European Fallout. r/polandball. 1 9 8 6 what are you talking about? the free market will always provide the most efficient and safe service possible. just don'
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

European Fallout


Tags: no | tags | for | You
1 9 8 6 what are you talking about? the free
market will always provide the most
efficient and safe service possible. just
don' t forget to use uranium, so we can
turn it into A( ) -Bombs
cleaner than , but is oui, es tres fable
not also dangerously?
not of sure guys, atomic energy is (
In the past decades, the atomic energie was
of very reliable and safe. that is why I of
decicions to use it for at least 30 more yea-
there just has been a reactor
in japan, endangering the whole region
of fukushima
as I was sayings, we of immediately shut
down all reactors and make atomic energy of
verboten in whole of germany, for make life
and safe
pff, es an petit accident. will
stop pas my programme nuclear
Views: 31377
Favorited: 35
Submitted: 11/03/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to sequel Subscribe to polandball E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
#77 - senjougahara ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
All these people thinking of Stalker when the mask is clearly a Helghast mask.
#74 - dapsychocat (11/04/2013) [-]
THIS is what a coal mine looks like. Still good for your "landshafts", idiot ?

Seriously, coal exploitation in Germany is causing entire towns to be wiped out. Also, the pollution of the air is way worse.

Think before you post.
#90 to #74 - anonymous (11/18/2013) [-]
Jokes on you, germany has almost no coal mines working any more, importing it is simply cheaper
User avatar #60 - reginleif (11/04/2013) [-]
The thing is more responsible governments that COULD benefit from the safe production of nuke energy are the ones scared right now.

It's the **** tier countries with their lack of accountability that not only do not know what they're doing, they just don't care.

And yeah I'm including the US in this tier, it's painfully obvious we can't self regulate our energy.
#63 to #60 - thesimonved (11/04/2013) [-]
There is no safe production of nuke energy, because you can't control that **** .

Germany is one of the technically most advanced countries and even they had disfunctions in their nuklear power plants on a regular basis. Those disfunctions just weren't made public.

User avatar #64 to #63 - MrZoom (11/04/2013) [-]
The nuke program in the US is fantastic. But since natural gas is so freaking cheap right now they are not building any new nuke plants, and the old ones are going to be shut down within ten years or so.

Shame... I really like nuclear power.
#65 to #64 - thesimonved (11/04/2013) [-]
Tell that Chernobylians or Japenese People, mhmmm, okay the japanese are stupid enough to let Tepco build new plants....

Seriously, natural gas is bad for the environment because of CO², oil is bad for two reasons, Hydraulic Fracturing and CO² and if a nuklear plant explodes, well, ........death and all his friends.

Do it like the chinese and found evironmental friendly energy sources.
On the other hand ... Russia, USA and China don't give a **** about the kyoto protocol.
User avatar #68 to #65 - MrZoom (11/04/2013) [-]
Chernobyl was using an outdated plan that the US rejected as unsafe.

In Fukoshima we suggested that they have their diesel storage tanks underground, which they did not.

Both of those situations could have been avoided.

The hybrid breeder reactor in use in the USA is efficient and safe. Is solar better? Yup, once it costs less and is more efficient. Wind? Same thing. I would love to see GeoThermal, wind farms, Hydro and solar arrays all over the country. Until then, nuclear is still the most power for the least investment/risk.
#69 to #68 - thesimonved (11/04/2013) [-]
Problem is that you only get one shot....meaning if something is to happen, and I suppose you're not working in a nuklear powerplant and aren't in some kind of supervising council, thus you don't know if it really is as safe as they make it out to be, long story short, if one of those ******* blows up, end of the fun.
And there are incidents they don't tell you about.

But man, who am I to question your beliefs? I just want to maybe open you up to new views. Or old points of view with better arguments....who knows.

At least I know that you're pro "green"-energy, which is sufficient for me
User avatar #70 to #69 - MrZoom (11/04/2013) [-]
Have you looked at the design of a modern breeder reactor? No way in the universe could it "Blow Up."

Even TMI was a minor vent of steam from the secondary cooling loop. I live about 14 miles from Three Mile Island. Moved here when they asked my father to help organize the cleanup and repair of Unit 2. I was majoring in chemistry until I decided to drop out and be a hippy. Yes, green is better. Until we have enough green energy for the whole country/planet, nuke is the second best option.
#75 to #70 - thesimonved (11/04/2013) [-]
Don't know much about breeder reactors, you as a major in chemistry are clearly ahead of me, but aren't those reactors using sodium for cooling purposes?

