Nuclear. . took 3. photo with And this my friends, is called pollution ', Actually I 'laat@ N this is just steam. It' s a cooling tower for nuclear reactors. 2
x
Click to expand

Nuclear

took 3. photo with
And this my friends, is called pollution ',
Actually I 'laat@ N this is just steam. It' s a cooling
tower for nuclear reactors.
2 hours ago I Trollr, 1 I in
l © no its a nuclear plant
2 hours ago I Like
Intellivision, ,
Jif
AMN
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1623
Views: 57160
Favorited: 81
Submitted: 08/16/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to phanact submit to reddit

Comments(272):

[ 272 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - grandtheftkoala **User deleted account** (08/16/2013) [-]
holy christ, dat ass
User avatar #11 to #8 - agrofenlas (08/16/2013) [-]
I understood that.
User avatar #223 to #8 - soopfox (08/17/2013) [-]
**** , I forgot the translation for that. Help pls?
#234 to #223 - ichitoten ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
"Nice ass"
User avatar #239 to #234 - soopfox (08/17/2013) [-]
Wasn't the real translation more 'formal' than "nice ass"?
User avatar #270 to #239 - caramelfox (08/17/2013) [-]
I enjoy your buttocks
#241 to #239 - ichitoten ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
Dont think so...
#24 to #4 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
dat gas
User avatar #16 to #4 - pappathethird (08/16/2013) [-]
I think you need to get laid.

no hate, just trying to be funny at your expense
User avatar #162 to #16 - grandtheftkoala **User deleted account** (08/17/2013) [-]
I've tried having sexual intercourse with steam before, it did not end so well.
#230 to #162 - illusiveshade **User deleted account** (08/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#34 to #16 - bongconnery (08/17/2013) [-]
*******		 great use of the eyeball man, respect
******* great use of the eyeball man, respect
#3 - grandtheftkoala **User deleted account** (08/16/2013) [-]
+131
#5 - blackdaddy has deleted their comment [-]
#224 to #5 - srapture (08/17/2013) [-]
So this is how clouds are made!
So this is how clouds are made!
#259 to #5 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
Fun fact, coal plants release more radioactivity than a nuclear plant.
User avatar #12 to #5 - generaljosh (08/16/2013) [-]
Well, coal power plants DO release pollution. A nuclear plant only emits radiation if something is going seriously wrong.
#260 to #12 - klutzyspy ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
they dont necessarily
0
#32 to #12 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #35 to #32 - generaljosh (08/17/2013) [-]
You're correct, I was referring to radiation colloquially, as in dangerous amounts. Everything on earth not sterilized in a laboratory environment emits some amount of radiation.
0
#36 to #35 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+5
#6 to #5 - blackdaddy has deleted their comment [-]
#18 to #5 - klutzyspy ONLINE (08/16/2013) [-]
more dangerous than nuclear ^^,)
#29 to #18 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (08/17/2013) [-]
Until something explodes...
User avatar #93 to #29 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
But that really doesn't happen all that often.
#103 to #93 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (08/17/2013) [-]
Yeah I know. I'm actually pro-nuclear energy since it will probably be the most efficient way to produce power once fossil fuels run out. The thing is, something is bound to go wrong sooner or later like it did in Japan. Once that happens I'd hate to be the one living near a nuclear plant.
User avatar #105 to #103 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
Yeah, it'd suck.
But from a practical point, I can see nothing better than nuclear energy. It's not perfect, but it's easily the best we got.
#190 to #105 - somekindofname (08/17/2013) [-]
Ok, I'm here to spread the word of thorium. A fission material without all that, fallouty, polluty stuff in the bylines. Thorium has a higher energy output than Uranium, 'freezes' instead of explodes (it can't) , is far more common and the fallout isn't radioactive enough to kill anything. It's the ******* future!
User avatar #231 to #190 - milthyfoustache (08/17/2013) [-]
tell me more man of science
#233 to #231 - somekindofname (08/17/2013) [-]
/ watch?v = uK367T7h6ZY (remove space).
5 minutes that tells you the basics.
User avatar #209 to #103 - daentraya (08/17/2013) [-]
The thing is, all nuclear plants we have are rather old. Saying nuclear powerplants are dangerous is like saying cars are dangerous. Depends on how they're build. There are designs for powerplants that will drop the nuclear core into a safe container should the power for the cooling run out. There are probably many more, but people are against it.
Even with the risk of something going horrible wrong despite all careful plannings, then we should simply get used to it. We sit inside cars all the time, and while the area of carcrash is smaller, it is also quite frequent. Danger and risk are just something to get used to, since this is life, and nobody is 100% safe from everything
-1
#98 to #29 - dadukesta has deleted their comment [-]
-1
#114 to #98 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#120 to #114 - dadukesta (08/17/2013) [-]
I'm just going to stop right here.
Trying to explain any energy science to anyone on the internet just ends horribly.
#122 to #120 - pwnmissilereborn **User deleted account** (08/17/2013) [-]
Suit yourself.
#1 - whiskeygunner (08/16/2013) [-]
People love overreacting and having meltdowns on FB.
People love overreacting and having meltdowns on FB.
User avatar #13 to #1 - thatscrewedupkid (08/16/2013) [-]
hue hue hue meltdowns hue
+7
#7 to #1 - blackdaddy has deleted their comment [-]
#10 to #7 - olizandri (08/16/2013) [-]
overreacting.
0
#33 to #10 - ryderjamesbudde **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47 to #33 - zorororonoa (08/17/2013) [-]
We must pollute FJ with cheesy jokes.
User avatar #109 to #47 - hankhillofthe (08/17/2013) [-]
Clearly you Nu this would happen.
User avatar #134 to #109 - Rvalldrgg (08/17/2013) [-]
Certainly U must be joking? In all my half-life I've never...
0
#133 to #109 - Rvalldrgg has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #155 to #7 - cabbagemayhem (08/17/2013) [-]
i don't think you're using that image right
#131 to #1 - bannon (08/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#15 - pappathethird (08/16/2013) [-]
One thing is being stupid.

