It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant director warns Britain it may be next!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

"Actually they could be designed like that but it would defeat the purpose of them being "cooling ponds" "
I'm not seeing this as a reason to not do it. Of course they can be designed to keep generating steam and the only reason why they don't do it is how much it would cost and that is strike three for me with stupid nuclear technology. You scare me.




posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


There is a difference between pushing an agenda using baseless fear to make money (Natural News) and treating something with a healthy respect and researching every aspect of it. Naturalnews is not considered to be that reliable when it comes to facts on just about anything, and is somewhat of a fringe site.

Don't confuse my healthy respect for something that I happen to know quite a bit about, which allows me to remain calm in the face of all of this, with the total doom and gloom they push that makes people, like yourself, start screaming from the rafters that it's evil and must be eliminated.

Do we need to think about safety proceedures for Nuclear Power Plants that are more in line with the times, YES.

Do we need to rethink the design of said plants, Most Certainly, noone will deny that we have come a long way and could probably make them a lot safer than they are currently, however, that doesn't change the fact that you get about 10 m-svt (I can't make the Micro symbol on this machine so I'll use m-svt as Micro-Sievert) per year living near a Nuclear Plant and about 40 m-svt /yr from living near a coal plant.. (an xray is about 20m-svt) interesting to note that you get more radiation in the air around a fossil fuel plant than you do near a nuke plant, now will you EVER see Natural News printing that? No because it doesn't fit their agenda..

ON the flip side they are also ignoring this neat little bit of tech that just came out, it is made by a corporation, so they want no part of it, even though it's a renewable resource. Go Figure..

Deep Green



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


It has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with safety. Throwing a steam turbine on top of a cooling pond and letting the water vaporize costs a lot less than letting the stuff sit in these large circulating pools for years.. It would just kill everything in a 10 mile radius, that's the ONLY reason they don't do it..

I don't see how that's being unsafe or scaring you so much... They are being responsible and realizing that lives mean more than generating a little extra power..

This is why I don't understand everyone, it's so easy to sit and condemn and say "They don't do this because of cost" when cost really has nothing to do with the matter, it's safety plain and simple..



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
The biggest problem I see for the lessons out of Fukushima is that he's right about it being possible in many other places. Not everywhere or every reactor, but a good many of them to be sure. Ironically, a nuclear power plant needs one thing to stay stable and not literally explode from gas build up, as Fuku's units did. Electrical power of it's own, from an outside source. What sense does that make?

I think it would be a very promising direction to go if current and modern reactor designs, which default/fail to a safe state, were made to replace all these decades old designs and actual constructions. It's old tech, old ways and disastrous when anything goes wrong, since it most certainly does not default to a cold and safe state...as the world well knows now.


You just need to know the right keywords to search for, to find out it happened in the past:

The Windscale fire of 10 October 1957 was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain's history, ranked in severity at level 5 on the 7-point International Nuclear Event Scale.
en.wikipedia.org...

Windscale was then renamed to Sellafield to get rid of the stigma associated with the former name.
On 19 April 2005, leaked radioactive waste was discovered from ThORP (Thermal Oxide reprocessing plant) through a crack into a sump chamber which may have started as early as August 2004, and was categorised as a level 3 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in fines.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 


Sellafield (Winscales) isn't in a bad area though as far as geology goes. It is built on stable rock, right next to the Irish sea which isn't exactly known for its tsunamis of any kind.

It does have a bad history of incidents, but they are all the responsibility of the workers, not nature. (They also for the record supply Japan with most of its MOX fuel...)

The scary part about Sellafield is that now it is being decommissioned, they are looking for somewhere to store the waste (and the waste from all over the country, and possibly beyond no doubt if money is involved).

This involves building an underground repository the size of Carlisle (city in Cumbria), which is roughly 401.5mi2.

They are strongly urging this to be built in Cumbria, and covering an area that large, in a county which is covered in lakes and meres....with hundreds of old mineshafts everywhere that often collapse, and which is prone to occasional small ( < 4.0m) earthquakes, AND they are talking about fracking in Cumbria....now that IMO is a recipe for disaster (I even wrote a thread on it).
edit on 5/12/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 


I work currently as a design engineer in the UK nuclear industry, and I deal almost exclusively with decommissioning based projects and safety systems. I hold a Masters degree in Mechancal Engineering with specialisation in robotics/control engineering. I understand your fear - we could be living in a much better way, all the technology to make it happen is within our reach now. But hear me out the subject. I've only been in the field for a short while, so I'm no expert - but hear me out.

