Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-19-2011, 07:47 PM   #46
DAM
Trinational 951
 
DAM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: the M5V
Posts: 2,951


Quote:
Originally Posted by magnus View Post
ruuuun for the mountains folks......lol!!!!
Think you want to run away from the mountains, if those happen to be the coastal or rockies...
__________________
You drive to work? I work to drive.
DAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 01:41 AM   #47
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,832
lol you all need to chill.. this is no chernobyl, no 3 mile island, etc. chill
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 05:35 AM   #48
magnus
6th Gear Member
 
magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Reykjavik
Posts: 3,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAM View Post
Think you want to run away from the mountains, if those happen to be the coastal or rockies...
Just run then....Run Forrest run!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex View Post
lol you all need to chill.. this is no chernobyl, no 3 mile island, etc. chill
My point exactly....people love to get into a panick!!!!!!
__________________
http://pics.livejournal.com/blblblblx/pic/000r554e.gif

"Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever"
magnus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 06:18 AM   #49
propr'one
op sucks cock
 
propr'one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T.
Posts: 17,766
Send a message via MSN to propr'one
Quote:
Originally Posted by doogee View Post
Yeah...this is no where near Chernobyl at the moment.

I'm sure it has the potential to become worse, but who knows.
No, honestly, it doesn't. The amount of fuel in the chernobyl reactor at the time it went nuclear was very high (they were running a test on what happened if you ran it at mid power with additional fuel.)

This isn't chernobyl and wont be. I'm not saying this isn't serious, i'm not even saying it can't be deadly, but venting radioactive gas and having nuclear fission occur in an open air environment are completely different. Even if the reactor did have a meltdown (seems less and less likely with every passing hour) the casing of the reactor in fukashima is much better designed than the ones in the soviet union. (surprise, surprise).

Also, Chenobyl is 90km away from Kiev, the biggest city in Ukraine. Why dont you look at the long term effects of the radiation from chernobyl on Kievan residents. (Its not nearly as bad as you think. The real damage came from the radioactive cloud which moves based on wind patterns, not proximity to the reactor, and ****ed over belarus much more than it did ukraine.)

As someone who's homeland was rattled by the worst nuclear disaster in history, i still believe that nuclear power is absolutely the safest, most efficient and effective way of producing large scale energy for industry and residential usage, think angela merkel is being a dramatic, silly little twat.

The problem isn't with nuclear power. The problem is, we have to consider even more far fetched eventualities in disaster planning (i.e. not just if a earthquake hits, or if a tsunami hits, but if both happen at the same time.)


Sorry for my rant, but i dont have the time to bitch out every stupid 20 something year old girl on my facebook who's bashing nuclear power right now, and most of you will probably understand my point much better than they would, so i'll waste my time trying to convince you guys instead.
__________________
I run a canadian HID kit company, if you have any questions about hid kits in canada or would like to check out our products please contact me here: http://absolutehid.ca

Hot: 2001 Estoril M RoadsterZCP 19's michelin supersports, ZHP knob, JL 8W3
Cold: 2002 TiAg M3 6mt ZCP 19's michelin supersports, deoranged, dechromed, led tails, ZHP knob, UUC SS v3, GROM, OEM 18's w310's,
fun: 2006 YZF-R6, black
propr'one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 12:10 PM   #50
pawcio
6th Gear Member
 
pawcio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
No, honestly, it doesn't. The amount of fuel in the chernobyl reactor at the time it went nuclear was very high (they were running a test on what happened if you ran it at mid power with additional fuel.)

This isn't chernobyl and wont be. I'm not saying this isn't serious, i'm not even saying it can't be deadly, but venting radioactive gas and having nuclear fission occur in an open air environment are completely different. Even if the reactor did have a meltdown (seems less and less likely with every passing hour) the casing of the reactor in fukashima is much better designed than the ones in the soviet union. (surprise, surprise).

Also, Chenobyl is 90km away from Kiev, the biggest city in Ukraine. Why dont you look at the long term effects of the radiation from chernobyl on Kievan residents. (Its not nearly as bad as you think. The real damage came from the radioactive cloud which moves based on wind patterns, not proximity to the reactor, and ****ed over belarus much more than it did ukraine.)

As someone who's homeland was rattled by the worst nuclear disaster in history, i still believe that nuclear power is absolutely the safest, most efficient and effective way of producing large scale energy for industry and residential usage, think angela merkel is being a dramatic, silly little twat.

The problem isn't with nuclear power. The problem is, we have to consider even more far fetched eventualities in disaster planning (i.e. not just if a earthquake hits, or if a tsunami hits, but if both happen at the same time.)


Sorry for my rant, but i dont have the time to bitch out every stupid 20 something year old girl on my facebook who's bashing nuclear power right now, and most of you will probably understand my point much better than they would, so i'll waste my time trying to convince you guys instead.
well put.
__________________
__

pawcio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 12:56 PM   #51
simplycars
6th Gear Member
 
simplycars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oakville / Mississauga
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
No, honestly, it doesn't. The amount of fuel in the chernobyl reactor at the time it went nuclear was very high (they were running a test on what happened if you ran it at mid power with additional fuel.)

