Expanding Nuclear Energy (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 04:05:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Expanding Nuclear Energy (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you support expanding nuclear energy to meet CO2 emissions reductions?
#1
Democrat: Yes		  
#2
Democrat: No		  
#3
Republican: Yes		  
#4
Republican: No		  
#5
independent/third party: Yes		  
#6
independent/third party: No		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Expanding Nuclear Energy  (Read 6978 times)
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« on: May 21, 2009, 09:09:49 AM »
Yes of course (normal)  Only people that hate the enviroment would vote no.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2009, 12:16:07 AM »
This is great.  Last time we did this a few on the left were still anti-nuke power (if I remember correctly).  Either ignorance has been fought and defeated or the ignorant are afraid to post in this thread (or I'm remembering wrong).
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2009, 11:38:39 PM »
Yeah, they are very expensive to build...but that's not why we don't have a bunch of new ones and others that are being built.  It's because the greens used excellent fearmongering for the last 3 decades.  Ignorance can be a very dangerous thing....especially when it can't be questioned because "OMG you must hate the environments!"
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2009, 05:26:47 AM »
Perhaps she has come up with the blueprint for the perpetual motion machine?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2009, 09:49:09 AM »
Quote from: Dc_united_15 on May 25, 2009, 09:14:01 AM
depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.
How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What happens to coal waste?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2009, 10:39:52 AM »
Quote from: Dc_united_15 on May 25, 2009, 10:32:00 PM
Quote from: Mint on May 25, 2009, 06:57:09 PM
Quote from: dead0man on May 25, 2009, 09:49:09 AM
Quote from: Dc_united_15 on May 25, 2009, 09:14:01 AM
depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.
How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What happens to coal waste?
Not to mention that coal waste as stored actually emits more radiation than radioactive waste.
nulcear waste will be here forever if we go that way.
From the first several paragraphs of article Mint linked too:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,347
United States


« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2009, 05:38:15 AM »
Quote from: bullmoose88 on May 31, 2009, 07:22:51 PM
Like Don, R-Yes, but with some reservations.

But if you live near a major naval base, don't you pretty much live near a nuclear reactor or reactors?  The navy's been doing this safely for decades and so has the country, save one incident.
One incident that didn't actually hurt anybody.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 13 queries.