Nuclear facilities

[haku]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

Why? Because you sold out the Palestinians?

It's not that i see Arabs as victims, not on a grand historical scale anyway. Arabs are an expansionist culture, they started from a small region in the Arabic peninsula and managed to conquer and colonize the entire Middle-East and North Africa, they spread Islam as far as South-East Asia, at the peak of their power they even entered Europe, conquered Iberia (and stayed there several centuries) and pushed northward within the Frankish Empire. If a few key historical events had turned out a bit differently, Arabs could have easily conquered the whole of Europe and probably would have been the ones to colonize America.
Arabs have played a major role in world history and most of the time they were on the conquering side, they were victims only in a very limited number of occasions.
No, i regret the creation of Israel simply because it created an unnecessary and unsolvable conflict which has been threatening world security for half a century now. Maybe the people who decided the creation of Israel thought that it would work, that somehow things would settle down after some time, i don't know… Whatever they thought, the reality of today is that it's not working, the conflict is ongoing and i don't see any solution being ever achieved.
If Israel had not been created, if Arab lands had been left to Arabs, there would obviously be no conflict, sometimes conflicts are unavoidable, but this one was easily avoidable and that's why i regret it.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

do you really want a sudden influx of people from Quebec who speak the language in a horrible accent

I am actually closely related to French Canadians since many French colonists who settled in North America were from Normandy, many Quebec family names are obviously Norman and the Quebec accent is quite close to the old Norman accent that can still be heard in the countryside over here, though of course the Norman accent has considerably faded those past decades since we all more or less adopted the Parisian talk from TV.

But anyway, my point was precisely that you can't go back, conquest and colonization is part of world history, even Europe was conquered and colonized at some point. Only Basque people are pure descendants of the original indigenous Europeans, the rest of Europe and its indigenous population (the so-called Megalithic people who raised dolmens and menhirs) was entirely conquered and colonized by Indo-European tribes from Western Asia.
We can't expel Indo-Europeans from Europe and India to give it back to natives, we can't expel Arabs from North Africa to give it back to natives, we can't expel Turks from Anatolia to give it back to natives, we can't expel Europeans and Africans from America to give it back to natives, and in the same logic, we shouldn't have expelled Arabs to give Palestine back to natives (the Jews) who lived there 2000 years ago.

Of course, people may argue that the Jews are simply conquering and colonizing Arab lands just like Arabs conquered and colonized many territories, which is actually a valid argument and a more correct assessment of what is really happening over there. But where i think that people are pushing it too far is when they make it sound like Arabs should be happy about it, abandon their lands with a smile and go away without a fight. Yes, conquest is a common process in human history and maybe Israelis can't be blamed for colonizing Arab lands, but resisting to conquest is just as common, and therefore Arabs can't be blamed for it either.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by Amber

I am actually closely related to French Canadians since many French colonists who settled in North America were from Normandy, many Quebec family names are obviously Norman and the Quebec accent is quite close to the old Norman accent that can still be heard in the countryside over here, though of course the Norman accent has considerably faded those past decades since we all more or less adopted the Parisian talk from TV.

Yeah, yeah.
I still know you guys still hate hearing it.

Originally Posted by Amber

Of course, people may argue that the Jews are simply conquering and colonizing Arab lands just like Arabs conquered and colonized many territories, which is actually a valid argument and a more correct assessment of what is really happening over there.

One could see that way I guess but the motivation behind the Arabs and the Isarelis are two completely different things. And I would argue that one is more valid than the other.

Originally Posted by Amber

But where i think that people are pushing it too far is when they make it sound like Arabs should be happy about it, abandon their lands with a smile and go away without a fight. Yes, conquest is a common process in human history and maybe Israelis can't be blamed for colonizing Arab lands, but resisting to conquest is just as common, and therefore Arabs can't be blamed for it either.

I'm glad to see that we finally agree on one thing.

Originally Posted by spyretto

But I'm looking forward to reading your alternative explanation on why such "nonsense" was spread. The Trojan war was not made because of the chastity of Helen, you know

Thank you for replying.
You'll see my response in the Racial Tension thread, I think we're dangerously veering off-topic here.

You can argue whether Jews are a race there.
Warning however, it is one long-ass post.

[Rachel]

Well, it looks like North Korea is next. Can't say I really blame them, I would say they are possibly doing this as they feel under constant threat from the likes of Bush & co.