I've said this before, in a better explained and written sense, but l'll try to be brief. The first thing we have to deal with is simple; Nuclear energy is HERE TO STAY. Any grand delusions of thinking by banging on about renewable/free energy or spreading nuclear doom porn is going to change anything, have to stop immediately. Emotion cannot be present when dealing with this. Humans will, and always have, mimicked or recreated the aspects of the universe (that's our grand 'gift' is it not? Regardless of belief about our inception). It is a double edged sword, a tug of war with nature that we refuse to stop playing now that we have started. You can't take away nuclear energy without having to take away the very curiosity that got us there in the first place. You cannot take the good without the bad! It does not work like that mate, we are the type of race that would unfortunately have to obliterate ourselves or royally # things up before we learnt our lesson with anything.

There's that saying; 'You play with fire, you get burnt'. Fires a crazy thing. It literally consumes matter, poses a massive threat to us if it goes wrong and has the potential to completely wipe out one of our settlements or even significant parts of our forests or jungles. But we saw the two positives of it, heat and light. We thought '# it lads, lets master this stupid god energy' and however many years later you can now carry it and control it at will in the form of a lighter. You can just turn your gas cooker on and have that pilot light at your utter mercy. Do you think there were humans back in the day who would say 'that fire in Oztecmalcen burned down everyone's house and damaged the sacred temple of Quetzo, this is dark stuff, we need to shun fire! Before its too late!'. We're here now though, and I'm sure fires claimed many a life in the pursuit of its mastery, and destroyed much of our beloved Earth through its manipulation and very existence, yet do you complain now you have the finished product, millennia later?

We went from harnessing fire - to manipulating fire - to recreating fire in different states for our desired purpose. The heat from the fire wasnt good enough, no... We went and mimicked the principle of combustion by making combustion engines. This is is the game humans play. Now we're doing it with the SUN! A flipping star. How far have we come, from fire to the very driving power plant for ALL of what is meaningful and real to us. And sure, just like fire, we could harness the heat energy of the sun solely to meet our desires - but we want to mimick its very internal mechanism. It's truly amazing when you think about it.

When we finally get the complete dynamics and conditions for nuclear fusion right, we will NEVER have the problem of energy again - it really is the holy grail. It would be clean as well. Who knows, one day we may compress that principle to a portable size, and energy in any form will (should) never be a problem of another human again. But of course, if you take the good, you have to take the bad that comes with it.

I understand though, right now we are at that middle stage, and are still playing with nuclear fission on a large scale. We are learning the hard way as usual. We HAVE the potential to make fission practically completely safe (nothing has 100% reliability), and by placing safety measures over safety measures with mutually linked but independently sourced back-up systems- you would literally need nothing short of a probabilistic miracle for things to go wrong at that point. But we're humans, we learn the hard way - we think capitalism is good, yet it is those very principles that make nuclear fission unsafe.

A race playing with this technology should really have unlimited funds attached to such projects, putting safety above all else. If this was the case, Fukijima could have been avoided. It was pointed out that building the plant at that location would make it prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. These warnings were avoided (for god knows what reason), and then the next critical error was not tight sealing everything and not ensuring the best possible safety mechanisms for that location. I can't comprehend - I really can't. But this is what happens when such important things have financial and political constraints attached to them. We'll learn.

But rest assured, I have recently worked on reactor safety systems specifically taking into account the Japanese disaster. Now companies want to buy this technology, because they are scared of the financial/PR disaster that happened to Tepco. Sadly, that's how these people work. These power plants should already be practically 99.99999999% safe, regardless of cost and time required to achieve that reliability. But at least I can tell you that the next step in safety has begun, and thus we take another step forward. We are playing with an extremely dangerous thing, yet we will continue to 'play with fire and get burnt', for it seems that is how we have always been and always will be, if it was meant to be different...it would have been. I am sorry.


