Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Nuclear Power......For or Against?
  • Subject: Nuclear Power......For or Against?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Nuclear Power......For or Against?
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

This is actually a real good debate question. In physics we ha a huge class debate in which the teacher todl us if we were for or against and we then had to do research for a week. We then had to dress as if it were a real debate and go head to head with the rest of the class. I am not yet going to tell you whether I am for or against, but I will jump in after a few posts that intrigue me.

So....Are you for or against Nuclear Power? Why?

  • 07.06.2004 5:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm definately for.
Because if all countries have nuclear power, they can start building nuclear bombs, and blow the entire world up. Or at least creating a nuclear winter.
And think about how fun meltdowns is! It's probably one of the worst human made disasters. It helps against over population, and devestates the wildlife, fishing- and hunting conditions for years to come! And think about all the deformed children that are born! If we are lucky, we can create a super hero or something. Or a supervillain. Probably a super villain since there are more supervillains that superheros.
And the final containment of the nuclear fuel. Why bury it? Send it to China, they have a huge overpopulation problem. Or India. Or put it in the rainforests. That would definately scare away those who would cut it down.

  • 07.06.2004 5:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

LOL....Love the posetive outlook on all the negatives!

  • 07.06.2004 5:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: DaElAlTH2
I'm definately for.
Because if all countries have nuclear power, they can start building nuclear bombs, and blow the entire world up. Or at least creating a nuclear winter.
And think about how fun meltdowns is! It's probably one of the worst human made disasters. It helps against over population, and devestates the wildlife, fishing- and hunting conditions for years to come! And think about all the deformed children that are born! If we are lucky, we can create a super hero or something. Or a supervillain. Probably a super villain since there are more supervillains that superheros.
And the final containment of the nuclear fuel. Why bury it? Send it to China, they have a huge overpopulation problem. Or India. Or put it in the rainforests. That would definately scare away those who would cut it down.

After that, I wonder if ANYONE will post their opinion.

  • 07.06.2004 6:54 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm for Cold Fusion.

  • 07.06.2004 7:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well i think Nuclear Power is the best thing we have right now that produces enough energy to be a viable energy source. I'm all for cold fusion, but until they can use it to the extent that we use nuclear then oh well. And while B4dCyborg's comments have a few truths to them, I want to know what viable power source he would replace nuclear energy with.

  • 07.06.2004 7:41 AM PDT

AGAINST: Fission (very dangerous)
FOR: Fusion (very safe)

  • 07.06.2004 7:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

What!? Is fission dangerous? But it would still be fun with nuclear winter. Think about all the snowball fights you could have! And no ugly plants or anything green. And no food whatsoever. But the no food thing isn't really much of a problem, because many people are so over weight they could live a very long time without food, and those who are not fat can eat the fat people because there are so many of them

Read my two posts and you'll see that only good and fun things can come from fission

[Edited on 7/6/2004 8:00:20 AM]

  • 07.06.2004 7:59 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

This is all about nuclear bombs, by the way.

Sure, I will

And moderators- please just snip my comments if you absolutely must rather than locking this entire discussion. I have seen some good points.

[Edited on 7/6/2004 8:53:25 AM by goweb]

  • 07.06.2004 8:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Except that nuclear winter wont happen by nuclear power plants alone, it would require mass amounts of nuclear warheads detonating.

And your right about the nuclear waste, its the biggest down side to nuclear power. Im pretty sure that all of americas and maybe canadas, are stored in a mountain in arizona.

Nuclear weapons came be4 nuclear power, so saying that nuclear power only leads to nuclear weapons is crap for crap. Your right about the effects on the eviroment, though you took it a little far.

  • 07.06.2004 8:14 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

What we really need is Spiderman 2 style nuclear power

  • 07.06.2004 8:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Except that nuclear winter wont happen by nuclear power plants alone, it would require mass amounts of nuclear warheads detonating.

And your right about the nuclear waste, its the biggest down side to nuclear power. Im pretty sure that all of americas and maybe canadas, are stored in a mountain in arizona.

