PDA

View Full Version : Poles blow up Europe



Elles
15-11-11, 15:55
Once again Poland has begun building of two nuclear power plants. That’s true saying: teach a fool to bow with grace and he would fall flat on his face.
Poles have been possessed by nuclear power bee in the bonnet till 1990. That time they didn’t manage to finish their project of NPP by Soviet technologies. Now they consider themselves trained enough during the building of Lithuanian NPP in Visaginas for building their own ticking bombs able to blow up entire Europe. Mind you that Poland hasn’t got enough modern materials and technologies for establishing such risky project properly. Do you think they would able to build something sensible?
It seems like Japanese catastrophe has taught Poles nothing. And it wouldn’t be a great loss if just Poland would be eliminated. But they’ve forgotten that they are living near other European peoples. Germans, and Czechs, and Slovaks have already hoarsened trying hard to convince Poles to refuse from this idea. Even Belgium refused from building of its own plant. But nothing can stop those stupid stubborn Poles. They decided to expose nuclear threat all territories around Poland from Belarus to Lithuania.
If Poles would build their NPPs we would all die! Don’t let them do that. SOS! Stop Poles!

Maciamo
15-11-11, 18:18
It seems like Japanese catastrophe has taught Poles nothing.

I am sorry, but I quite disagree with your stance. If the Fukushima accident has taught us something it is not to build nuclear plants in highly seismic areas nor on coasts facing oceans at risk of being hit by a tsunami. The latter is more important because the chances of a strong earth quake occurring just under a nuclear plant are actually quite small. There has been powerful quakes about 100 km from the Oi nuclear plant (1995 Kobe earthquake) and the Onagawa plant (2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake), but that was much too far to affect them. An earthquake of magnitude 6.5 or more would need to happen roughly within a 10 to 20 km radius (depending on the depth and type of tremor) from a nuclear plant to put it in danger. When you know that such powerful earthquakes have only happened once every 3 years in average from 1945 to 2010, the chances of this happening in a country the size of Japan (377,944 km2) are still pretty slim (despite it being the one of he most seismic place on Earth).

In contrast, tsunami can affect a coastal area of thousands of kilometres, and therefore any nuclear plant located on that coast. Did you know that almost all Japanese nuclear reactors are located along the coast (including 5 facing directly the Pacific Ocean) ? That was a suicidal of Japan.

Poland doesn't have earthquakes nor tsunami. So where is the problem ?

Cimmerianbloke
16-11-11, 06:59
I agree with Maciamo, no exposure to natural calamities, no need to predict the end of the world here... Elles, you are very naive if you think Europe can sustain its energy needs without nuclear power. I am aware it is at the moment politically incorrect and/or insensitive to be pronuclear, but I am not an idiot, and I don't want to see my energy bill skyrocket because of the paranoid green ayatollahs. Poland uses coal to produce electricity, and it does a lot of damage to the environment (for the anecdote, the village where my grandmother was born is now a mining site...) and highly contributes to global warming, or so seem to think the experts. Nuclear plants nowadays are fairly safe, the main issue being the treatment of nuclear waste. Poles are less stupid than the Germans on this one, cause the Germans are going to close existing and well-working nuclear infrastructures. Herr Schröder saw to it that his very good friend Vladimir P. would provide Germany with competitively priced oil and gas, and the Germans can sleep tight, the Russians are not going to turn off the tap, niet niet niet...

Antigone
16-11-11, 07:15
I think Elles that you need to go and do some proper research into the Coal Industry, the Nuclear Energy industry, Fukushima and the Polish nuclear project and then you will be able to make an intelligent, informed decision on whether you are for or against Nuclear Power. But all you are doing right now is repeating hysterical nonsense that does not contain a lot of logic.

Yetos
16-11-11, 08:14
let me remind you all

Chernobyll at 80's

was not in seismic area (earthquake)
was not near sea,
yet the blow reached scands and balkans,

after chernobyl boom the lemphonas have unknown raise but reach even to 200% in some areas,
the after depleted Uranium bombs give about 300% raise of lemphomas in Balkans,
just for Hodgekin the estimation in south balkans was about 17/100 000 and now reach 45/100 000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

also some must remember the kozloduy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozloduy_Nuclear_Power_Plant

which at late 90's was also about to boom
but a good hundle and a previous warning by the small leaks drove fate of reactors 1-4 to close,
according Demokritos (greek nuclear search center) and Auth university few small leaks of radio had happened that time
thank god that was in time to avoid another boom


5356

thyroid cancer in belarus after chernobyll

red is children yellow is adults
the data is from wiki

nuclear energy is just like cigarette
does not kill at once
does not kill in small time
but causes a painful longtime death

Cimmerianbloke
16-11-11, 12:09
The accident in Chernobyl was due to a supervisor mishandling one of the reactors during a simulation test. That was USSR and that was 1986. Technology has evolved and is more secure than ever. Nuclear energy kills less than cars and tobacco. Of course, without nuclear energy, you would live forever... Why don't tree huggers buy a static bike and produce their own energy supply instead of wasting people's time and power trying to convince 21st Century citizens of the evils of technology ?
Kudos to the Poles for doing what they think is best for them regardless of what the rest of the continent thinks.