PS. Double sorry for not being brief.
edit on 5-12-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

thing is no matter what agendas people have we don't need nuke plants anymore. What is wrong with lining the entire interstate with solar panels and wind turbines? Don't tell me it wouldn't be enough power. Why keep building these hideous monstrosities that can (with something as simple as human error- I was East of 3MI at 16 and it really opened my eyes to the realities) wipe out mankind. You keep saying we're fine because the odds are against major catastrophes but I don't like gambling with the planet's future. It'll take years to shut them all down so there'll be work and there'll also be work in the new systems that the only thing you have to worry about is how pretty they look. Of course you wouldn't speak bad about the industry because you're in it. Talk about an agenda.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

vkey08
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


It has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with safety. Throwing a steam turbine on top of a cooling pond and letting the water vaporize costs a lot less than letting the stuff sit in these large circulating pools for years.. It would just kill everything in a 10 mile radius, that's the ONLY reason they don't do it..

I don't see how that's being unsafe or scaring you so much... They are being responsible and realizing that lives mean more than generating a little extra power..

This is why I don't understand everyone, it's so easy to sit and condemn and say "They don't do this because of cost" when cost really has nothing to do with the matter, it's safety plain and simple..


First of all I'm not talking about retrofitting the existing design, I'm talking about designing them so the residual heat can be used. Why use diesel to make the electricity to run pumps (or at least situate the generators high enough so they can't be affected by the surrounding water sources)? Why allow the heat to go to waste just to heat up the surrounding water sources? The way they are designed now they have inherent flaws that can turn into major events in the blink of an eye. Your nonchalant attitude toward the potential danger is what scares me. Again maybe you like playing odds with our future but I don't and am still waiting to hear why you don't like the interstate wind/solar idea.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DazDaKing
 


Well... while I can't disagree with everything you've written, there are a few places that you make assumptions based upon an outside looking in perspective.

When I was working in Nuclear just trying to make money for school, and honestly that's why I took the job, there was talk about the Seabrook plants here in Connecticut. They are built on old tidal marshland that was reclaimed for the project, but in the late 1950's when they were designed in and approved it was such a new technology the thought was, "what could go wrong?" same thing happened with a lot of the older reactors (newer ones have to have a very stringent set of safeties including but not limited to quadruple backup power sources, independent building mass dampening systems (something that should have been a no brainer in an Earthquake zone but hey I only build CGI of buildings to watch them fail LOL) , amongst some of the newer containment procedures. So you are right, we learn.. but as I said to someone else, to just say

"It cost too much that's why they didn't do X"

is rather irresponsible, a lot if had to do with and still to some respects has to do with the innocence of dealing with this type of power, someone before me complained they don't use the cooling pools to generate steam, well even after I explained the safety issues involved in that they STILL ranted about the cost being the issue. I can assure you at least here in the states, these power companies do not shirk cost as an issue when dealing with the newer plants, if they go over cost for any reason they make it up other ways, they don't cut those corners, it could mean the difference between the plant being shut down for a few days and hundreds of thousands of people dying, and no company wants that type of press, no money could buy their way out of it.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


It's not nonchalant though. I appreciate and fully understand the dangers of the systems as they currently are. I live about a 1/4 mile from an active nuclear reactor test site, worked in the same, and trust me, i've seen incidents in my time that left me pale and wanting to climb underground and never come out, my fear of it is a healthy one though, and I understand why they do certain things and why they cannot risk turning the cooling pools into raging heat sources just to power a few extra turbines.

That's what you seem to be missing, the reason behind having the pools, if they could use that residual heat safely, I am sure they would, more bang for the buck as it were, but as I said in my previous posting, safety is what counts with these plants nowadays, and TMI, was an OLD plant when TMI2 went, a product of a naive society that had just learned to harness the atom.

Ok, an example.. We had a criticality incident here a few years ago, the plant it happened at was a US Military one so noone in the area even heard it happened until MUCH later. We also all found out that they buried the used control rods back in the 50s and 60's underground on site, resulting in a dramatic increase in temp in the surrounding ground area that wasn't caught until the 1990's. Did they know in 1950 that this would happen? No, but now since the advent of the cooling pools things like this are no longer done. IN a perfect situation, there would be a way to cool off the rods immediately upon removing them, right now nothing that has been tried works, even liquid nitro.. they are just too hot, running the water over them is the only way to cool them, you do not WANT to harness that heat, you want them to cool as fast as possible, not linger in a hot state.

