BLU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    It comes and goes on the newspapers over here... I haven't read about it in something like 3 weeks so I supposed it had gone back to normal... Now I see it's radically not back to normal. Damnit. That thing is out of control and really dangerous for the whole planet. Let's hope that it doesn't get worse (although it probably will) and that people realize the massive dangers of nuclear energy (although they probably won't).

    Well if we want to do anything about global warming, nuclear energy is basically the only way to go.. Unless they can radically improve the efficiency of solar power (which is currently horrid)
  2. Originally posted by dylbagz:[..]

    Well if we want to do anything about global warming, nuclear energy is basically the only way to go.. Unless they can radically improve the efficiency of solar power (which is currently horrid)

    Solar, eolic and hydro powers are the way to go. There's no point in solving the global warming if we devastate the planet with more nuclear disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, I think we can agree on that.
  3. Nuclear energy would be way to go if it wasn't so risky and if we as a civilization were much smarter. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima happened because of human errors...

    I can only be glad Croatia is nowhere near Japan. When Chernobly happened, radioactive cloud even came here, Bosnia was spared.
  4. Perhaps we could start by not putting nuclear plants in places where big natural disasters like this tsunami don't happen?

    And I'm pretty sure Chernobyl can easily be blamed on human error.

    Nuclear plants are very safe if you do them right.
  5. Yeah, but accidents are... accidents. They're not plannable, they are not expected, they're just accidents. Everything goes right for a while and then, all of a sudden, comes the accident.

    In other words:
    -only way to completely avoid a car accident = not taking the car.
    -only wat yo completely avoid a nuclear accident = not using nuclear energy.

    Pretty simple.
  6. pretty simple and pretty incisive .. bravo Sergio
  7. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    Solar, eolic and hydro powers are the way to go. There's no point in solving the global warming if we devastate the planet with more nuclear disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, I think we can agree on that.

    2 major disasters in 30 years, is hardly a bad record.
  8. Originally posted by Yogi:Nuclear energy would be way to go if it wasn't so risky and if we as a civilization were much smarter. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima happened because of human errors...

    I can only be glad Croatia is nowhere near Japan. When Chernobly happened, radioactive cloud even came here, Bosnia was spared.

    For once I agree with you. Both where do to human mistakes. Chernobyl was the result of a stupid experiment, and Fukushima, was the result of a bad facility design.
  9. I'm considering taking a break from college. Its burning me the fuck out.
  10. Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]

    For once I agree with you. Both where do to human mistakes. Chernobyl was the result of a stupid experiment, and Fukushima, was the result of a bad facility design.

    So then hopefully people have learned from that.

    Honestly, if you make a nuclear facility in the right location in a quality first world country (not a state of the old USSR) I don't see anything going wrong. Especially after what we've learned from Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island.

    If you put one out in the middle of Australia, where there is nothing, and no natural disasters, it would be hard for something to go wrong. Plenty of countries have nuclear power and have used it for years with no consequences.

    Funny that we should be talking about this..

    'Nuclear power needed' to slow warming
  11. Originally posted by dylbagz:[..]

    So then hopefully people have learned from that.

    Honestly, if you make a nuclear facility in the right location in a quality first world country (not a state of the old USSR) I don't see anything going wrong. Especially after what we've learned from Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island.

    If you put one out in the middle of Australia, where there is nothing, and no natural disasters, it would be hard for something to go wrong. Plenty of countries have nuclear power and have used it for years with no consequences.

    Funny that we should be talking about this..

    'Nuclear power needed' to slow warming

    I agree with you, but, I repeat, we're humans. We're very slow at learning. Following your logic there would be no more wars because we would get that they don't bring us any good. And wars today are as bloody as they ever were.
  12. Originally posted by Yogi:[..]

    I agree with you, but, I repeat, we're humans. We're very slow at learning. Following your logic there would be no more wars because we would get that they don't bring us any good. And wars today are as bloody as they ever were.

    I think war and nuclear power are two completely different things, but ok?
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.