English Overrated technology and myths

6 replies
Goto Page
To the start Previous 1 Next To the start
Poll Poll
Did you..
Only registered users are allowed to vote
Learn anything new
0.00% (0)
Already know about this
100.00% (3)
3 votes cast
Up
ModJuicer
Super User
Offline Off
• This is for people like me who believed the bs online

Disclaimer --- Just to clear up the facts from my previous thread, Underrated Technology: Yes, I actually did believe the stuff at the time and was not trolling, but only because my friends convince me that some of the stuff was true (and the rest was just a snowball effect of me researching different bs related to the stuff)

Now I have been Enlightened that it's just conspiracy bs. Now I am interested in a different side of things and want to share some of it with you, especially those of you that were like me and believed the bs they taught you online.

Some of you may already know this, but it's still cool nonetheless

Myth and conspiracy debunker:

Nuclear Power:

The real facts >


Waste:

The real facts >



please feel free to point out any stuff I get wrong, but don't be toxic about it.

also more stuff is coming
edited 1×, last 02.10.19 10:26:03 pm
Download SII Enhanced Here> IMG:https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/adb3/7cwx7c9bgnfmyfg6g.jpg
< Download SII Enhanced Here
02.10.19 10:38:00 pm
Up
DC
Admin
Offline Off
I agree with some points but others are not true or just very shortsighted.

Quote:
Nuclear waste is easily transported safely and buried in the ground where it will be completely harmless to anyone.

There are at least 2 huge problems with this concept:
• some nuclear waste has a half life which is FAR longer than the existence of mankind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste.) Nothing humans can construct today can ensure safe storage for such a long time. In fact even warning signs are a problem because they don't survive that long and also people might not even understand them anymore in like 1 mio years
• Agreed, direct contact is unlikely when stuff is buried. BUT guess what else is comes from down there? Right, one of the most precious resources on earth: the water we're drinking. So you want to bury deadly stuff next to that? In fact very few regions are suitable as a "final" storage. Most regions don't have ground which is stable enough, there are earthquakes etc.

Also it's NOT "easily transported safely". It's fatal being close to it. Even when inside thick and expensive containers it still has so much radiation that workers are not allowed to stand close to it for longer periods of time.

Quote:
only 0.005% of the average american's radiation dose comes from nuclear power meaning that it doesn't cause much cancer - that's a small number

That number is quite meaningless considering that
• It's the average value of ALL Americans (there are a LOT of those and I bet the majority isn't living very close to nuclear power plants)
• America did not have an accident like like Chernobyl or Fukushima (as far as we know). Maybe the values look worse if you take people affected by nuclear bomb test radiation into account

Quote:
There are regulations on power plants that will prevent any future Chernobyl (unless maybe there's a tidal wave or earthquake but that's another story)

You already said it yourself. Serious incidents are unlikely but they are possible. Humans make mistakes and the number of catastrophic climate events continues to rise.

One of the biggest problem with plastic waste is that much of that stuff becomes micro plastic before we can "properly" handle it (if that's even fully possible) and that stuff is in our drinking water and therefore also in our food and.. well that's not very healthy. Neither for animals nor for us. Apparently it's so small that it's not trivial to filter it out and of course you also can't remove such small plastic particles from the meat you're eating.
www.UnrealSoftware.de | www.CS2D.com | www.CarnageContest.com | Use the forum & avoid PMs!
02.10.19 11:26:52 pm
Up
ModJuicer
Super User
Offline Off
> agreed. I forgot to mention less than 1% of the nuclear waste is radioactive for 10,000 years, and the radiation emitted from this is comparable to things in the environment.

> about the burying, people aren't stupid and they bury the stuff in very isolated places, quite deep in the earth.

> Not transported easily is easy to say, but harder to prove, as people transport them in semis to the waste site and so far no problems have occured with the waste. Were a problem to occur, it would be relatively small and although the highway route would probably have to be altered, it wouldn't have too big as long as it isn't a massive amount, because it would be easy to clean up. also, nuclear waste doesn't explode because it doesn't have enough energy, although it can get pretty hot and stuff.

> I do not take nuclear bombs into question because they were deliberate and much different than reactors.

> With modern tech, we will probably do nuclear cleanup with robots or something if problems happen, but this would be mostly due to poor maintenance.

I have researched the facts, along with visited with my (very informative and critical thinking) cousins.

also i learned one important thing - anything that appears shocking or amazing, or just cool, and you're hyped about it, there is a 90% chance there is a backstory that the informer(website, news, etc) "forgot" to mention.