That's not nonchalant, that's reality, and unfortunately it's not fun but it's also ignoring some of the other issues, like getting higher does of radiation from a coal plant, like the fact that to cover interstate highways with solar panels and wind farms is cost prohibitive, (Deep Green looks promising but it's still a year or so away) power transmission is still an issue, and yes, redesign the emergency generators, put em on the roof, yes, i agree, but to condemn all Nuclear power because we are only now coming out of our infancy with it, is wrong.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   

vkey08
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


It's not nonchalant though.


it's called this STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

I think it applies to your situation:
"several of these features will be present:

Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release
Support of the abuser’s reasons and behaviors
Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment"
edit on 7-12-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

bottleslingguy

vkey08
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


It's not nonchalant though.


it's called this STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

I think it applies to your situation:
"several of these features will be present:

Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release
Support of the abuser’s reasons and behaviors
Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment"
edit on 7-12-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)


What the heck? *shakes head* unfortunately I'm not being held captive by anyone or being abused by anyone so your point is what again? Because I don't buy all the doom and gloom and blaring hyper-screaming-stupidity and actually research a topic?

Wow, and I thought here that's what discusion was about, researching a topic and trying to make sense out of it all.. I guess I know better now that if it's doom porn I must adhere to it and not try to kick through it.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

vkey08

bottleslingguy

vkey08
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


It's not nonchalant though.


it's called this STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

I think it applies to your situation:
"several of these features will be present:







edit on 7-12-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)


What the heck? *shakes head* unfortunately I'm not being held captive by anyone or being abused by anyone so your point is what again? Because I don't buy all the doom and gloom and blaring hyper-screaming-stupidity and actually research a topic?

Wow, and I thought here that's what discusion was about, researching a topic and trying to make sense out of it all.. I guess I know better now that if it's doom porn I must adhere to it and not try to kick through it.


Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller= you work for them and live close to a plant so they most likely pay all your property taxes not to mention your neighbors are most likely pro-nuke.

Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release= your negative feelings come through by calling my argument "doom porn"

Support of the abuser’s reasons and behaviors= self-evident

Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim= they just LOVE people like you and sometimes pay them to stick up for them.

Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser= exactly what you are doing right now.

Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment"= your lack of even trying to understand what I am telling you.

You can't downplay the possibility of a major catastrophic event just because one hasn't ended life on Earth yet. THAT is what I don't like about it- the POTENTIAL to end life on Earth as we know it and it actually already is. That's what the stuff of nuclear power does when exposed to our biosphere and that's why we shouldn't use it now that we know so much about it.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I haven't worked "for them" in many many years.. I'm a CG artist currently, sorry.

as far as the rest, it's due to research not stockholm, again, I have no idea where you get this from... Researching a topic will get you very very far in this world, and I don't mean doom porn sites either, I mean actual hard research. (I guess you've missed the places that i've said things like "When they fail they have the potential to fail spectacularly" or "Can we improve safety, of course" )

As for understanding you? You make little to no sense and are basing the portions of your arguments that are actually written in English off of two sites that have a clear agenda, one of which is actually trying to promote their own version of a product, so it is beneficial to go all doom porn.

You on the other hand cannot seem to understand what has been said to you, which is simply that while there are dangers, and noone is disputing those, and while there is the potential for a very bad accident to happen, the statistics are more in favor of continuing to work on safety, and improving it rather than scrapping it all together.. Not that it's 100% foolproof... nothing in this world is..

Cherry pick it some more, maybe you can have me blamed for the Kennedy Murder as well..
edit on 7-12-2013 by vkey08 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

vkey08
I haven't worked "for them" in many many years.. I'm a CG artist currently, sorry.

as far as the rest, it's due to research not stockholm,


but you do live right next to one don't you? don't they pay your property taxes? alright so maybe you're just very biased. The scary part is, if we can produce enough energy to run this country without using a fuel which is toxic and can ultimately end all life on Earth, why don't we? why do you keep ignoring my solar/wind turbine lining the interstates idea? that would be plenty of power and the logistics of servicing the equipment would be simple and inexpensive. AND if there is an accident the worst that can happen is a bird could be killed or it could crap on the panels and they have to be cleaned. Nothing close to destroying life as we know it. You are waaay toooo attached to this horribly dirty technology.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Actually I didn't ignore that idea, and if you read my posts I also pointed to a very promising tidal power source that looks even better than Solar or wind, is totally renewable AND works in low tidal current areas, so how's that ignoring renewable resources, I also mentioned the newer hydrogen powered cars that look to be a neat idea. I'm not opposed to other sources of power, in fact I have a wind turbine on my property in case of power failures, but..