Complaining about something you don't understand is just ... ugh ...
#37 - mattdoggy (08/17/2013) [-]
Those reactors are incredibly safe
A family member of mine worked on a nuclear submarine's reactor and now works on a nuclear power plant. The levels of radiation allowed in there are insanely low. In fact here are things that are more radioactive than the inside of that powerplant
>Fertilizer
>Nike Shoes
>Granite Counter tops
>Wrist Watches
>Certain beverages
#186 to #37 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
Yes but (depending on the location of it) you can fear an overflowing when it's next to a river or an earthquake (even a little one can be dramatic if not anticipated well). They're supposed to be safe but accidents happens not so rarely
User avatar #101 to #37 - dadukesta (08/17/2013) [-]
Don't forget Bananas. Bananas are crazy radioactive.
User avatar #45 to #37 - masdercheef (08/17/2013) [-]
It's remarkable just how safe a reactor can actually be. Unfortunately, when most people hear "reactor" their minds instantly go "meltdown" or "Chernobyl"...
#41 - I Am Monkey (08/17/2013) [-]
MFW people are anti-gas, anti-coal and anti-nuclear. The lights don't run magic. What's your alternative? Human hamster wheels?
User avatar #139 to #41 - nigeltheoutlaw (08/17/2013) [-]
Solar and wind. And nuclear since the other two can't do **** globally.
User avatar #140 to #41 - TheMather ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
Hydroelectric plants? 98-99% of Norway's electricity comes from those.
User avatar #188 to #41 - robertolee (08/17/2013) [-]
There's a jail somewhere in South America where the inmates will pedal stationary bikes that power the lights in the town in exchange for having the sentences slowly reduced depending on how long they pedal for.
#216 to #41 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
wind, water, geothermal ? all of them?
User avatar #44 to #41 - goldfangz ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
my light doesnt run on coal, gas or nuclear energy