This isn't chernobyl and wont be. I'm not saying this isn't serious, i'm not even saying it can't be deadly, but venting radioactive gas and having nuclear fission occur in an open air environment are completely different. Even if the reactor did have a meltdown (seems less and less likely with every passing hour) the casing of the reactor in fukashima is much better designed than the ones in the soviet union. (surprise, surprise).

Also, Chenobyl is 90km away from Kiev, the biggest city in Ukraine. Why dont you look at the long term effects of the radiation from chernobyl on Kievan residents. (Its not nearly as bad as you think. The real damage came from the radioactive cloud which moves based on wind patterns, not proximity to the reactor, and ****ed over belarus much more than it did ukraine.)

As someone who's homeland was rattled by the worst nuclear disaster in history, i still believe that nuclear power is absolutely the safest, most efficient and effective way of producing large scale energy for industry and residential usage, think angela merkel is being a dramatic, silly little twat.

The problem isn't with nuclear power. The problem is, we have to consider even more far fetched eventualities in disaster planning (i.e. not just if a earthquake hits, or if a tsunami hits, but if both happen at the same time.)


Sorry for my rant, but i dont have the time to bitch out every stupid 20 something year old girl on my facebook who's bashing nuclear power right now, and most of you will probably understand my point much better than they would, so i'll waste my time trying to convince you guys instead.
The fallout from Chernobyl caused increase in cancer and birth defects in Poland, Baltic states, Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden. I think that it is enough to consider it unsafe. I wonder if any studies were done in USSR or Ukraine to show percentage of increases in cancer and birth defects - they would probably paint terrible picture.
__________________
simplycars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2011, 01:12 PM   #52
propr'one
op sucks cock
 
propr'one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T.
Posts: 17,766
Send a message via MSN to propr'one
^^i'm not sure what you're getting at. I wasn't arguing that chernobyl was "safe." And while its true that everything you say did take place, it was primarily contained within the "30 KM Exclusion zone."

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so its completely concievable that my math is wrong, but here's my absorption conversion (Millisieverts(Msv), which the measurement japan is releasing, is a measurement of radiation absorbtion. Most studies on/about chernobyl use only Curies (Ci) to measure active radiation levels, not radiation absorbed) The Msv limit for chernobyl workers was 350Msv, and, according to my math, most of the primary responders who dumped concrete, lead and sand on the reactor (They flew by in a helicopter, landed on the roof, dropped one bag and got out of there as quickly as they could) had exposure levels of 100,000-300,000 MSV. Obviously, most of them died. The maximum recorded MSV reading as of today of radiation absorption for the people in/around the fukashima reactors now is 100 Msv.

Chenobyl released as much radioactive debris as 400 hiroshima bombs. Its not in any way comparable to fukashima.

Also, iodine 131 (which is what most people seem to be worrying about, although i'll be the first to admit that there are other serious concearns) has a half life of 8 days.
__________________
I run a canadian HID kit company, if you have any questions about hid kits in canada or would like to check out our products please contact me here: http://absolutehid.ca

Hot: 2001 Estoril M RoadsterZCP 19's michelin supersports, ZHP knob, JL 8W3
Cold: 2002 TiAg M3 6mt ZCP 19's michelin supersports, deoranged, dechromed, led tails, ZHP knob, UUC SS v3, GROM, OEM 18's w310's,
fun: 2006 YZF-R6, black

Last edited by propr'one; 03-20-2011 at 01:35 PM.
propr'one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 01:07 AM   #53
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
How can it be worse than chernobyl? How many people have died from radiation poisoning? Do you know anything about chernobyl at all?
who me? michio kaku said its worse than chernobyl not me, so its silly to argue with me. email him.

however even to the most uniformed, its worse cause, chernobyl was 1 reactor - this one plant has 6 reactors.
and again there were reports on seperate, different nuclear plants going critical..


Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
No, honestly, it doesn't. The amount of fuel in the chernobyl reactor at the time it went nuclear was very high (they were running a test on what happened if you ran it at mid power with additional fuel.)

This isn't chernobyl and wont be. I'm not saying this isn't serious, i'm not even saying it can't be deadly, but venting radioactive gas and having nuclear fission occur in an open air environment are completely different. Even if the reactor did have a meltdown (seems less and less likely with every passing hour) the casing of the reactor in fukashima is much better designed than the ones in the soviet union. (surprise, surprise).

Also, Chenobyl is 90km away from Kiev, the biggest city in Ukraine. Why dont you look at the long term effects of the radiation from chernobyl on Kievan residents. (Its not nearly as bad as you think. The real damage came from the radioactive cloud which moves based on wind patterns, not proximity to the reactor, and ****ed over belarus much more than it did ukraine.)

As someone who's homeland was rattled by the worst nuclear disaster in history, i still believe that nuclear power is absolutely the safest, most efficient and effective way of producing large scale energy for industry and residential usage, think angela merkel is being a dramatic, silly little twat.