[freddie]

They're shit-stirrers of global politics and are doing their job marvelously. That whole regime is based on oppression and isolation combined with producing quasi enemies to their soverignty. That's the only way their "bellowed leader" could stay in power. The "US hostility" is just a convenient excuse. Though I doubt they'd ever want to attack anyone, as they know damn well this would be the end of the country. They just want to hold on to that little piece of tyranic paradise they have. I'm just sad to hear about all the horrid things the people of North Korea have to withstand. There's nothing to eat. There's basically a full-censorship on ALL news coming in and leaving out of the country. You can get killed in the middle of the street by goverments agents for no apparent reason. For the sake of these people I hope the regime falls soon. Doesn't look like it though.

[Rachel]

Any nuclear power especially the US has no right to object to others having such weapons unless they themselves give up theirs.

The worst offenders of all - the 8 "nuclear states" say they need the "nuclear deterrent". Why should North Korea not have the nuclear deterrent also? North Korea has been threatened for years by the US which has thousands of nuclear weapons and is planning a new generation of them.

North Korea has asked for dialogue with the US - the US refuses to talk with them. Why? Nuclear disarmament is the only way to go for the hypocritical West.

I do not agree that any country should have nuclear weapons, and think that further testing is unnecessary but I do think that a country does have a right to test them when other countries have already done so, and that the US has no right whatsoever for criticising countries who choose to test them as they are the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons.

[dradeel]

I don't think anyone should create nuclear bombs (or store any, for that matter), but why is it that some countries can easily have several thousand Nuclear Warheads, while others will be whipped if they even talk about creating some? Well, okay, North Korea is talking about testing them - which I dislike alot - but why can't they do when western countries have been doing so before? I really dislike people for making nuclear weapons, but on the other hand; how can countries that are filled to the brink with nuclear weapons tell others they can't have any? I just find it all very annoying and morally outragous. Noone should have any Nuclear Weapons at all! I think we've seen what such forces does, and are still doing! It's not good for anything.

As a huge defender of nuclear power, I think every country should be allowed to build as many nuclear plants as they wish, but international observers should still be allowed to see that everything is done properly. Not only to see that it's not being used for creating warheads, but especially that it's by the international safety regulations. It's a pity Iran haven't been very positive to the idea of letting the international community see what they're doing. That way they would examplify that they could be trusted (at least a little more than what they're being now )...

[freddie]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Any nuclear power especially the US has no right to object to others having such weapons unless they themselves give up theirs.

The worst offenders of all - the 8 "nuclear states" say they need the "nuclear deterrent". Why should North Korea not have the nuclear deterrent also? North Korea has been threatened for years by the US which has thousands of nuclear weapons and is planning a new generation of them.

North Korea has asked for dialogue with the US - the US refuses to talk with them. Why? Nuclear disarmament is the only way to go for the hypocritical West.

I do not agree that any country should have nuclear weapons, and think that further testing is unnecessary but I do think that a country does have a right to test them when other countries have already done so, and that the US has no right whatsoever for criticising countries who choose to test them as they are the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons.

You can't compare a volatile dictatorship like NA to any of the other nuclear powers. It's not just about nuclear power. It's about everything. NA is a hazard even with an AK-47. And from what I know the west has been more than willing to negotiate with them time and time again... it just so happenes that all such attempts ended in NA monologue and almost hostage-situation-like listings of their demand. I can totally undestand why especially countries like the US, Japan and South Korea would be quite nervous about them building up into a formidable nuclear power. It is just my opionion that they're not going to attack and their ultimate goal is to stay as isolated from the rest of the world as possible (the only way to retain tehir specific way of politics). However - I might be wrong. Maybe they'd want to go out with a bang once they see the inevitable is approaching and unleash a full-on attack on their southern neibour in a valiant attempt to... *cough* liberate them from the evil clenches of capitalism.

Offtop:

Originally Posted by dradeel

As a huge defender of nuclear power, I think every country should be allowed to build as many nuclear plants as they wish, but international observers should still be allowed to see that everything is done properly.

I've stopped being a defender of nuclear power back in 1986.
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by freddie

It is just my opionion that they're not going to attack

Then why is everyone getting their underwear in a twist? If it's just NK's attempt to bring focus to their country and ask for money to feed their starving people then let them have their 5 minutes of fame.

Originally Posted by freddie

Offtop:
I've stopped being a defender of nuclear power back in 1986.
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives.

Offtop:
Not to mention what will we do with all the waste?