It is also very fun for media story tellers to manipulate your emotions to make you biased and think on their side or at least look at some more of their articles (Think $$$ for the media)

no offense to the media, though, things wouldn't be the same without them, in good and bad ways.

thank you for replying us

EDIT:
Quote:
That number [0.005%] is quite meaningless considering that
• It's the average value of ALL Americans (there are a LOT of those and I bet the majority isn't living very close to nuclear power plants)


even then, there is only a small amount, even for those living close to the reactors. (also, even if some of them got about half their radiation from nuclear reactors, that would be a small amount and also pretty unsubstantial)

Micro plastics: I know about them but there are much, much more serious things, like air pollution that is actually proven to kill people. (also, microfibers that are more numerous and dangerous than micro-plastics but still not 100% circumstantial)
To solve air pollution (the bigger issue that kills millions yearly) we need more nuclear reactors to replace oil and coal powered power plants.

in short: people are smart, and many problems with nuclear reactors and waste are looked at and considered for feasibility. Risks are weighed, and nuclear power is the best option. It has the fewest casualty rate per kwh out of all power methods, making it much safer.
edited 1×, last 03.10.19 04:55:24 pm
Download SII Enhanced Here> IMG:https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/adb3/7cwx7c9bgnfmyfg6g.jpg
< Download SII Enhanced Here
04.10.19 07:30:07 pm
Up
Bowlinghead
User
Offline Off
I do not know much about this geo-enginering stuff.
But it sounds like you want us to convince of nuclear power plants.

Every source of energy got its advantages and disadvantages.
Wind turbines do hurt animals, bugs, etc. but you can also place them where no nature is anyway.
Solar panels block the light for flowers'n'stuff but you can place them on top of roofes.
Nuclear plants do produze very much energy on a small size with quite few materials, etc. but also produce unusuable trash.

Solar parks
What about the massive solar panel park in the deserts?
Is that a valid option despite the (inter)national conflicts?
Lets suppose that a giant grid of solar cells could generate 100% of the global energy demands theoreticly.
We would change the eco system of the desert. All the animals have to adapt to the missing heat.

Nature
Often in history the nature found a good method to solve problems. Like the balance between CO2 and air. How trees provide shelter, food for animals.
We probably should try organic methods like trees that create electricity by C02 (both components are there; in our brain and in every flower. we just gotta combain them kinda)
It doesnt have to be electricity anyway.
Around chernobyl the animals adopted quite okaish, right?
(The DNA copy transfers even more erros duo to radioactivity , isnt it?)

Smart electric
We often use electricity to produce raw heat. For example in every industrial washing mashine, fridge, block-type thermal power stations, etc. We could use that to reduce global cpu power. Running a computer basicly produces pure heat. Processing power for free!
We could implement coils under every street. So you dont need (big) batteries for electric cars as the street itself provides enough power all the time solving the biggest problem at this topic. It is not that expensive if you think that if everytime you recreate streets you install these transformers.



More >
Share time limited free games here
07.10.19 04:57:17 pm
Up
ModJuicer
Super User
Offline Off
of course there are possibly better ways to produce electricity. Nuclear, as I have researched, is quite expensive per kwh to produce electricity. Maybe wind, too, because of it's low price. However, I thoroughly hate wind turbines because they ruin the landscape.

Hydroelectric power should be used wherever possible. It is the cheapest possible form of energy, and although there are those against it who dislike them, a lot of environmental problems have been solved, so they are no longer horrible fish killing machines.

Smart electric: Not very smart really. It sounds very unsustainable and for problems that barely exist. Teslas already charge very quickly.
Download SII Enhanced Here> IMG:https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/adb3/7cwx7c9bgnfmyfg6g.jpg
< Download SII Enhanced Here
07.10.19 05:22:04 pm
Up
ohaz
User
Offline Off
user ModJuicer has written:
However, I thoroughly hate wind turbines because they ruin the landscape.
imho, they ruin the landscape way less than an exploding nuclear powerplant, the waste that's rotting for thousands of years, or dams.
https://ohaz.engineer - Software Engineering
07.10.19 07:27:15 pm
Up
ModJuicer
Super User
Offline Off
False. Dams look just fine because they are close to ground level.
Exploding power plants: sure, they ruin the landscape. The thing is, exploding power plants are not as common as regular power plants. lol

The waste that's rotting for thousands of years is not very radioactive which is why it lasts so long. The longer it lasts the less radiation it emits proportionally.

With waste that lasts thousands of years, it emits radiation comparable to the radiation in the environment.
edited 1×, last 08.10.19 06:41:34 pm
Download SII Enhanced Here> IMG:https://www.mediafire.com/convkey/adb3/7cwx7c9bgnfmyfg6g.jpg
< Download SII Enhanced Here
To the start Previous 1 Next To the start