Nobody Needs Nukes!!!

[Nitro Express]

I often think we have more technology than we have the ethics for. Nukes, cloning, genetic engineering. Man could fuck the world a good one. Oh I forgot global warming if you believe we caused that too.

All I can say is life is short. Make the most of it. If the nukes or terrorists don't get you, something else will.

Death is death. Does it matter if it's delivered by modern weapons or Spanish inquisitors burning you at the stake? Or Romans turning you into lion food. Humans have been killing each other for a long time. We've managed to live with nukes for 50 years so far but everyone now wants the big stick.

[Cathedral]

I'd burrow my head into the ground if i wasn't so damn tired of breathing completely.

I say kill my ass, spare me from any further bullshit and just get it over with.
I can't be intimidated, so all the threats don't mean shit to me, DO IT ALREADY!

LOL, i'm going totally insane, i know that.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Love thy neighbor, love thy neighbor...

Just make sure you when her husband is due home first......

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just make sure you know when her husband is due home first......

Doesn't matter, he can operate the camera.

[Macu]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
not quite. i'll give you that the radioactive waste is a concern. but like i said, so is the pollution from coal-fired plants. THAT gets into the general atmosphere no matter what. with radioactive waste, we have, so far, completely contained it.

as for the heat? dude, what do you think power plants do? they produce heat. along with nuclear powered ones, coal and oil-fired plants produce fires that heat water into steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. a nuclear plant's heat does not more harm than a coal-fired plant.


umm...no. it's not. in fact, it's very importantly different.

a nuclear plant uses enriched uranium that is not the same as the weapons-grade enriched uranium. nuclear plant fuel will not undergo a nuclear explosion.


now, assuming everything goes wrong and there's a meltdown, yes, a nuclear plant COULD release a significant amount of radiation. but there will not be a nuclear-type shock wave, heat or fireball.

and, again, there are many ways to ensure that a cherynobyl release does not occur. that's why 3-mile island was a meltdown, but with no real radioactive material release.



dude, i agree completely. if you're asking ideally, which is better, all things being equal, solar or nuclear power, i'll take solar every time. even if we get cheap and easy fusion power plants. that said, currently, solar power takes a large amount of land and is not readily available in a lot of areas.

so if the choice came down to a nuclear plant, or a coal plant (which currently produces a lot more energy---and pollution---in the U.S.) i'd take nuclear every time.



gotta disagree. we HAVE solar power. and we ARE researching it. should we be doing more? yes. absolutely. but is the reason nefarious? or is it at least partially also due to the fact that existing sources of energy were so easy and bountiful that it didn't make as much sense to spend large sums of money on newer technologies?




again, compared to what? compared to an ideal (we're not quite there yet) world of cheap and easy solar power? or compared to the world we have were coal-fired plants produce countless tons of pollution into our atmosphere?

First of all,you dont solve one environmental problem by creating another.Second,I never said anything in support of coal-fired plants,so please,save me the sermon,you·re preaching to the choir.As far as the heat,I was·nt comparing nuclear power to other power sources,simply pointing out the facts.Solar energy is different in that respect.My point about the technology is not a matter of safety as far as an explosion.It has to do with the production of a nuclear weapon.We can play semantics all day long,however,one that can produce nuclear energy with a power plant is well on the way to producing a nuclear bomb.My point about the developement of solar-power(or alternative power)is still valid.If you believe that the technology doesnt exist for solar power,I think you under-estimate mans ingenuity.Ever hear about the 100mph carbeurator?(sp?)The idea(by the "powers that be")is to use as much energy as possible.They want to use ALL the petroleum.Wanna know why?Because they know history.First there was wood.then they need to switch to coal.Next will be the end of petroleum.Every time there is a switch in power sources,there is a change in the world.Once the petroleum runs out(or at least as we now know it)there will be another change.Use your imagination and see if you can picture a world (or more specifically the U.S.)without petroleum.Nefarious?A nice word in comparison to the reality to come.Do you really believe the U.S. is doing so much in the way of solar-energy?Token efforts.Figure out the solution to the energy situation and be prepared to lose your freedom if not your life.And lastly,I am not trying to compare it to anything.I could go on ,only,I dont have the "energy".A stupid pun,but,are·nt they all?Thanks for the response,bro.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Macu
First of all,you dont solve one environmental problem by creating another.Second,I never said anything in support of coal-fired plants,so please,save me the sermon,you·re preaching to the choir.As far as the heat,I was·nt comparing nuclear power to other power sources,simply pointing out the facts.Solar energy is different in that respect.My point about the technology is not a matter of safety as far as an explosion.It has to do with the production of a nuclear weapon.We can play semantics all day long,however,one that can produce nuclear energy with a power plant is well on the way to producing a nuclear bomb.My point about the developement of solar-power(or alternative power)is still valid.If you believe that the technology doesnt exist for solar power,I think you under-estimate mans ingenuity.Ever hear about the 100mph carbeurator?(sp?)The idea(by the "powers that be")is to use as much energy as possible.They want to use ALL the petroleum.Wanna know why?Because they know history.First there was wood.then they need to switch to coal.Next will be the end of petroleum.Every time there is a switch in power sources,there is a change in the world.Once the petroleum runs out(or at least as we now know it)there will be another change.Use your imagination and see if you can picture a world (or more specifically the U.S.)without petroleum.Nefarious?A nice word in comparison to the reality to come.Do you really believe the U.S. is doing so much in the way of solar-energy?Token efforts.Figure out the solution to the energy situation and be prepared to lose your freedom if not your life.And lastly,I am not trying to compare it to anything.I could go on ,only,I dont have the "energy".A stupid pun,but,are·nt they all?Thanks for the response,bro.

