Nuclear power is more short-term beneficial for the environment than coal power - long-term, who knows? The weapons thing is a bit of a side issue - you can't uninvent them. So the question is how much should we use nuclear power? NB my dad works in it too.

Atomic Theory is one of those advances your science bod always goes mad for in Civ II and it gets really annoying.

― Tom, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

AND! Top Dad fact! One of the power plants he works with as an inspector is called Springfield! So I am Bart!

― Tom, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes Nukes! Who could possibly be concerned with something that won't even be a problem for 10,000 years? And to the people that say "Well what about future generations", if you're breeding children then you're making more pollution than the nukes!

― dave q, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

My dad inspects power plants too!

― Kris, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Goddamn, we're the secret source of ILx power -- having enough money indirectly funnelled to our growing up from the nuclear industry, ensuring our interest in computers and thus leading to our participation here. Or something.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What is very worrying is that there is a chronic shortage of nuclear engineers. I'm not going to be one (I'm goign to make my fortune designing trendy lemon squeezers and no mistake), and no one I know (I study engineering), has even considered it. what will happen to all of the powerplant and attendant problems when they all retire (Fatnick can save us all by becoming a nuclear engineer)

― Ed, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If youthink that mentioning atomic theory raisesthetone...you havesadly failedby tying it in withthatsadoldsaved forshit classicordud. Classic or dud???The atomic theory??Please More harmthangood? Firstand formost itsa theory..and if anything its opened alot more opportunities for..thinkers like oneself Itsmore thanjusttheatomic bomb budddy but what would I know. stirrin theshit Valence.Shell.Electron.Pair Repulsion Theory

― Valence, Wednesday, 31 October 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Where I grew up we had hydro-power and I must have been well indoctrinated because I believe out of nuclear, coal and hydro that hydro is the best. Many environmentalist disagree due to the massive impact it has on areas that are dammed.

I like the idea of chook-poo power - I've read some articles about how they are trialing it in England. Also wave power appeals to me. Wind power is often dud due to the amount of clearing that has to occur.

― toraneko, Thursday, 1 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I know two people who used to work in the nuclear industry (one of them dismantling Nuclear weapons) and they both got out due to the rubbish pay and terribleness of their jobs in general. I'm not sure I like the fact that we have potential weapons of mass destruction scattered around the country but are there any real alternatives that genuinely can replace it viably and without damaging other resources?

― chris, Thursday, 1 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

we need to all use fucking power - tap the genitals, and let it rip...or farting power, though that could screw up the ozone i guess...hmmm, though fatnick (is it ok to call you fat? should i call you bignick?) it's good to hear you thinking too!

― Geoff, Thursday, 1 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Re hydro power - no no no! Everyione knows that the locations for these facilities are determined by no concern other than who's greasing whose palm that week, and the consequences are often UNBELIEVABLY bad. If a certain dam in Western Canada were to ever break, the floodwaters would destroy a nuclear plant downriver in Washington State and irradiate the entire west coast. (SOunds good I know, but...) Not to mention the amount of villages flooded and entire populations moved in Africa and India. Are these unforeseen consequences? Fuck no, everybody knows it, it's just understandings between governments and giant 'utilities' (what a word, it certainly doesn't describe fully what these companies are about!)

― dave q, Thursday, 1 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I have to agree with my doppelganger here, look at the dam in Turkey where all the fuss was last year, one of the biggest palm greasing exercises ever!

― chris, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hmm, in Tassie we have a lot of empty space (empty of humans, that is) so you can dam stuff without displacing people and even if the dam broke it probably wouldn't affect anyone because no one lives along the rivers because that's mostly National Park or full on wilderness. People only live around the dammed area at the top.

Dams are totally nasty to trees and animals and ecosystems but then they create new ecosystems.

Anyway, the dams in Tassie are a really sad thing but so would be a coal or a nuclear powered station. I've been to huge coal mines in the desert and they are huge and horrible (and spectacular). The desert is less precious than the South-West region of Tassie but the mines are still a bad thing too.

You can read about the Lake Pedder Dam here - it was, and still is, a very interesting political issue.

― toraneko, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.