but on electricity
#55 to #44 - vgmddg (08/17/2013) [-]
Seriously? Where do you think that electricity comes from? Electricity (harnessable anyway) doesn't just come out of thin air. It comes from coal, water, or nuclear power plants.
#66 to #55 - topleltoplel (08/17/2013) [-]
Maybe he meant he uses solar power and just decided to say electricity.
User avatar #75 to #66 - vgmddg (08/17/2013) [-]
That's still taking energy in another form and converting it to electricity. What he's talking about is generating straight electricity from no alternative source.
User avatar #108 to #44 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand what coal, gas, or nuclear energy are for.
It's not like you just drop a piece of coal in a lightbulb and it turns on.
You convert that **** into electricity.
User avatar #57 to #41 - itsthatguyagain (08/17/2013) [-]
Renewable resources. Even though they're not good enough yet.
User avatar #84 to #41 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
The only thing I don't like about nuclear reactors is that it's basically building a (potential) giant bomb.

Then again, I could put all those bottle caps I've been saving to use...
#112 to #84 - lordaurion (08/17/2013) [-]
Reactors aren't bombs in the slightest, nor can they become one.
User avatar #115 to #112 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
think thelastelephant was talking about nuclear meltdowns, like what's happened before.
Whether it's a bomb or not, you're still dead if it happens and you're too close to it.
User avatar #141 to #115 - TheMather ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
Nah, as long as you aren't in the building itself, you'll still live if you run away fast enough.
+2
#177 to #141 - jaergerjaquez **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #210 to #177 - daentraya (08/17/2013) [-]
Chernobyl happened in 1986. I'm fairly certain more recent designs have made this whole nuclear thing quite a bit dahm safe in case of emergencies. It's like never driving cars because 38,648 people died in car crashes one year long time ago in old cars prone to break every now and then
User avatar #178 to #177 - TheMather ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
I know what happened. The reactor overheated so the boiler blew, spreading radioactive material over the town.
If you were standing a block away and started running when you saw the plant blow up, you'd get out of town with only slight radiation burns.
User avatar #118 to #112 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
I think you're interpreting what I said too literally.
#119 to #118 - lordaurion (08/17/2013) [-]
Then don't use words like bomb.
User avatar #125 to #119 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
Although, if you look at Chernobyl's reactor exploding with the force of about a kiloton of TNT...it's kinda like a bomb. It's just that the radiation was far more deadly than the detonating reactor itself. And that only happened because someone didn't RTFM.

I played STALKER for month and found myself researching Chernobyl because I was bored.
User avatar #145 to #125 - themurp (08/17/2013) [-]
It was only a ten ton explosion. Also I think it only really effected the main facility.
User avatar #173 to #145 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
But it HAS to be a kiloton because Google said so!

You'd be correct.
User avatar #95 to #84 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
Most things could kill you if the wrong things happen. Dams can brake. Oil causes wars and **** .

And, honestly, there really haven't been many nuclear reactor melt downs.
User avatar #97 to #95 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
Very true. There have only been what, two big ones? All comes down to human error. Long as NPPs are properly maintained, no problems at all.
User avatar #102 to #97 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
Let's see, there was the Lucens reactor meltdown in switzerland, which was handled extremely well
there was Chernobyl
Three Mile Island
and that one in japan recently

But yeah, we've had nuclear reactors since, what, the 60s? 4 meltdowns in 50 years ain't a bad track record, and Chernobyl was just the fault of communism.
User avatar #107 to #102 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
Fukushima-Daichii, I think. And that was well-contained despite being a Level 7 on the disaster scale
User avatar #113 to #107 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
Eh, that one is still pretty bad.
was reading pretty recently that radiation from that is still being found in parts of the west coast. Like, in their water and fish and **** .
think it may have been in california it's largely being found in.
User avatar #116 to #113 - thelastelephant (08/17/2013) [-]
Wasn't nearly the size of Chernobyl, though. Either way, it's still bad.
User avatar #117 to #116 - ilovehitler (08/17/2013) [-]
yeah, that's more to due to where it's located. Japan is an island, so the chances of water not getting ****** with in the event of a nuclear meltdown are pretty low.
User avatar #67 to #41 - threadz (08/17/2013) [-]
We do need jobs that don't require any skills....
User avatar #58 to #41 - hiyorin (08/17/2013) [-]
Hydroelectric powerplants.
User avatar #143 to #58 - biggydy (08/17/2013) [-]
If only we had rivers everywhere.
User avatar #227 to #143 - LePedobear (08/17/2013) [-]
hoover dam generates about 4.2 billion kilo watt hours of power a year. that's a dam lot :p
User avatar #229 to #227 - nustix (08/17/2013) [-]
the things we learn from fallout.
User avatar #149 to #143 - hiyorin (08/17/2013) [-]
yeah, but my point stands. It's an alternative to gas, coal, and nuclear.
User avatar #46 to #41 - zorororonoa (08/17/2013) [-]
KND did it.
User avatar #100 to #41 - bowties (08/17/2013) [-]
Be an obese country
Be a country with plenty of unskilled workers


