Turn on thread page Beta

Nuclear Power: Join the Debate? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    This is pointless.
    Once a nuclear plant blows up near you, you will realise what I mean.
    Here's a great quote that I use in times like these.

    "Do not try to teach those that can't be taught."

    I shall not waste any more time trying to teach you all.

    Class is dismissed.
    Technology has improved rapidly from the times of Chernobyl.

    It's saying we shouldn't go on planes due to plane crashes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    This is pointless.
    Once a nuclear plant blows up near you, you will realise what I mean.
    Here's a great quote that I use in times like these.

    "Do not try to teach those that can't be taught."

    I shall not waste any more time trying to teach you all.

    Class is dismissed.
    Yeah, but they won't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Yeah, but they won't.
    This sums up my opinion rather succinctly :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    This is pointless.
    Once a nuclear plant blows up near you, you will realise what I mean.
    Here's a great quote that I use in times like these.

    "Do not try to teach those that can't be taught."

    I shall not waste any more time trying to teach you all.

    Class is dismissed.

    P.S. At Im not so academic (I once again ask you to refrain from talking until you learn how to use google )
    http://www.examiner.com/environmenta...and-the-nation
    Wow. You are annoying, persistent, uninformed, impervious to criticism, you ignore every counter-argument put forward to you, and you still think that nuclear power is dangerous. Do you get your arguments from the GCSE science textbook? I seem to remember quite a few of those appearing in there.
    Offline

    15
    Nothing is impossible.

    j.alexanderh "Do you get your arguments from the GCSE science textbook?"
    I do get textbook answers, that just proves I'm right. Since its in the national curriculum and you get tested on it every year in physics so...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meteorshower)
    This sums up my opinion rather succinctly :p:


    Seriously, Dungeness is so safe that they let people tour around it before 9/11, and Dungeness A is (or was) a crappy old Magnox reactor. The new PWR reactors we're about to build are absurdly safe, and then there's the possibility of introducing fourth-generation Thorium reactors after that which are basically risk-free.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Nothing is impossible.

    j.alexanderh "Do you get your arguments from the GCSE science textbook?"
    I do get textbook answers, that just proves I'm right. Since its in the national curriculum and you get tested on it every year in physics so...
    The GCSE science curriculum is the biggest pile of **** I have ever seen. A ridiculous amount of the information in it is flawed, and the 'advantages/disadvantages' sections only address things at the most basic level. You will look ridiculous using those arguments against people such as Vlad who actually know what they are talking about.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    The GCSE science curriculum is the biggest pile of **** I have ever seen. A ridiculous amount of the information in it is flawed, and the 'advantages/disadvantages' sections only address things at the most basic level. You will look ridiculous using those arguments against people such as Vlad who actually know what they are talking about.
    This one of your suck up goons vlad? Geez J. your just proving all my points..seriously.
    So what did you get in your science gcses then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Geez J. your just proving all my points..seriously
    lolwut.

    So what did you get in your science gcses then?
    What does this have to do with anything? (A*A*, in case you interpret that to mean I did badly, but seriously, what the hell does this have to do with anything?)
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    Nothing is impossible.

    j.alexanderh "Do you get your arguments from the GCSE science textbook?"
    I do get textbook answers, that just proves I'm right. Since its in the national curriculum and you get tested on it every year in physics so...
    :lolwut: The content in those textbooks are not gospel truth. Ask anyone doing Chemistry to a more advanced level. The "electron shells" described in GCSE Chemistry are frankly bull.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They're actually probably very good things to have near your community, providing huge numbers of jobs. I know the one in Heysham takes on a good few pupils every year when they've finished school.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    lolwut.
    What does this have to do with anything? (A*A*, in case you interpret that to mean I did badly, but seriously, what the hell does this have to do with anything?)
    It means you rely on vlad to do the talking as you lack the scientific knowledge to speak.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    :lolwut: The content in those textbooks are not gospel truth. Ask anyone doing Chemistry to a more advanced level. The "electron shells" described in GCSE Chemistry are frankly bull.
    He didn't say what textbook.


    Yeah this is pointless... Clicks stop watching thread.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by blueray)
    It means you rely on vlad to do the talking as you lack the scientific knowledge to speak.



    He didn't say what textbook.


    Yeah this is pointless... Clicks stop watching thread.
    Would it really matter?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    It means you rely on vlad to do the talking as you lack the scientific knowledge to speak.
    1) I can tell immediately that I have more knowledge on the topic than you and 2) Vlad obviously has much more than both of us so it is very sensible of me to shut up and listen to him (metaphorically speaking).

    @imsoacademic: the section on electron shells isn't a problem; that is an intentionally simpler model designed to facilitate early understanding. I am more worried about things like the section on creationism: 'Some scientists have interpreted the fossil record to show that organisms have not evolved over time, but that they were created. This theory is called creationism.' Anyone reading that would think that evolution and creationism were two viable competing theories. And that anyone, scientist or otherwise, has ever put forward a robust argument against evolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You've got to be amazingly selfish not to want nuclear power, when the risks are so low- yet the small percentage of developed nations are causing increased droughts and floods killing millions in other countries. Nuclear power is the best, safest, and to date killed the least people than any other power source.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think if people who lived near a power station payed less tax on their carbon footprint, people would see the benefit. Its like making people pay for the amount of garbage they throw away- incentives are needed!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    1) I can tell immediately that I have more knowledge on the topic than you and 2) Vlad obviously has much more than both of us so it is very sensible of me to shut up and listen to him (metaphorically speaking).

    @imsoacademic: the section on electron shells isn't a problem; that is an intentionally simpler model designed to facilitate early understanding. I am more worried about things like the section on creationism: 'Some scientists have interpreted the fossil record to show that organisms have not evolved over time, but that they were created. This theory is called creationism.' Anyone reading that would think that evolution and creationism were two viable competing theories. And that anyone, scientist or otherwise, has ever put forward a robust argument against evolution.
    But it isn't scientifically correct, is it?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    But it isn't scientifically correct, is it?
    I'm now on my third course of quantum mechanics at uni, and most of it is scientifically incorrect.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    But it isn't scientifically correct, is it?
    So? It would take up almost a whole module of its own to explain everything from a position of little knowledge, and few people would understand it. It's like how we learn Newtonian gravity before general relativity because it is easier but still carries the same fundamental ideas.

    Anyway, this is a discussion for another thread. I'm pro-nuclear power, largely from practical arguments that we do not have enough fossil fuels to last for very long, and of course there is the issue of global warming, and 'green' energy sources are not going to provide enough to meet base demand. Also, I do not think that nuclear power stations pose a serious safety hazard at all, especially in the UK.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Meteorshower)
    I'm now on my third course of quantum mechanics at uni, and most of it is scientifically incorrect.
    Exactly. What's what I am saying as the user Blueray is stating that his opinions are valid because they're in the GCSE Science textbooks...
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.