Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    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...
    I thought you were referring to electron shells etc

    j.alexanderh's comment is more what i was trying to demonstrate.
    Offline

    10
    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
    Please go research how a nuclear plant works, also look into thorium reactors and how they don't rely on chain reaction fission.

    If you actually bothered to learn more about the process of nuclear fission and how its done in MODERN nuclear reactors you would realise how much of an amazing energy source it is.

    Nuclear reactors don't "blow up" the only way a reactor can blow up is when a fire breaks out within the power plant and reaches a source of hydrogen.
    (I think modern nuclear plants have stopped using hydrogen now)
    There's no such thing as a nuclear explosion within a power plant as the nuclear chain reaction is nothing like the chain reaction within a nuclear bomb.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no to nuclear, yes to renewable
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we've had accidents with nuclear power stations but as technology improved they've gotten much safer. Besides there is no other real solution to support the power demands of people once fossil fuels run out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    neg me every time I make a decent comment
    well you have nothing to worry about then
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No nuclear
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loquita)
    No nuclear
    You have to justify things that you say. You haven't, so prepare to be ignored.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They're currently trying to build 5 huge wind turbines near my house and I'm one of the most vocally opposed to them in the area.

    Nuclear is the answer we need.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nuclear power is the answer until a nuclear plant blows up in your back yard, then you'll be yelling "8£&$$ nuclear power"!

    But it is kind of a necessity in this day and age to secure the energy security of the UK.
    Offline

    16
    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...
    I'm beginning to think you're actually trolling. :lolwut:

    You really think that a simplified "argument" put forward in a GCSE textbook is proof that nuclear energy is bad? You are aware that the national curriculum compels teachers to teach both sides of the nuclear debate. What it doesn't do is accurately balance the argument because of how simplistically they present it:

    Nuclear

    Pros: Low carbon emissions
    Cons: CHERNOBYL!!1111
    Offline

    15
    OK.
    I now understand why you believe nuclear is the answer to our future energy demands and why renewable's just won't cut it.
    But surely you all realise if their was another accident in a nuclear plant, then something terrible could happen. I mean look at how many people had to be evacuated from the nuclear plant?

    Basically I'm saying yes to nuclear but on a lesser scale and yes to renewable's, because you never know we could find more efficient ways of harnessing energy to make it more worthwhile.

    Ps the prove that we can do it with renewable's comes from the bbc breakfast show on in the mornings; their was a debate between for and against.

    Thank you for understanding where I now stand on this matter.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cambo211)
    They're currently trying to build 5 huge wind turbines near my house and I'm one of the most vocally opposed to them in the area.

    Nuclear is the answer we need.
    Out of curiosity if they were planning a nuclear plant near by how would you feel?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing wrong with nuclear at all. If we can harness just a fraction of the power it can provide we're sorted for life and therefore its worth it. For the absolutely minute chance that something goes wrong its ridiculous abandoning all nuclear programs. I'd be absolutely fine living next to a nuclear power station/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People are rightly scared of nuclear power as if things go wrong radiation is a terrifying invisible killer, however being mature about it the odds of a modern nuclear power plant going wrong are so minuscule and even if they go really wrong like in Japan (oldish plant) it doesn't transform the country into a desolate wasteland! So, Nuclear power....YES!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    Then you should feel sorry for the workers that died via nuclear plants :mad: If it was solar power, they wouldn't have.
    Fun fact:
    In the UK, more people have been killed during the construction of renewable energy projects in the last decade than have died in the entire history of our nuclear industries.

    (Original post by blueray)


    It was this
    424 × 302 - Japan Nuclear Meltdown. Operators at the Fukushima Daiichi plant's Unit 1 source
    onlineusanews.com

    I hope to god you get your facts right. Oh wait I see fact not fiction! :teehee:
    You genuinely don't know what a nuclear power plant looks like do you?

    (Original post by blueray)
    Yeah this is pointless... Clicks stop watching thread.
    It's fun being wrong isn't it?


    By the by, for anyone who's interested, was having a discussion on this yesterday with one of my medic friends. They've been doing some research in a place in Iran (Reza?) where the level of natural background radiation is about 150-350mSv per year (about 800-2000 times what it is here, and much higher than the levels within the exclusion zone in japan) looking at the effect that has on birth defects and cancers.
    Very interestingly - there is so far no quantifiable difference.

    So yes, I wouldn't mind a nuclear plant nearby - would bring employment to the area. Would prefer it to be a thorium one because that's the future of nuclear energy as far as I'm concerned, but modern reactors are nothing to be afraid of.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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. Very much this. Also, reply to my message
    (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.
    Now, I know they're bull because really anyone with half a brain cell can figure that out - but I don't know what is correct. Any chance you could give me a rough idea of what is closer to the truth? My crappy teacher just says "that's not on the syllabus"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Out of curiosity if they were planning a nuclear plant near by how would you feel?
    If it was in exactly the same place then i'd still oppose it as it most certainly isn't the area for a development of that scale. If they could find a site nearby that was suitable and they made sure the infrastructure was put in place to handle the increased traffic and other things then i'd have no more of an issue with it than any other building.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.