dude, this human hamster wheel stuff is the future of energy!
User avatar #52 to #41 - Zaxplab ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
What if there were Gyms across America, that PAID people to go there. People could run on them and produce energy.

Obesity rate AND fuel costs would go down.


Also, I have no clue about any of this and probably sound stupid.
User avatar #70 to #52 - threadz (08/17/2013) [-]
Actually, that's ******* brilliant
#63 to #52 - topleltoplel (08/17/2013) [-]
Only problem is the fatties wouldn't be the ones running.
#255 to #52 - smileyfbaby (08/17/2013) [-]
here ya go.

www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3113/could-the-energy-from-gym-workouts-be-harnessed

tl;Dr: possible but costs more money then it saves
#256 to #255 - fuckedbyapony ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
Who cares about money when we're saving the planet!
Who cares about money when we're saving the planet!
User avatar #191 to #52 - despare (08/17/2013) [-]
holy ****
#146 to #52 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
this basic idea was made into a short movie from the Black Mirror series.

it's called '15 Million Credits' or something like that. Check it out, it's worth a watch.
#257 to #146 - fuckedbyapony ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
**** I loved that program, weird as hell, but great
That episode was great too, Besides the constant porn advertisements ofc
#151 to #146 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
15 Million Merits**
User avatar #77 - Her (08/17/2013) [-]
I may not be too educated about this, but I'm pretty sure there is an easy way to tell.
Black smoke - pollution.
White steam - not.
User avatar #60 - oddesy (08/17/2013) [-]
>Tfw Nuclear is the most efficent fourm of energy
>Tfw Nuclear is considerably safer when you aren't Ukrainian
>tfw I'mm Ukrainian
>tfw people dont know this

Its depressing.
#235 to #60 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
I'm Ukrainian (well, half)
I like Nuclear energy
Let's be friends and have picnic in Chernobyl
#252 to #60 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
You now have 4 faces.
User avatar #65 to #60 - fantomen (08/17/2013) [-]
Nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest power source we have.
It's cheap too.

But because so few people understand how it works they are scared by it.
Also people associate nuclear power with nuclear weapons and that scares them even more, that's despite the fact that most nuclear plants in the world today can't be used to make weapons grade uranium or plutonium.
User avatar #135 to #65 - TheMather ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
No, hydroelectricity is. Windmills and solar are too, but they're less efficient.
User avatar #156 to #135 - fantomen (08/17/2013) [-]
Hydroelectric dams have a serious environmental impact and have lead the the extinction of many kinds of salmon and trout.

Wind farms kill millions of bats, and long term exposure of humans to wind farms can cause insanity because of the low frequency noise they cause.

Solar panels (depending on the type) cost more in resources than they can bring in electrical profit

User avatar #158 to #156 - TheMather ONLINE (08/17/2013) [-]
They don't block off rivers entirely, they only alter the flow. Any environmental impact past the visuals is the result of the engineers not doing their research on the area properly.

Place them in open areas or at sea.

Solar panels are for small scale use. Large scale solar energy is usually produced by other means.
User avatar #104 to #65 - redrex (08/17/2013) [-]
i wouldn't technically say "safest" but it is ******* awesome
0
#74 to #65 - machomustachio has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #79 to #74 - fantomen (08/17/2013) [-]
The Chernobyl disaster could only ever happen in a communist society.
It was the result of communist bureaucracy and scare tactics, not the technology they used.