Nuclear weapons came be4 nuclear power, so saying that nuclear power only leads to nuclear weapons is crap for crap. Your right about the effects on the eviroment, though you took it a little far.


You can get fuel for nuclear weapons from nuclear powerplants. I said that everyone would blow everything up, thus leading to nuclear winter.
I'm not that sure I took the environmental effects to far. When a reactor at Tjernobyl exploded, the downfall fell over big parts of northern and eastern Europe. This had big effects on the nature in Sweden. It took several years before wild meat and fish could be exported from the north of Sweden, and even today the meat needs to be checked from downfall before it can be exported. Many animals were also born deformed or dead because of it.

On my first two posts I was a tad sarcastic

  • 07.06.2004 8:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: RED JELLYBEANS

And your right about the nuclear waste, its the biggest down side to nuclear power. Im pretty sure that all of americas and maybe canadas, are stored in a mountain in arizona.


Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, to be exact, and that's where most of the high level waste that's being cleaned up from all of the nuclear sites today is going.

  • 07.06.2004 10:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

We need hydrogen and solar power look in last months issue of Pop-sci. I'll make a link if I can.

Update: no such link that I can find

[Edited on 7/6/2004 11:09:14 AM]

  • 07.06.2004 11:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well, although I disagreed with everything I used in my debate for school, I am against it. I was forced to be for it and it was ten times harder to find pros than it was to find cons of Nuc power. I am against it because history. Look at the bombings in Japan...I know that they werent from a nuclear accident but imagine if just one bomb can devistate an entire country, would could a plant do. The biggest con of a power plant is the constructoin. Currently, plants are made mainly of concrete that of course over time with be destroyed by the weather. There are too many dangers with a nuclear power plant. Besides, there are many other more efficient ways of creating energy for human consumtion. There is Hydro-electric power, solar power and wind power (I dunno the scientific term for wind power). Nuc. power is just too dangerous.

  • 07.06.2004 2:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

for.

This should be a poll.

  • 07.06.2004 2:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm for. Without nukes, how do you nuke stuff?

  • 07.06.2004 2:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Very carefully...

  • 07.06.2004 2:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think that we should keep radioactive substances in malls. That way we could get lucky and mutate someone into a superhero that can take care of all the supervillians the radioactive stuff would produce

[Edited on 7/6/2004 2:57:12 PM]

  • 07.06.2004 2:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

There have been several advancements in the fission department. First off, we have a new design that uses fuel pebbles rather than fuel rods. This makes a meltdown virtually impossible. Secondly, whereas fuel rods can be turned into a weapon by terrorist groups, pebbles cannot. Do some research, I don't feel like doing it for you.

  • 07.06.2004 2:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Very good points on the new fission tech. I can see you've done your research.

  • 07.06.2004 2:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm all for Fusion reactors, in fact they power BattleMechs! Fusion reactors are very safe, when someone acidently blows one up, you just see one nasty looking light show and a huge cloud. But no fision reactors, if one goes... there gose the naborhood.

"Fuson reactors don't make you glow".

  • 07.06.2004 3:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Nuclear power is a great tool but it needs to be contained carefully. One nuclear power core can power a nuclear submarine FOREVER (well until its just a piece of scrape metal anyway). It would be a great power to harness but i dont know much about it so iu cant say much.

  • 07.06.2004 3:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: CommanderFox
I'm all for Fusion reactors, in fact they power BattleMechs! Fusion reactors are very safe, when someone acidently blows one up, you just see one nasty looking light show and a huge cloud. But no fision reactors, if one goes... there gose the naborhood.

"Fuson reactors don't make you glow".
Yeah, Battle Mech's and Mobile suits, and pretty much any giant robot but we need to start harnessing hydrogen all you have to do is extract it from water and the Earth is 75% water also the only exaust would be water vapor, oh yeah, dont forget wind power.

Is that how you spell exaust?

  • 07.06.2004 4:56 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2