Fukushima Radiation Levels At 'Unimaginable' Levels

[Paratus]

Thank you for speaking your mind. I believe that energy produced locally via renewable resources represents a strategically far better protection against putting a country back into the dark ages. Nuclear plants are too easy to target. There is exposed nuclear waste all over the planet. Save storage of all of it before making more would demonstrate good faith. There is no such good faith, only people who stand to profit from poisoning the earth. In short, there are infinitely better choices in my opinion.

Here's my two step nuclear waste solution for you Moonbeam.

• Reduce current stockpiles of waste by burning it in next gen reactors.
• Launch remaining fuel into space (Nuclear Electric Propulsion is the shizt!)

 

[Moonbeam]

Here's my two step nuclear waste solution for you Moonbeam.

• Reduce current stockpiles of waste by burning it in next gen reactors.
• Launch remaining fuel into space (Nuclear Electric Propulsion is the shizt!)

I prefer we build solar collectors between here and the sun, beam the power to earth and use the shade to prevent global warming.

 

[dank69]

Here's my two step nuclear waste solution for you Moonbeam.

• Reduce current stockpiles of waste by burning it in next gen reactors.
• Launch remaining fuel into space (Nuclear Electric Propulsion is the shizt!)

I used to think the same thing about launching the stuff into space, but then I thought about the implications if we have another Challenger incident during liftoff...

 

[norseamd]

I prefer we build solar collectors between here and the sun, beam the power to earth and use the shade to prevent global warming.

You are afraid of nuclear power, but not afraid of orbital solar microwave power? Might you want to think this through a bit more here?

 

[Moonbeam]

You are afraid of nuclear power, but not afraid of orbital solar microwave power? Might you want to think this through a bit more here?

But but all the risks are technologically manageable and rays in the sky like that would completely eliminate the need for drones and nuclear weapons With technology like that you could cook terrorists or enemy forces on the spot with the microwave transmitters anywhere on the face of the earth. Caves like in Afghanastan could be turned into lava flows. There would be nowhere to hide. And, pay attention here, when you turn the switch off the radiation instantly disappears. Think how much better that is. And people living near the beam down sights would always be assured of roast duck. Need I mention stopping outbreaks of deadly plagues in their tracks to convince you I know very well how to think things through. I can assure you it's why I'm not a big fan of nuclear.

 

[norseamd]

An argument could be made that I'm proving your point by bothering to respond to your post, but I'll press on anyway.

In my admittedly limited experience (about the same as your own actually), I have run into many people that lack various shades of intelligence, and they are certainly not all engineers. In fact, your "dumb fuckers" are pretty well spread throughout society (as the November election so clearly demonstrated) and well represented here in ATOT.

If engineers actually ran the world, then it would make sense to blame them for what you see as the shortcomings of nuclear energy. In this real world, you should be railing against the elected government officials (and by extension the people who elected them) for their lack of "technological intelligence" in deciding to set the nuclear program (with its "massive government subsidization") in motion several decades ago. (In the future will we be decrying the more recent subsidization of renewable energy?)

If you need to assign blame to someone, it should be to the people in our society who actually make/made the decisions on how science/technology is applied, not the people who are asked by our society to provide it.

And for what it is worth, nuclear energy can't be the "height of stupidity" in a world that has thousands of stockpiled nuclear weapons. All energy producing technologies come with their own advantages and disadvantages; renewable resources are no different. There is no choice that "makes infinitely more sense".

So concerning nuclear weapons, yes it kinda sucks having them around, but countries stockpiling nuclear weapons is far more logical than the alternative, because nuclear weapons exist, and just as much of a justification, that regardless of whether or not there are nuclear weapons around right now, the fact that they are physically possible means that countries should be stockpiling them. Im not assuming that you are arguing or believe to the contrary, rather than your comment just being in context. I just figured I might shed a little more light on the subject. And yes, scientists and engineers shouldnt be the ones blamed here because they are not the ones making decisions, and the current politicians and government have themselves to blame for not bringing the proper level of due for research and funding for nuclear power. As for scientists and engineers running any potential government, that is another topic altogether, so their capabilities with technology as well as the previous experience of the past decades would only have partial significance here, the fact that they are scientists or engineers is meaningless, whats really important is the individuals themselves, and their understanding of political and administrative science, as well as their relevant capabilities and perhaps most important their personal character and integrity. Lets just say that STEMs wouldnt be able to run a country just by virtue of being "hard scientists and engineers" alone, but like I said earlier its an altogether different topic, and one full of complexities. And there are already scientists and engineers in government and politics, they are known as technocrats. Often they are also known as political scientists, policy experts, geopoliticians, and grand strategists.