Offtop:
Sorry if I'm not making much sense tonight, I'm feeling *really* ill right now

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

Offtop:
There are other alternatives.

Offtop:
Nothing that can produce the terawatts needed by nearly 10 billion people.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by haku

Offtop:
Nothing that can produce the terawatts needed by nearly 10 billion people.

Offtop:
We don't know that, not enough money is being put into research for alternatives. Most governments seem so stuck on the idea of nuclear they won't even consider anything else.

[dradeel]

Originally Posted by freddie

I've stopped being a defender of nuclear power back in 1986.
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives.

You cannot let Tsjernobyl destroy your view on nuclear power. It's a really bad example. That power plant wasn't really anywhere near the safety regulations for nuclear power plants today, and technology have gone skyhigh since 1986. We're actually talking 20 years here. I have no worries as long as you have enough money and a tight maintenance and upkeep, which Norway have ... that's why I'm a huge defender of nuclear power

[Rachel]

They are ideal terrorist targets. I have the Sizewell nuclear power plants 20 miles from me and it's not a great thought that if a terrorist targeted them millions of people in England would probably be dead. I don't think it's a risk we should be taking when there are other alternatives.

Radioactive waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years, and it's bound to get into the food chain. We NEED to find an alternative.

[dradeel]

Originally Posted by Rachel

We don't know that, not enough money is being put into research for alternatives. Most governments seem so stuck on the idea of nuclear they won't even consider anything else.

Actually, wrong ... there aren't anything that are being researched more than alternative energy source ... especially here in Norway, not to mention Denmark. Gass, water and wind-power have been researched for maaaany years.

Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big. So you have to go with dams and power plants in rivers ... cheap but not very efficient - and you destroy alot of nice rivers for fish. Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape.

Power from gass is actually quite efficient (yet, nowhere near nuclear power) and the upkeep isn't that bad, but there you have pollution. There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot. It's a good alternative tho, and something we're building here in Norway today. This way we can make use of the huge amounts of gass that come from the oil rigs in the North Sea.

Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged...

What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep? Nuclear power. The difference are actually huuuge. We could produce more than enough electricity in norway with only a couple of nuclear power plants, but today we have tens - if not over a houndred power plants from water - and still we don't have enough when the summer is dry (like it have been the last 2-3 years). So what is the only thing that aren't depending on nature's good will? Yet again the choice is nuclear power - with the only accaptable alternative being gass. Coal and oil is out of the question either way!

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by dradeel

Actually, wrong ... there aren't anything that are being researched more than alternative energy source ... especially here in Norway, not to mention Denmark. Gass, water and wind-power have been researched for maaaany years.

They may research it but then the research is totally disregarded. How much money is being put into alternative research? Not enough, clearly.

Originally Posted by dradeel

Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big.

I dunno about you, but I would rather energy prices go up than end up with nuclear waste being spilled all over the world. The idea that we need to spend as little money as possible with total disregard for the envoronment is such a shorted sighted and stupid solution.

Originally Posted by dradeel

Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape.

I think windmills are actually very pretty. I'd have one in my back garden if it meant helping the current situation.

Originally Posted by dradeel

There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot.

Again, we need to spend a bit to keep the world free of the nasty shit.

Originally Posted by dradeel

Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged...

Sun panels aren't exactly that expensive, surely we should at least give it a try? If everyone had one on their house it would mean we would need a lot less of these power plants that are producing so much waste. We need to use what we are given freely!

Originally Posted by dradeel

What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep?

If I didn't know you better I would think you were an American Republican Bush supporter!

[freddie]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Then why is everyone getting their underwear in a twist? If it's just NK's attempt to bring focus to their country and ask for money to feed their starving people then let them have their 5 minutes of fame.

It's my feeling they won't attack and that's what a lot of analists think as well, but when it all comes down to it... no one really knows. They're unpredictable as fuck. Leniency didn't help back in 39... I think such an extreme case of governance deserves to be kept a close eye on.

Originally Posted by dradeel

Actually, wrong ... there aren't anything that are being researched more than alternative energy source ... especially here in Norway, not to mention Denmark. Gass, water and wind-power have been researched for maaaany years.

Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big. So you have to go with dams and power plants in rivers ... cheap but not very efficient - and you destroy alot of nice rivers for fish. Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape.

Power from gass is actually quite efficient (yet, nowhere near nuclear power) and the upkeep isn't that bad, but there you have pollution. There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot. It's a good alternative tho, and something we're building here in Norway today. This way we can make use of the huge amounts of gass that come from the oil rigs in the North Sea.

Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged...

What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep? Nuclear power. The difference are actually huuuge. We could produce more than enough electricity in norway with only a couple of nuclear power plants, but today we have tens - if not over a houndred power plants from water - and still we don't have enough when the summer is dry (like it have been the last 2-3 years). So what is the only thing that aren't depending on nature's good will? Yet again the choice is nuclear power - with the only accaptable alternative being gass. Coal and oil is out of the question either way!

I'm quite certain power-plants in developed countries are pretty safe these days. I'm more concerned about tens of nuclear plants in former USSR countries which don't have the neccessary financial means to keep them operating at 100% safety levels - actually the very same nuclear plant in Chernobil that had one of it's reactors blown up in 1986, got some pretty low marks when evaluated by EU experts for nuclear safety. Don't forget that the accident in 20 years ago didn't happen due to obsolete technology, but rather human negligence and failure to follow safety standards. It could happen again - in many of these poorely maintained facilities. One of the main reason these impoverished countries are using nuclear power in the first place is due to it's cost efficiency - so they don't want to add cost to what is otherwise a cheap way of gaining energy (compared to development of alternatives).

I'm not saying nuclear physics should be abandoned completely though. If anything has the potential to bring us to the stars it's cold fusion.

[dradeel]

Originally Posted by Rachel

The idea that we need to spend as little money as possible with total disregard for the envoronment is such a shorted sighted and stupid solution.

Thing is; noone is willing to pay the bill if it's too high. And also, the expensive alternatives doesn't necessarily mean expensive to build, but expensive to maintain.

And hey; nuclear power plants are much more expensive to both build and maintain than any other alternative - it's just that they produce such huuuge amounts of electricity that it's much more worth it.

Also; if you build a nuclear power plant after the international safety regulations (which are really stright) there are no danger regarding the nuclear waste - and we have more than enough space to store it ... yes, we do! There's no need of saying anything else. And the safety regulations also demand tight upkeep ... also, new nuclear power plants are built so that it won't all go up in a boom if there is an error. Also, the water that is used to cool down the reactor has no danger of getting radioactive. It's a hell more safe than you'd think. We're not living in the cold war anymore when the russians fed the world with time bombs - which are still counting down. New nuclear plants aren't dangerous at all.

Originally Posted by Rachel

I think windmills are actually very pretty

Hehe. That's a matter of personal taste Personally I don't care, but there are many that dislikes them, and they do demand alot from the nature!

Originally Posted by Rachel

Again, we need to spend a bit to keep the world free of the nasty shit.

I couldn't agree more. Nasty shit that come from oil and coal plants! A huge percentage of the world is actually getting electricity from coal plants. That's where the biggest enviornmental bomb is. Nuclear power is actually a enviormental FRIENDLY alternative. The friendliest there is. You don't have to depend on nature to feed you with energy - meaning you don't fuck up the landscape or nature in any way --- and it feed you with huge amounts of electricity at the same time.

Originally Posted by Rachel

I would think you were an American Republican Bush supporter!

Hahaha. I'm glad you know me better than that!

Originally Posted by freddie

I'm more concerned about tens of nuclear plants in former USSR countries which don't have the neccessary financial means to keep them operating at 100% safety levels

Absolutely. They are dangerous as hell. As I mentioned; "time bombs that are still counting down". But should these lethal buildings destroy the reputation of the ones that are strighly maintained and using top notch modern technology?

[haku]

Personally i've never had any problem with nuclear energy, and i agree with dradeel that nuclear power plants are less damaging to the environment in the long run than other energies. One nuclear power plant replaces several gas/petrol power plants (and those are no good since gas and petrol will run out in a few decades and they contribute to the global warming) so it has a minimal impact on a landscape, and nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases so they don't affect the climate.

Here in Normandy we have 3 nuclear power plants producing 10 gigawatts combined (soon to be expanded to 12 gigawatts) and there is no realistic way of replacing such power by any other type of energy production.
I don't support windmill farms as i think they destroy landscapes, we would need tens of thousands of them to produce 10 gigawatts and the whole region would be covered with them, so no. And tidal power plants don't produce enough energy to be useable.
I do support solar energy (but solar energy is technically nuclear since the Sun is a fusion reactor) but it's only realistic for small needs, for example here the emergency phones along motorways each have a solar panel and future public lampposts will be equiped similarly, but it's not possible to provide for the general massive energy needs with solar panels.
And nuclear wastes are not such a big deal in my opinion, first of all, once they've been stored in appropriate containers, they are perfectly safe and clean, and second, they are tiny in volume and take very little space to store. An average family actually produces more garbage every year than an entire nuclear power plant, and i'm much more worried by all the crap people throw away everywhere in nature and contaminates soil and water than by the small nuclear wastes which are stored safely and cleanly.