Natrium reacts pretty badly to heat as far as I know and working together with the "enormous" amount of plutonium being used as "fuel" it makes one decent danger.

--> I mean, yeah, it's being "controlled" and supervised pretty decently, but what if there is a human error or that thing is being targeted?

Not sure about all the chemistry/ physics stuff, please correct me
User avatar #80 to #75 - MrZoom (11/06/2013) [-]
The liquid Sodium reactor has never been built.

Right now we use a couple of different designs, based on the Boiling Water Reactor. The fuel rods are kept submerged in water and surrounded by cobalt control rods which absorb stray electrons. When the rods are pulled back, the reaction can get going and it really heats up. This super heated (hotter than boiling) water is passed through an exchange where it heats water in a secondary loop. This water is never in direct contact with the nuclear fuel, so it is safe and it is used to spin the turbines. When something bad happens, they SCRAM the reactor, dropping all the control rods and stopping the reaction.

In Fukoshima, the reactor went critical because they lost power. This is because the fuel tanks for the auxiliary generators were on the surface, and got washed away.

In Chernobyl, there was no secondary containment vessel for the reactor core, so when they let it go dry and it went super critical, it literally blew its top.

All the reactors in America, as well as most of the modern world, have multiple safety checks in place to keep these things from happening.

Wow, very long! To sum up: One person would be unable to screw things up bad enough to cause anything bad to happen to the reactors in America.
User avatar #56 - tarekmig (11/04/2013) [-]
>TFW awesome games were made when chernobyl disaster occured
User avatar #45 - vinylshark (11/04/2013) [-]
Germany would turn into Helghast?
As German and Killzone fan I approve
User avatar #43 - dambusta (11/04/2013) [-]
what? no chernobyle reference?
User avatar #52 to #43 - torchrose (11/04/2013) [-]
Look closely at the first panel
User avatar #61 to #52 - dambusta (11/04/2013) [-]
*ajusts glasses*............. ahhh ****
#81 to #61 - xaviaxz (11/06/2013) [-]
You mean ahhh brekhnya right?
#41 - thechosentroll (11/04/2013) [-]
On the plus side, ski and gas mask sales are through the roof. Gotta take advantage of that nuclear winter, after all.
#40 - kumimono (11/04/2013) [-]
Germany is building coal plants, IIRC.
#38 - cloymax (11/04/2013) [-]
This made me imagine a German/French S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game

I speak German as my main language and the accents would still drive me insane.
User avatar #30 - microro (11/04/2013) [-]
Get out of here S.T.A.L.K.E.R
#29 - vgcollosus has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
France doesn't have earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and communism. But i'm guess OP's probably german and doesn't give a ****
#78 to #27 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
Because r/polandball in the description totally isn't the source where OP got the comic from which btw means its from REDDIT!
User avatar #79 to #78 - herecomesjohnny ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
what does that change
#62 to #27 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
heard of Human Errors before?
#28 to #27 - neznanc has deleted their comment [-]
#24 - kurbeh (11/04/2013) [-]
I actually laughed. Like, loud. First time in days.
Not just a giggle or something.

Thank you Polandballcomics.
#23 - hecatonchires (11/04/2013) [-]
Yes yes, nuclear power plants are a good energy source. But we should really spend more time and money to make nuclear fussion happen. Yeah sure, they are already putting time and money in it, but not not nearly enough god damnit. (Also until we get there exploring thorium some more would be nice, but isn't going to happen for the reason explained in the comic.)
User avatar #34 to #23 - thelastamerican (11/04/2013) [-]
I present to you: The Z machine. It's interesting, though I 'm pretty certain they scrapped this design a number of years ago.
#67 to #34 - hecatonchires (11/04/2013) [-]
Yeah, they are now building a huge nuclear fussion testing plant in France. But it is going to take a looong time until that is finished. Let alone be usefull.
User avatar #19 - mynameisgeorge (11/04/2013) [-]
Doesn't Germany get a lot of its power from France?