Firstly, the government officers in charge of construction skimmed money from the project, and used inferior materials to build it, just so that they could keep the extra cash.

But the entire meltdown can be blamed on a single person.
That man demanded that the automatic safety systems be turned off while he ran some tests. He then proceeded to run test at extremely unsafe levels despite technicians telling him to stop, and that the reactor couldn't take it.

But no one dared to stop him because he was high ranking politically, and angering him would likely get them arrested and imprisoned.

By the time they got him to stop it was already to late to slow down the reactor.
User avatar #99 to #79 - MrZoom (08/17/2013) [-]
The Chernobyl plant was from a design that the US decided was unsafe.

I am not arguing that the legal and political BS caused the accident, but the technology most definitely played a part.
#226 to #99 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
Design used at Chernobyl was and is safer than the one used at Three Mile Island. As fantomen pointed above, it was about the technology, it was about assholes screwing stuff up.
User avatar #280 to #226 - MrZoom (08/18/2013) [-]
The design at Chernobyl had no serious containment building for the reactor. The reactor itself was fine, it was all the necessary safety and support structures that were poorly designed.

Do you really think the US would abandon a safer and better design and let the Soviets gain prestige during the cold war and its aftermath?
User avatar #172 to #99 - catburglarpenis (08/17/2013) [-]
Chernobyl wasn't even that bad. Bruce Willis AND his kid shot bad guys AT Chernobyl, and his kid didn't even lose his hair! I can't see what all the fuss is about.

#joking #chernobylisactuallyprettybad #theareawillbeirradiatedfarpastourlifetimes
User avatar #83 to #79 - machomustachio (08/17/2013) [-]
I remembered this after I submitted my comment and realized sounded somewhat stupid so effect I deleted my comment to save everyone the stupidity
#21 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
People over-stress the potential downsides of nuclear power way too much, in my opinion. There is a chance of meltdown, but it's extremely unlikely. On the other hand, there are over 10,000 deaths every year due to coal pollution, along with all the CO2 emissions. People are just afraid of change. I think wind and solar power are the best for both us and the environment, but nuclear power gets a lot of undeserved bad hype.    
   
MFW inevitable comments telling me that I'm wrong
People over-stress the potential downsides of nuclear power way too much, in my opinion. There is a chance of meltdown, but it's extremely unlikely. On the other hand, there are over 10,000 deaths every year due to coal pollution, along with all the CO2 emissions. People are just afraid of change. I think wind and solar power are the best for both us and the environment, but nuclear power gets a lot of undeserved bad hype.