Yetos
16-11-11, 14:38
The accident in Chernobyl was due to a supervisor mishandling one of the reactors during a simulation test. That was USSR and that was 1986. Technology has evolved and is more secure than ever. Nuclear energy kills less than cars and tobacco. Of course, without nuclear energy, you would live forever... Why don't tree huggers buy a static bike and produce their own energy supply instead of wasting people's time and power trying to convince 21st Century citizens of the evils of technology ?
Kudos to the Poles for doing what they think is best for them regardless of what the rest of the continent thinks.



in 1986 the ex-Ussr was telling he same,
progress over land, we are the future, we have nuclear blah blah blah
in the test of manhattan project us took troops to new mexico desert
just to say that radioactive is innocent and harmless
how many of those troops died, by painfull longtime death
japan the brilliant minds of East, the ones that have train that stands on air etc etc
yet they also had it

the history of nuclear as massive production is dirty
although i do not deny that nuclear is useful only in small reactor inside small and well secure areas just for radio-medicine

besides who cares if something happens it maybe have west winds or east winds
hope not south.

I wonder what someone will believe
if he lose 2 close family persons by lemphoma's like me

except if radio energy is not movable,
example in fukushima a small fish eat a medussas gets more radio a bigger eats many small get more BK finally a shark who eats everything gets many fish and is like a radio carrier,
fisherman took it and served it as soup
and people elsewhere get clear and pure and harmless nuclear :grin:

Yetos
18-11-11, 11:34
why Nuclear is unsafe or at least is non legal

Every morning I take my car and I go work shopping etc,
In order to drive my car, I need license, check control of mechanicals card, and Insurance
why I have to pay insurance?
State force me to pay insurance to drive a car Just in case o accident
for a possible accident I make or someone else to be covered (safe)

in case of a nuclear accident who is paying the insurance?

the chernobyl case killed or injured (cancer) millions of people, who payed the damage?
USSR?, Ucraine? NOBODY
if an accident happens in Central Europe example, and millions get cancer or killed or whatever, who will pay the damage?
who will pay the medicines? the cures? the life insurance for accident to the kids
NOBODY!!!!
they will say, you should pay your working stamps insurance,

Until the day that WHO and the others pay insurance for a possible accident, until that day Nuclear is dangerous Hazardous not clean and unsafe,

If I kill or get killed in an accident insurance will pay for my or the others accident,
if I died or get cancer by radio then the Nuclear companies must pay,
when they are covered by insurance then we might speak again about how safe is Nuclear,

Be smart, Nuclear is massive killer that does not pay insurance,
it is like a driver with license and check control card but no insurance payed
I was reading that rice in Japan is infected by radio -Caisium (καισιο)

when you lose someone close to you by radio-infection and the companies do not even pay the cure or the hospital then you will understand.

Why I have to pay to drive my car for a possible accident, and they don't
equal laws for everybody

Cimmerianbloke
19-11-11, 02:15
You have a point Yetos, time to get a static bike and start pedalling to power your PC and your internet router... Nobody said life was fair, and don't believe anyone who tries to convince you of the contrary.

Yetos
19-11-11, 04:16
You have a point Yetos, time to get a static bike and start pedalling to power your PC and your internet router... Nobody said life was fair, and don't believe anyone who tries to convince you of the contrary.


correct, there are many alter ways, sun, wind, geothermal, gravitational sea waves, tidal sea waves, hydro-power, city - urban garbage, termites, bio-fuel etc
just consider that 15-20% of Toronto Ca power is after urban garbage of the city production !!!!!
and we still talk about Nuclear!!!

we use a noble kind of energy like electricity to warm our houses!!!!
and you talk about a bike?
the most stupid thing of modern humanity is the usage of one noble form of energy to a cheap form, the most common form the heat.
so who is superior the ones who produce current from bike or the one that uses electricity for heat?
just consider the losses of power,
to produce electric, n<100% to transfer it, to use it in heat machine, wow about 30% to 40% of losses!!!! just for natural gas energy plants wow
in fact nuclear power can be a casus beli as in case of Iran

a doctor might have a license to kill
but a license to kill does not make you a doctor.
if life is not fair, then it is always time to ask our rights,
the point is do we know our rights?