Nice hypocrisy
#15 - hsawryt (11/04/2013) [-]
i like how the artist just got lazy of translating french and threw in a few english words
User avatar #26 to #15 - killthebilly (11/04/2013) [-]
it's probably because nobody would have understood what he said if it was 100% french.
#14 - junkinator ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
All shall bow to the mighty power of Deutsch-ghan
User avatar #51 to #14 - chaossniper (11/04/2013) [-]
so i wasn't alone
#33 to #14 - MaelRadec (11/04/2013) [-]
all hail deutsch-ghan!
#13 - RageRambo ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
Japan: Built on a fault line+Tsunami.

Russia: Held together with gum and paper clips.

Nuclear energy is one of the most safe(If you aren't retarded) efficient sources of energy we have access to. We should be using a ******** more than we are.
#58 to #13 - jukuku (11/04/2013) [-]
Maybe there should be an international agency that approves build sites and keeps standards up to date? Companies cannot regulate themselves effectively.
User avatar #54 to #13 - tarekmig (11/04/2013) [-]
And usa probably forgot to glue Three Mile Island and Davis-Besse together, Right?
User avatar #82 to #54 - subadanus (11/14/2013) [-]
Three mile island was operator fault, and only happened because they went against operator regulation.
User avatar #83 to #82 - tarekmig (11/14/2013) [-]
At least in chernobyl there were educated workers.
User avatar #84 to #83 - subadanus (11/14/2013) [-]
Chernobyl was not just operator fault, but also reactor design. They were educated, and their supervisor demanded they put the reactor into a state which was very unstable. They knew the risk, but they had to do it.

cause you know, commie stuff.
User avatar #85 to #84 - tarekmig (11/14/2013) [-]
I do actually know what happened, kiev required more power , So they put the reactor into an unstable condition, to transfer more power to kiev.
User avatar #86 to #85 - subadanus (11/14/2013) [-]
And then left 1, 2, and 3 running until the 90's even though most of them had fires or partial meltdowns and **** .

my jimjams got rustled when i heard about that
#72 to #54 - darshian (11/04/2013) [-]
No they didnt forget the glue, but they were horribly run and no one gave a flying **** about safety.
#53 to #13 - arandomanon ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
But the problem with nuclear energy isn't the power plants. The process itself is pretty safe unless something truly unexpected happens.
However, the wastes aren't. They are radioactive **** that have a long life and that's a big problem.
If we had a way to get rid of them safely, I'd agree with you.
#47 to #13 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
The energy itself is pretty safe.
But there are some points against nuclear plants:

1. They produce waste we can't handle
2. If an accident happens (there is always a minimal chance) it can **** up a region for decades
3. They are pretty easy targets for terrorism as Greenpeace showed with a french one
#46 to #13 - firesky has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #44 to #13 - daentraya (11/04/2013) [-]
People who want to save the planet and are against nuclear power plants emits this wonderful aura of irony.
And that big terrible nuclear meltdown happened long ago, on an older model. The more they protest nuclear power, the smaller are the chances of people building newer and safer plants
#39 to #13 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
The reactors in the chernobyl plant were a better design than the ones in fukusima in terms of wihtstanding natural disasters. The graphite bars were upheld by electricity, so any equipment or power failure would automaticaly insert them. I'm not denying the flaws that the reactor it had, but its nowhere near something "held together with gum and paper clips".
User avatar #49 to #39 - eddymolly (11/04/2013) [-]
I dunno, it was pretty terrible. The casing around the reactor is meant to be about 20m in total, in Chernobyl it was about 1m.

There were many other bits of it built against regulations, but thats one of the more extreme
#37 to #13 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
I agree, but (pardon my ignorance) what about the nuclear waste we get from this? Or is that, as the content implies, one of the reasons we make atomic bombs?
User avatar #36 to #13 - ompalomper (11/04/2013) [-]
false. thec couldn't afford the paper clips so they prayed instead + they intentionally drove it beyond the safety limit
#32 to #13 - fragman ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
> if you aren't retarded