MFW inevitable comments telling me that I'm wrong
#25 to #21 - tiredandhungry (08/17/2013) [-]
Australia's stubborn to use nuclear power. Also incredibly slow and incompetent when it comes to solar power. All because we have coal mines all over the country and we gotta protect this bitch's billions
#26 to #25 - tiredandhungry (08/17/2013) [-]
And yeah, I agree with you that nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy. It's just disposing of waste that's the tricky part
#30 to #26 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
Yeah. I remember hearing that they had a plan for a disposal site at a place called Yucca Mountain, but they stopped funding a couple years ago. I think that, overall, solar is the best. It has the least human safety hazards, environmental hazards, and space requirements of pretty much any form of clean energy. And if people would stop being greedy dicks, we could run the whole world on it. And we'll have the sun for as long as we're living, so it's completely renewable.
Yeah. I remember hearing that they had a plan for a disposal site at a place called Yucca Mountain, but they stopped funding a couple years ago. I think that, overall, solar is the best. It has the least human safety hazards, environmental hazards, and space requirements of pretty much any form of clean energy. And if people would stop being greedy dicks, we could run the whole world on it. And we'll have the sun for as long as we're living, so it's completely renewable.
#28 to #25 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
Same with America. We could be running completely on solar or wind power, but we have a ******** of coal and the coal/oil companies are so high up the government's ass that nothing's going to change soon. Plus, there's these whiny rich people saying "I DON'T WANT WIND TURBINES OR SOLAR PANELS NEAR MY HOUSE BECAUSE THEY LOOK BAD WAHWAH"
User avatar #50 to #28 - skubasteve (08/17/2013) [-]
Pretty sure solar sits at less than 1% of all the energy used by the united states. Wind is a little bit up there but not by much.
User avatar #54 to #50 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
I know. But it could be a whole lot more. That's the point.
0
#142 to #54 - siridontcare has deleted their comment [-]
#218 to #21 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
jest for the record nuclear power i by far the cleanest energy source
User avatar #43 to #21 - zzforrest (08/17/2013) [-]
Wind power kills birds and breaks down and has to be in very specific locations to generate enough electricity.
Solar energy is ******* expensive and probably won't get much cheaper.
Nuclear power is awesome.
CO2 emissions are only the 5th worst pollutant (in terms of damage) and is primarily produced by volcanoes.
I agree with you yet I disagree with you.
#56 to #43 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
Solar and Wind power do have their disadvantages. I hate the fact that birds get killed by wind turbines, but hopefully they'll be able to change that in the future. It still has far less impact on wildlife than oil drilling and coal plants. As for solar, it is getting cheaper and more efficient every day. The sun is available for us to use as long as the human race exists. it would be incredibly stupid not to utilize it.
#266 to #56 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
Solar panels have a long way to go. They are awesome but they have a bit of maturing before they will be able to meet the demands we have for electricity. Each cell doesn't produce that much electricity.
User avatar #48 to #43 - siridontcare (08/17/2013) [-]
Solar Energy is being made cheaper as we speak. I helped research for it!!!
#59 to #48 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
That's awesome! I'm majoring in Environmental Science, so I should be doing similar work.
That's awesome! I'm majoring in Environmental Science, so I should be doing similar work.
User avatar #64 to #59 - siridontcare (08/17/2013) [-]
let me be more specific. I run a program on my computer 24/7 that allows scientest use it for research.
#71 to #64 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
Oh. Well, it still helps my field. So thank you.
Oh. Well, it still helps my field. So thank you.
User avatar #87 to #71 - siridontcare (08/17/2013) [-]
The Clean Energy Project research branch at Harvard university, which is powered by World Community Grid, which is partially powered by you as part of our Improbable Island Distributed Supercomputer, has just open-sourced a database of 2.3 million organic compounds, along with their efficiencies at converting sunlight to electricity. Our 4,165-strong team, the 9th largest in the world, is responsible for about .3% of these results.
User avatar #130 to #87 - tiredandhungry (08/17/2013) [-]
is that a similar thing, or exactly the same thing, as folding@home? I think folding@home was done from harvard as well?
User avatar #91 to #87 - imonaboatman (08/17/2013) [-]
Ahh. That's pretty cool.
User avatar #81 to #71 - siridontcare (08/17/2013) [-]
let me get the memo from the person who I do it for.
#86 to #81 - anon (08/17/2013) [-]
jeez man...he's just being nice
User avatar #89 to #86 - siridontcare (08/17/2013) [-]
thought he would find it interesting
User avatar #88 to #86 - siridontcare (08/17/2013) [-]
I was just showing him
User avatar #147 to #48 - hammarhead (08/17/2013) [-]
not to mention we've just discovered a way to use sunlight to split water into hydrogen fuel using micro crystals. Solar fuel.
#194 to #21 - nunuman (08/17/2013) [-]
Also the *********** goes to a new level, when they use the Fukushima accident as an argument to not build power plant in, for instance Germany. Yeah cause earthquakes and tidal waves totally hit germany all the freaking time!
User avatar #136 to #110 - agrofenlas (08/17/2013) [-]
Dat ass.
#148 - baditch (08/17/2013) [-]
<MFW uneducated cunts confuse water vapor for smog and pretend to be good people by expressing feigned concern.
User avatar #49 - aahrg (08/17/2013) [-]
fun fact:

you get more radiation from eating a banana than from living within 5 miles of a nuclear powerplant for 1 year
User avatar #213 to #49 - daentraya (08/17/2013) [-]
Fun fact; Bananas are technically extinct. The current banana we eat is mainly cavendish, and all of those are genetically identical. Gros Michel, the former popular banana, died due to infection and not having the genetic diversity to fight it off. Scientists are currently making new bananas
User avatar #62 to #49 - fantomen (08/17/2013) [-]
Fun fact: During one transatlantic fight you absorb more radiation than you would if you spend a month inside a modern nuclear power plant.