Cimmerianbloke
19-11-11, 23:49
I don't believe in a scale of nobility for energy supply, Yetos, and I would like, just as anyone else, to be able to say that my power consumption would not damage the planet and would allow me to leave a safer and cleaner world to my 2 children. Sadly, green energy is not really cheaper for the consumer, as many people in Germany can testify. As for Iran, do not mix nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, they are very different issues.

Antigone
20-11-11, 06:45
There is no 100% safe form of energy supply for the quantity of power we need today. And the supposed "green" energy options like hydro-electric or wind power also create their own enviromental problems, they are just different problems from the ones created by coal or uranuim. But they are still problems and damaging to the local enviroment even so.

Yetos
20-11-11, 09:20
I don't believe in a scale of nobility for energy supply, Yetos, and I would like, just as anyone else, to be able to say that my power consumption would not damage the planet and would allow me to leave a safer and cleaner world to my 2 children. Sadly, green energy is not really cheaper for the consumer, as many people in Germany can testify. As for Iran, do not mix nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, they are very different issues.


No matter you believe it or not nobility in forms of energy of exist,
extra consuming energy does help your children's future,
Green energy is expencive cause Bankers want it so,
in my farm I create electric power by a cheap old form of rainforced glass cause a good german solar panel is at least 300% above its cost (guess why?), I might get only 50% of the power, but it is enough,
we give money to save banks and not money to save planet,
we use electric to heat with a loss of 30-40% of its original energy value,
every body knows about economics today, does everybody knows about ecologic today?
how much garbage is burried in Germany? have you any idea? do you imagine if this quantity turn to methanium and move an electro-power like in Toronto.CAN? do you imagine that garbage to be turn in 'biscuit' for thermal activities?

the rice in Japan will not be drop at sea, or destroyed, as you might think, its has example 100% over the limits? ok if with mix it with 100/1 with good rice, it can be consumed, if you want to feed your kids that then ok, go ahead
Just consider if Bankers can raise or drop goverments and control media, what they can do with energy solutions,

in my farm I made a small limited production with a cost of 4500 E that can supply me electricity enough for day, and some extra to heat my bio-fuel production for cloudy days and heat, and a good 24 volt light at night, an industrial solution would cost at least 18 000 E due to bankers trust in energy solutions,

I still can not get it, in WW2 some countries had the luxury to produce synthetic fuel with out nuclear power,
why today they need nuclear?



There is no 100% safe form of energy supply for the quantity of power we need today. And the supposed "green" energy options like hydro-electric or wind power also create their own enviromental problems, they are just different problems from the ones created by coal or uranuim. But they are still problems and damaging to the local enviroment even so.

correct the effectiveness of some alternate forms of energy might create small troubles in the micro-weather of some limited areas,
but lets consider
1 the effective area is 000 times smaller than radio effective areas,
2 the the effective is according the density so it can be controled,
3 non human occupied areas can be chosen,
4 IT CAN CREATE LIFE, and that is the most amazing, an example is in Mexico Gulf where an old offshore driller became a riff and at its top it can produce energy by using both wind and gravitational waves, the riff from 3rd year and after start to be a living area for a small sea ecosystem,
helping local fisherman also,
same can be done in Hydropower by creating small lakes-tanks of water
a good example is Crete and Lashithi plateau
a local politician and a group of 'scientists' moved the search for water towards lasithi and in an old stream, they design a monster 'wall' just to 'eat money' and the results was bad,
instead on the other side of Herakleion the underneath water quantities were bigger and another design could give better results and a small hydro of 2 MW and solve better the water demands and control, I think the name of stream is aposelemis,
on the other side of the island Chania with just a few money they estimate the underneath karst phenomena and create underneath tanks, by blocking water movement, of water supply which at least do not loose water in evaporated form,

For all those who opposed me,
well just think, if every building had few, not many, panels in the roof how much energy from air-condition in summer we could save!!!!!!!!
means less nuclear, less carbon dioxide,

Antigone
20-11-11, 13:44
Sorry, but I am not impressed with hydro-electricity. I lived with it in Australia and the enviromental damage is not limited to a small area, but rather covers a massive area. Simply because one eco system lives off the next eco system and the next and so on until you have a chain reaction of damage over a large area all because of artificial interference that began in one small zone.

Start by reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme and there are plenty of enviromental impact reports on the Australian scheme around for you to follow up on. But you'll get an idea of the massive area actually needed to supply the substantial amount of hydro-electricty that is required today.

Robert22
20-11-11, 19:24
why cant they learn from Japan
Nuclear power is not good, it is too uncontrollable and dangerous.