And nuclear energy will continue to progress, current fission reactors will be replaced by fusion reactors in a few decades, and fusion reactors will be 10 to 100 times more powerful than fission reactors and wasteless, for a similar cost of construction and maintenance, so i definitely think it's the right direction to go.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by dradeel

Absolutely. They are dangerous as hell. As I mentioned; "time bombs that are still counting down". But should these lethal buildings destroy the reputation of the ones that are strighly maintained and using top notch modern technology?

Yeah but that's like saying that an AK-47 in the hands of a serial killer shouldn't destroy the reputation of weapons in general. There is ALWAYS danger when we're dealing with something volatile. And somehow we just have to predict that - given the number of nuclear powerplants in this world - at least a dosen of them are being negligently handled. Just one mishap is more than enough to cause a continental disaster. And let me not even get into the subject of nuclear waste. I'm not as optimistic as Haku, when it comes to fusion development. 100 years from now, maybe? But what'll a 100 years of nuke-waste cause to our environment? I'm not saying gas or coal dependant energy sources are any better. I seriously think both technologies are dead ends both in relation to safety hazards as well as environmental burden. At least in it's current application. I still have faith for the nuclear energy of the future, though.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by haku

I don't support windmill farms as i think they destroy landscapes

Just wait for the terrorists then, they'll destroy more than a bit of landscape

For once I totally disagree with you!

[dradeel]

Originally Posted by freddie

Yeah but that's like saying that an AK-47 in the hands of a serial killer shouldn't destroy the reputation of weapons in general.

No, not really. The nuclear power plant isn't a WEAPON. And an AK-47 is working perfectly fine. Actually, it's the weapon that tend to work the best whatever happens to it ... hehe. Anyways, this isn't the case with the badly shape nuclear plants in Russia.

We're talking the difference between a hand grenade that won't hurt you at all if handed nicely by professionals, compared to a bottle of highly unstabile nitroglycerin handed by people who are careless and don't know how to deal with it at all! The difference is that the nuclear plant (as I mentioned) isn't a weapon like the hand grenade, but still, the comparison wasn't that bad imo. Sure, you could say that all weapons are bad because you don't like them - that's what I say -, but can you reason your sceptisism to nuclear power with the same? "Nuclear power is bad, because I don't like it" - Imo that doesn't sound very good

So - if I can drag my comparison even longer down the alley of absurdness - I'm saying that we shouldn't arm military personell with bottles of unstabile nitroglycerin, but with hand grenades that won't blow up in their faces. Like we would have safe, super-modern and extremely well maintained nuclear power plants compared to the time bombs that haven't been looked after in decades.

Originally Posted by freddie

But what'll a 100 years of nuke-waste cause to our environment?

Nothing, if handed correctly - which we are easily capable of doing. (I hope I'm remembering the documentary-thingie correctly when saying the following, but I think I am and I can easily recheck ) A thousand years of estimated future crap/dump/garbage of the whole world can actually be filled into quite a relatively small area - Just a little dot on the map. Of course, that's a insanely huge area when standing in the middle of it, but it's just a dot on a map over USA, in the middle of a no-man's-land. If you spread this around the globe, you don't even notice it's there.
...
As haku said; nuclear waste from one power plant during a year is less than what one average family would produce of normal garbage. If the crap of the whole globe can be put into an acceptable area for a thousand years, we could easily store the nuke waste for .. say ... 500 years? until we find a solution to the "problem". We actually have no problems with this. The whole "we're running out of space"-issue is actually one of the biggest myths in today's society. We have huge amounts of space. That's not the problem. The problem is maintainance to keep oneself well inside the safety regulations - which "the west" is actually doing. Russia lack the money to do this, that's why I think they shouldn't have nuclear power plants at all.

Originally Posted by freddie

I still have faith for the nuclear energy of the future, though.

Well, that's good. Then we agree on that at least. Of course, I don't like us producing nuke waste that will stay there (possibly) forever, but since we have technology to store it super-safe for an eternity I don't think it's a problem at all. I guess that's where the gap is