Budget 2014 (1 Viewer)

Anna Wintour

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
92
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
So we take money from people and give it back to them... don't you see the circular money flow? It doesn't necessarily do anything. Australia is still 75% powered by coal. Unless we go nuclear, were still going to be a net contributor to climate change.
he nuclear fuel cycle in all countries uses large quantities of fossil fuel at all stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. Contrary to the current propaganda line, nuclear power is not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These unregulated sanctioned releases occur because the industry considers certain radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated releases include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm inducing genetic disease. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is another biologically significant gas, routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium combines with oxygen creating "tritiated" water. Tritium which is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene and it passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system where it is distributed throughout the body. The half life of tritium is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years.
 

nerdasdasd

Dont.msg.me.about.english
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
5,353
Location
A, A
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2017
he nuclear fuel cycle in all countries uses large quantities of fossil fuel at all stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. Contrary to the current propaganda line, nuclear power is not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These unregulated sanctioned releases occur because the industry considers certain radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated releases include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm inducing genetic disease. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is another biologically significant gas, routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium combines with oxygen creating "tritiated" water. Tritium which is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene and it passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system where it is distributed throughout the body. The half life of tritium is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years.
That's only if it goes into the air... If stored correctly, it isn't a problem

1kg of uranium can produce more energy than 20kg of coal
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
he nuclear fuel cycle in all countries uses large quantities of fossil fuel at all stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. Contrary to the current propaganda line, nuclear power is not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These unregulated sanctioned releases occur because the industry considers certain radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated releases include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm inducing genetic disease. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is another biologically significant gas, routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium combines with oxygen creating "tritiated" water. Tritium which is a soft energy beta emitter, more mutagenic than gamma radiation incorporates directly into the DNA molecule of the gene and it passes readily through the skin, lungs and digestive system where it is distributed throughout the body. The half life of tritium is 12.3 years, giving it a biologically active life of 246 years.
Yeah I'm sure all those people working on US aircraft carriers and US nuclear submarines are dying from radiation poisoning. You know where in Australia we can put all this radioactive waste? In the middle of the fucking desert that's where. That's why they're doing the same thing with Yucca Mountain and they've already DEVELOPED a safe storage containers to transport nuclear waste. France is 80% powered by nuclear. Guess all those Frenchies and nearby euros are dying like crazy right.

Nuclear reactors actually release LESS radiation than goddamn coal power plants, killed less people than coal ever had.

You also know why nuclear reactor's are important? Because they create IMAGING MATERIALS FOR HOSPITALS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine
 

Anna Wintour

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
92
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yeah I'm sure all those people working on US aircraft carriers and US nuclear submarines are dying from radiation poisoning. You know where in Australia we can put all this radioactive waste? In the middle of the fucking desert that's where. That's why they're doing the same thing with Yucca Mountain and they've already DEVELOPED a safe storage containers to transport nuclear waste. France is 80% powered by nuclear. Guess all those Frenchies and nearby euros are dying like crazy right.

Nuclear reactors actually release LESS radiation than goddamn coal power plants, killed less people than coal ever had.

You also know why nuclear reactor's are important? Because they create IMAGING MATERIALS FOR HOSPITALS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine
Nuclear power is what the weapons industry uses as a cloak of legitimacy.

Have a look at this video to learn more about why nuclear power isnt the answer.

[youtube]zYGLKoZhej8[/youtube]
 

Phaze

Pleb.
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
404
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Nuclear power is what the weapons industry uses as a cloak of legitimacy.

Have a look at this video to learn more about why nuclear power isnt the answer.

[youtube]zYGLKoZhej8[/youtube]
Sorry but that's blatantly disagreeing with science. Nuclear power is a legitimate thing and many countries utilise is successfully.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Nuclear power is what the weapons industry uses as a cloak of legitimacy.

Have a look at this video to learn more about why nuclear power isnt the answer.

[youtube]zYGLKoZhej8[/youtube]
She's a medical doctor. Not a nuclear physicist. That's like having a biological scientist talk about astronomy.

Edit: yeah all those weapons company are making huge profit on nukes right? Gee not like the US and Russia already signed nuclear disarmenent agreements...

That's some tinfoil hat shit right there son.
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
you didnt comment on the substance of the video at all.
hurr durr terrorists can attack nuclear powerplants hurr durr.

Yeah you think they let paul bart mall cop pull security for nuclear reactors and powerplants?

Puhleaze there are layers upon layers upon layers of security infrastructure in nuclear power plant facilities, physical and cyber security.

Have fun with having countries with nuclear powerplants supplying almost the entire world's supply of nuclear medicine.
 

Anna Wintour

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
92
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
hurr durr terrorists can attack nuclear powerplants hurr durr.

Yeah you think they let paul bart mall cop pull security for nuclear reactors and powerplants?

Puhleaze there are layers upon layers upon layers of security infrastructure in nuclear power plant facilities, physical and cyber security.

Have fun with having countries with nuclear powerplants supplying almost the entire world's supply of nuclear medicine.
so you're saying we cant do that without nuclear power plants?
 

Phaze

Pleb.
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
404
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
u do realise that nuclear powerplants dont produce imaging technology.

Also the level of radiation is nowhere near equivalent
Disagreeing with nuclear power is an ideological disagreement. There is no scientific rationality behind it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 

Anna Wintour

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
92
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Disagreeing with nuclear power is an ideological disagreement. There is no scientific rationality behind it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
how about the medical effects of radiation on the human body and the routine release of noble gases for which there is no filtration.

That and the fact that there is no safe way of storing nuclear waste beyond a few hundred years and that its legacy to the world will be genetic disease that wont be seen until generations after the fact.
 

trungduong12

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
543
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
From my point of view
Cutting tax for businesses will decrease their cost of production
So they will increase demand for labour to produce more and to get more profits
That will decrease unemployment in the long term and therefore cover up the effects of 6months waiting for the dole and $7GP as ppl when they get job they will get income which help them afford all the taxes

Any idea?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Phaze

Pleb.
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
404
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
how about the medical effects of radiation on the human body and the routine release of noble gases for which there is no filtration.

That and the fact that there is no safe way of storing nuclear waste beyond a few hundred years and that its legacy to the world will be genetic disease that wont be seen until generations after the fact.
If I had the choice of dealing with nuclear waste in 100 years or an atmosphere dangerous to human life I opt for nuclear waste. Advancements in technology make it easier and easier utilise nuclear energy and will lead to developing more effective ways of dealing with waste. Nuclear Energy isn't the best way obviously but it is much better than what we have.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
If I had the choice of dealing with nuclear waste in 100 years or an atmosphere dangerous to human life I opt for nuclear waste. Advancements in technology make it easier and easier utilise nuclear energy and will lead to developing more effective ways of dealing with waste. Nuclear Energy isn't the best way obviously but it is much better than what we have.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Anna never heard of Yucca mountain or the new process' in dealing with nuclear waste material. We have a giant desert in Aus, just put the nuclear waste there.

Also, No anna you cannot create nuclear medicine without the use of a nuclear reactor. That's why it's called nuclear medicine.

It got so bad in Canada that Parliament had to pass an act to restart a nuclear reactor for medicine. That lady in the video is a doctor, funny how she didn't mention the positive side effects of nuclear energy production saving lives. Also, she has no scientific evidence of the "large amounts of radiation emitted." Hell, Coal power plants emit MORE radiation than nuclear powerplants.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/13/us-cancer-idUSN1154689120071213
 

isildurrrr1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
1,756
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
how about the medical effects of radiation on the human body.
Ever heard of radiotherapy. And gee I guess all those people working on US Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear submarines are dying left right and centre from cancer right.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top