So flight attendants and pilots are far more likely to get radiation induced illnesses than people that spend all day working in nuclear plants.
User avatar #27 - bensho (08/17/2013) [-]
I live less than 5 miles from a Nuclear Power plant. When I was a wee babby I called the towers "cloud factories." People like to think it's dangerous living around a power plant, or that there's an increased cancer rate, but that's not true. It's actually really cool to see as a landmark.
User avatar #166 to #27 - rplix (08/17/2013) [-]
But property prices go down because people don't want to live near a nuclear plant.

Kind of like how houses near schools or parks are more expensive.
#94 - Bluemistake (08/17/2013) [-]
1 Kilogram of uranium adds up to the same energy of 2500 tons of coal. The only downside is the thousands of generations of storage of nuclear waste...
#127 to #94 - Spikeydeath (08/17/2013) [-]
what if we lobbed it into the sun?
User avatar #132 to #94 - dedaluminus (08/17/2013) [-]
There is now a nuclear reactor that consumes the waste of other nuclear reactors. Better yet, the waste from the waste-consuming reactor is only radioactive for about 150 years.
User avatar #152 to #94 - thunderbirdbass (08/17/2013) [-]
I've never taken the time to find out, but what exactly is the nuclear waste? I thought it was the irradiated water used to cool down the reactors.
User avatar #168 to #94 - catburglarpenis (08/17/2013) [-]
Yucca Mountain, ***** . Google the ******** episode titled "Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians".
#202 - emostrawberry (08/17/2013) [-]
AM I the only one who saw dat ass?
User avatar #207 to #206 - emostrawberry (08/17/2013) [-]
the cloud thingy look at it
#208 to #207 - loopymoomoo (08/17/2013) [-]
i saw but i accidently clicked the wrong image file and would have looked like a retard, but i see it now.
but anyways heres that image
0
#220 to #202 - xerros has deleted their comment [-]
#217 to #202 - Gerex (08/17/2013) [-]

I've been here too long.
#254 - gazajunk (08/17/2013) [-]
**gazajunk rolled a random image posted in comment #76 at Albino Midgets Fisting Cats ** MFW
**gazajunk rolled a random image posted in comment #76 at Albino Midgets Fisting Cats ** MFW
#232 - drunkasaurus (08/17/2013) [-]
I mean... When nuclear plants DO **** up, it's basically the worst kind of pollution imaginable, aside from having a bomb dropped on your city. Not saying they're not a good way to generate energy 99% of the time, but they need to stop building them so close to major population areas. Build a few miles of power lines, put the damn things in the middle of nowhere, and stop being cheap.
#237 to #232 - xfrankie (08/17/2013) [-]
While I generally agree with your comment, you mustn't forget that you need a metric ******** of people for maintenance and to keep the powerplant working... And unless you want the people to commute for a long time back and forth every day, the plant itself needs to be somewhat close to a city.
Pic related, the npp near our town sometimes literally steals the sun.
#250 to #237 - jackii (08/17/2013) [-]
>put them in the middle of Ethiopian desert
>train Ethiopians to work at plant
>build accommodation on site for them
>pay with food, water, supplies and power
far away from major cities, better lives for Ethiopians, cheap labour, power for the western world


#243 to #232 - mkgt (08/17/2013) [-]
It's worse than dropping a bomb on your city. People can still inhabit Hiroshima, but Chernobyl won't be inhabited by humans for 25,000 years.
#183 - andovaredoras (08/17/2013) [-]
I think i found the Nuclear Plants. It is said that these are the cause for the worst disease ever imagined: Life. It seems to have a 100% Death-rate.
[ 272 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)