as for the 100mpg carburetor, i don't think it exists. mostly because if it did, somebody would come forward with it. even if the U.S. government refused to patent it, all you'd have to do would be to get it on dateline, or go to the wall street journal. or some other country. the fact that nobody's ever demonstrated one leads me to think it''s because the science and tech isn't there yet.

still, i think there's no doubt that the business community at large is at least somewhat resistant to change. and the government could've helped that out by offering incentives. yet so far, it really hasn't. although the MPG requirements have risen over the years, they haven't exactly gone that high. if the government either poured more direct dollars into better research (for alternative energy or more petroleum fuel efficient engines), created greater tax incentives for private industry to do so, or made more stringent requirements,


and sorry, i didn't mean to imply that you were promoting coal plants. it's just that since we don't currently have the technology for widespread use of solar / alternative power (which you're right, we should be using better) if we need a new power plant today, i'd rather it be nuclear than coal. but i definitely support greater research into alternative sources, so we have a much better choice in the (hopefully near) future.

[Macu]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
as for the 100mpg carburetor, i don't think it exists. mostly because if it did, somebody would come forward with it. even if the U.S. government refused to patent it, all you'd have to do would be to get it on dateline, or go to the wall street journal. or some other country. the fact that nobody's ever demonstrated one leads me to think it''s because the science and tech isn't there yet.

still, i think there's no doubt that the business community at large is at least somewhat resistant to change. and the government could've helped that out by offering incentives. yet so far, it really hasn't. although the MPG requirements have risen over the years, they haven't exactly gone that high. if the government either poured more direct dollars into better research (for alternative energy or more petroleum fuel efficient engines), created greater tax incentives for private industry to do so, or made more stringent requirements,


and sorry, i didn't mean to imply that you were promoting coal plants. it's just that since we don't currently have the technology for widespread use of solar / alternative power (which you're right, we should be using better) if we need a new power plant today, i'd rather it be nuclear than coal. but i definitely support greater research into alternative sources, so we have a much better choice in the (hopefully near) future.

Its there.When I lived in the States I worked in a shop building race engines.One of the mechanics had some of the "secrets" for it.More interestin was the sdevelopement of fuel injection.Did you know that you can use vegetible oil in a diesel engine?You must start the engine first,then add the vegetible oil.I·ve done it.People here in Europe do it all the time.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
...

According to FORD's logic (and copycat Nick) this is a logical step in their quest for ultimate power...

Yeah Elvira, I'm such a "copycat." I'll take it as a complement though.

Feel free to show where I "copy" Ford...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Macu
Its there.When I lived in the States I worked in a shop building race engines.One of the mechanics had some of the "secrets" for it.More interestin was the sdevelopement of fuel injection.Did you know that you can use vegetible oil in a diesel engine?You must start the engine first,then add the vegetible oil.I·ve done it.People here in Europe do it all the time.

yeah, we're just starting to use bio-diesel here in the U.S. supposedly, it requires a conversion that can be done for around $800. but once you do it, you can use purified french-fry oil to power it. of course, we don't have good distribution of the vegetable oil yet to make it practical for most people, so it's still rare.



again though, for the 100mpg carburetor, if that was the case, why has nobody ever built one? the car company that came out with an 80mpg sedan would reap tremendous profits. even if the oil companies could stop me from getting a patent in every country in the world, there's no way they could prevent me from building the engine and taking it on larry king, or oprah.