It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran: U.S. should be punished for nuclear "threats"

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by Solomons

I don't control the U.S. corporate government. They build what they want and kill who they want.

It's not like the U.S. corporation is in Iraq to "protect Americans."

Nuclear is dirty, that is why there is nuclear/toxic waste that can't be cleaned so they bury it in dump sites.

Nuclear is dirty there is no getting around it, may I chime in Chernobyl.

Just like oil is clean right? May I also chime in the recent oil spill.

There is clean energy technology the Corporate govs. hide them because free energy creates free thinking people.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

Different elements behave differently. There exists clean nuclear power. And if it does make that small little amount of waste... So what?" Better than oil, and not enough to slow us down until fusion or antimatter.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:21 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

There are actually two process to nuclear energy.

one is fusion, the other is fission.

They are both an interesting read and one is in-fact safer then the other.

Using nuclear power and having waste that you cannot destroy or clean makes for a disaster for the future. Just like putting debt off, look where that got us. On the brink of a global collapse.

There really is no need for oil when you can get the same reaction with hydrogen. Although the best so far has to be Magnetism Energy technologies.

As life goes on there are some things that I have noticed, people are controlled through energy and money. Control the energy, control the people, free the energy, free the people.

Nuclear energy is a complicated distraction. Stick to simplicity, it is key.

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by Quickfix

Well Oil's waste is CO2 and methane. What exactly is nuclear waste made of? Let's just analyze this.

I'm pretty sure the smaller the molecule you use, the less "wast" is actually waste". In that, it might be useful elsewhere. Just look it up for me.

Also, elec-mag is the best. Because hydrogen just puts more hot water into the air (IE, sea level rise and major greenhouse gas)

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Nuclear Waste

* Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.
* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.
* The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.
* The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.
* There is a current proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
o The plan is for Yucca Mountain to hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US. However, that would completely fill up the site and not account for future waste.
o Transporting the wastes by truck and rail would be extremely dangerous.
o For a more detailed analysis of the problems of and risks incurred by the plan, see Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the DoE’s Yucca Mountain Plan
* Repository sites in Australia, Argentina, China, southern Africa, and Russia have also been considered.
* Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.
* The best action would be to cease producing nuclear energy (and waste), to leave the existing waste where it is, and to immobilize it. There are a few different methods of waste immobilization. In the vitrification process, waste is combined with glass-forming materials and melted. Once the materials solidify, the waste is trapped inside and can't easily be released.

Magnetism is great I think it is one of the best sources of power.

Hydrogen creates water vapor, cool it down and you have water again, so the point is to recycle the emission. There are also additives to create more hydrogen in water.

Also the Co2 emissions from current vehicles does not effect the warming of the globe. It just stinks the place up.

It has been proven from core samples taken in Egypt that the Earth goes through seasons/cycles.

It has also been hotly debated on ATS. I think most of the members know it is a hoax by the government to create more taxes on the people. The tax is the carbon foot print tax and others.

My point being is Nuclear power creates more nasty effects for the future instead of helping the now.

Help the now, build simple and green energy technology, that is achievable right now.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Quickfix]

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in