and that's exactly why the french nuclear plants scare the living **** out of me
#31 to #13 - emplon (11/04/2013) [-]
It might be very safe, but the problem is that if somethings goes wrong it often becomes in catastrophic results. Like in Japan, you cant always predict that something goes wrong, like a tsunami. I'm actually for nuclear reactors but i see what the problem is and why countries are concerned about building them.
#71 to #31 - darshian (11/04/2013) [-]
But anyone could have predicted a tsunami to hit an eastern (Pacific Ocean) facing, nuclear powerplant on the edge of one of the most tectonically active areas in the world.
#73 to #71 - emplon (11/04/2013) [-]
Point is they didn't and there will always be things we can't predict will happen, might not be a tsunami next time.
#76 to #73 - darshian (11/04/2013) [-]
But the point is, anyone with any sense could have told you putting one there is a big no-no. They knew it, they took a risk and paid for it. That's the thing with the Pacific rim, you know what's coming. Tsunamis, earthquakes & volcanoes & Cthulu which all hit the eastern coast of Japan regularly. There are certain areas where they shouldn't be and certain areas where they should.

All nuclear disasters are planning errors or lack of safety
#21 to #13 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
Wow, you racist dick. Russia had at least some duct tape in there, too.
#22 to #21 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
Soviet Russia, anyway.
User avatar #25 to #22 - bobthedilder (11/04/2013) [-]
It was in the Ukraine
User avatar #55 to #25 - tarekmig (11/04/2013) [-]
>Anon's ignorance
#20 to #13 - lordraine ONLINE (11/04/2013) [-]
Pretty much. Nations and countries that have tectonically inert and landlocked areas far inland could put up reactors and sell the excess energy to nations that don't have that luxury. Japan is pretty much the worst place imaginable to have one, and Russia, while a perfect candidate for a nuclear power supplier, failed because the reactor itself was shoddily built and poorly maintained.

We should be sticking these things in places like the Russian tundra, or northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they're thousands of miles away from hurricanes, earthquakes, and anything that could possibly be irreparably damaged if they did somehow go off, which they wouldn't, because we wouldn't maintain them with spit and horse glue.

Something bad that was preventable and arguably quite predictable happens, and suddenly it's an unchained wolf that cannot be trusted.
#87 to #20 - anonymous (11/17/2013) [-]
Oh so you say, if Japan had become completely reliant on some other countries energy-output AND had poured massive amounts of money into building power lines big enough to transport the electricity to them, that the crisis could have been avoided?
That's Brilliant...oh no, wait it's's ******* retarded!
You see, that's the point of building power plants on your own. To not have to rely on anybody else's, so that if for any reason the diplomatic relationships with whatever country get worse, you don't get suddenly ********** cause you sit there in the dark.

Also, some electricity is lost for every bit of the power lines. They still have an electrical resistance. That's the reason for about any country bigger then Luxemburg having their power plants spread across its area. To cut the loses, to generate the energy close to where it's needed.
#88 to #87 - anonymous (11/17/2013) [-]
As for the topic of don't realy believe that, do you? People are lazy ***** . Energy providers want to save money. They would substitute glue with spit, and lead with paper-walls if they were allowed to and could take the hit on their image.
You see...the problem isn't the nuclear power plant. The problem are the people that built it, that maintain it and that manage it. Those guys WILL make errors. Some of them might even be as shortsighted as your post makes you look like. And that is the reason why Nuclear fission should be avoided as a power-source.... we are just to ******* lazy to safely use it.
#6 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
Nuclear power is by far the safest form of energy production that we currently have. Unfortunately, when something does go wrong, it goes wrong in a large way, and you hear about it in all the news.

It's like the difference between driving a car and flying in a plane. Statistically, you're many times more likely to die in a car crash, but because plane crashes are much more spectacular, you hear about them more often.
#48 to #6 - firesky (11/04/2013) [-]
"Nuclear power is by far the safest form of energy production that we currently have"

I'm not against the use of nuclear power (in the moment), but please explain to me how wind or solar energy are more dangerous than a nuclear plant.
User avatar #50 to #48 - eddymolly (11/04/2013) [-]
maybe he should have put
"Nuclear power is by far the safest viable form of energy production that we currently have."
#11 to #6 - anonymous (11/04/2013) [-]
For example:

The Chernobyl disaster was horrible, and the tragedy is that it could so easily have been avoided. The number of people directly affected is widely contested (due to its difficulty in measuring), and the number of related deaths due to can easily be placed in the tens of thousands. 350,000 people were evacuated.

By comparison, the worst hydroelectric power station failure was the Banqiao Dam in China. 26,000 dead from direct flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless^[Wikipedia].

The Bangiao Dam failure is, however, comparatively unheard of in debates surrounding energy production.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)