The problem isn't with nuclear power. The problem is, we have to consider even more far fetched eventualities in disaster planning (i.e. not just if a earthquake hits, or if a tsunami hits, but if both happen at the same time.)


Sorry for my rant, but i dont have the time to bitch out every stupid 20 something year old girl on my facebook who's bashing nuclear power right now, and most of you will probably understand my point much better than they would, so i'll waste my time trying to convince you guys instead.
dude - you sound completely ignorant & misinformed! heres why: over & over you state 'the reactor' singular - bro theres 6 fkn reactors at the one plant & 4 have had severe 'issues' such as exploding sky high! 2 did that already.


^ this one used mox fuel 10% weapons grade plutonium & depleted uranium.

there are reports out now that these power plants were privatized & they falsified safety records, to keep profits up.
numbers of people at GE resigned in the 70's over the faulty design of these reactors. So they knew, and we've been on borrowed time..


Pinkering Nuke plant leak & difference between u.s/cdn radiation safe limits @1:50


Quote:
Radioactivity in Ottawa Drinking Water

The City’s drinking water continues to meet or be better than all federal guidelines and provincial standards for radiological parameters including tritium.

In recent months there has been increased media attention on the subject of radioactivity in the Ottawa River and potential effects on Ottawa’s drinking water supply. Much of the focus has been on radioactive “leaks” from the Chalk River nuclear reactor and the public reporting of these events by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/water..._water_en.html
so idk maybe we are at greater risk cause we already have our own barely reported leaky reactors, Leaking
__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 02:23 AM   #54
propr'one
op sucks cock
 
propr'one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T.
Posts: 17,766
Send a message via MSN to propr'one
You seriously expect me to argue with you when i've just debunked most of your argument and your rebuttal is to point out that i missed an "s" on one word? Your insane, nonsensical ramblings occasionally border on half-intellectual discussion, and maybe its my fault for getting sucked in, but your paranoia has completely blinded you from reality. I dont think i'm the only one who appreciates the irony in that. Enjoy talking with yourself.


Edit: And no, chernobyl didn't have have one reactor, it had six. Two were never completed, it was #4 that had a meltdown. I dont see how that changes anything, but since you seem to find it terribly important, you might as well get it right.
__________________
I run a canadian HID kit company, if you have any questions about hid kits in canada or would like to check out our products please contact me here: http://absolutehid.ca

Hot: 2001 Estoril M RoadsterZCP 19's michelin supersports, ZHP knob, JL 8W3
Cold: 2002 TiAg M3 6mt ZCP 19's michelin supersports, deoranged, dechromed, led tails, ZHP knob, UUC SS v3, GROM, OEM 18's w310's,
fun: 2006 YZF-R6, black

Last edited by propr'one; 03-21-2011 at 02:43 AM.
propr'one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 02:27 AM   #55
doogee
Stance is Gay.
 
doogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ancaster
Posts: 3,454
Send a message via MSN to doogee
Hehe. Yes there are 6 reactors, but at least 4 of them are "somewhat" under control.

The current situation isn't even close to what happened at Chernobyl.

But I still believe it could get just as bad, or worse. Only time will tell.

In my opinion, I think everything will be kept under control and then everyone can move on and stop worrying.
__________________


Dakar M3 Track Build Thread
doogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:14 AM   #56
SickFinga
Moderator
 
SickFinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Location:
Posts: 16,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
however even to the most uniformed, its worse cause, chernobyl was 1 reactor - this one plant has 6 reactors.
You do know that Chernobyl was operational up until 2000. It was only turned off because EU offered money to Ukraine?
SickFinga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 08:51 AM   #57
Duct_Taper
Sticky
 
Duct_Taper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 601
Just to poke the argument a little bit...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opi...439/story.html
Duct_Taper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 10:42 AM   #58
HavocSteve
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duct_Taper View Post
Just to poke the argument a little bit...

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opi...439/story.html
Put another way, the calculation of premature deaths per terawatt hour of energy production comes to this conclusion: for coal, 161; for oil, 36; for biofuels, 12; for natural gas, four; for nuclear, 0.04.

That was a decent read. Glad to see others aren't so dumb and follow the media like rats. Glad I saved my money. I also watched a argument on CBC from Bruce Powers CEO vs. This proff. from Western who doesn't like Nuclear. Bruce Powers CEO mentions that any other source of power costs everyone 85cents per kilowatt compared to nuclears 0.5cents. If people are so worried, you won't be able to afford to live shortly without nuclear.

__________________
HavocSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 04:28 PM   #59
NOTORIOUS VR
6th Gear Member
 
NOTORIOUS VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
dude - you sound completely ignorant & misinformed!
Pot meet kettle... seriously...

Dude, reading your posts is like watching FOX NEWS...
__________________
E36 · DYNO · TUNING · WIRING · PARTS
NOTORIOUS VR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 08:35 PM   #60
damameke
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTORIOUS VR View Post
Pot meet kettle... seriously...

Dude, reading your posts is like watching FOX NEWS...
You really read his posts .....I double scroll down to the next post..lol
damameke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015