As far as property taxes, they do not go to pay for a privately owned experimental reactor that doesn't provide a lick of electricity to the town, so thats a moot point.

You have to remember in some places both solar and wind won't produce enough power to light a radio much less a city.. there are other sources or renewable energy, besides those. And I mentioned two of them, a few times over and even linked to Deep Green..



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

vkey08
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Actually I didn't ignore that idea, and if you read my posts I also pointed to a very promising tidal power source that looks even better than Solar or wind, is totally renewable AND works in low tidal current areas, so how's that ignoring renewable resources, I also mentioned the newer hydrogen powered cars that look to be a neat idea.


"tidal power" how does that help the midsection of this nation? Why try to bog things down by reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch with the less tested technology? Would you object to wind turbines and solar panels lining our entire country's interstate and major roadways? that's a simple direct question which you will not answer. you mention tidal power and a privately owned turbine (which I applaud you for) but ignore the idea of them lining the roadways and medians. Why would that be less desirable than a technology that uses some of the most toxic chemicals known to man? and p.s. gas generators are the way to go during short power outages not a wind turbine.



vkey08

As far as property taxes, they do not go to pay for a privately owned experimental reactor that doesn't provide a lick of electricity to the town, so thats a moot point.


I meant the nuke plant paying the town's tax bill which the one fifteen miles from me does. That sure makes the townsfolk awfully pro-nuke in my experience.


vkey08

You have to remember in some places both solar and wind won't produce enough power to light a radio much less a city..


But what if there was a combined surface area of like 10,000 sq. acres of solar panel mixed with wind turbines along with all those other alternative methods without fossil fuels and nukes? why are you trying to make them a staple in our methods of energy production? I just don't get why you are so in love with them.

this is from one of your earlier posts: "It's simple, on the whole, it is most certainly cheaper and more environmentally friendly to run a Nuclear Plant, than it is say to run a coal fired plant. Nuclear plants provide much more energy for the buck and, when combined with Wind Farms can totally replace a slew of Coal fired plants.."

notice how you say "to RUN a nuclear plant". You don't even want to mention the dastardly juice that plant runs on so you pick on coal as having a dirty footprint when running. I think that's an easy target what with the smoke stacks and all. But you know the stuff you don't see INSIDE the nuke plant is some of the most horrible substances you can think of and if they get into the environment cause everything detrimental to life on Earth. And we all now how easily they can spill their contents in places they were not meant to be. I love how you downplay that.

you also said earlier, "The point is, that you can't just rely on a site like Natural News that has a most certain and definite agenda to push as far as these things go, and maybe, just maybe research the claims being made by that site before jumping on the "we're all doomed" bandwagon."

Is your agenda to protect the environment or a toxic chemical producing corporation? don't try to wiggle out of that one.

I'm not scared of you any more, I think you are funny.
edit on 8-12-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I did reply to your interstate idea three times, and you must have missed it each time..

1) To line every interstate highway in the country would cost so much, and disrupt so much that in the end it would be a logistical nightmare.

2) Because of the design of the interstate highway system, you would find yourself constantly having to fix, repair and otherwise care for the system, the cost overruns would bankrupt it before it got going.

3) not every area of the country is "good" for Solar and wind power, the Northeast for one, is horrid for solar power, wind only works here during parts of the year as well, if we lost power tonight, there's no breeze even to run my turbine and therefore I'd still have to fall back on the propane genny's..

4) Tidal Power, of the kind like Deep Green can be used in larger lakes and the like as well, thereby also cutting down on the unsightly ness of having a million wind turbines running all the time..

5) Wind Turbines take an incredible amount of maintenance, for example the wind farm outside of Pam Springs (Which provides the resorts with their electricity) have to be inspected every 4 months, and someone has to climb each and every one of those turbine towers at that time and replace the fluids, the seals etc.. Also if you get one strong wind, and just one turbine comes apart, you have a cascading domino effect as bits fly and get chopped up by the next turbine in line, and so on and so forth.. It's simply just not at this point feasible to have that type of setup along the highways..

As far as the plant in town paying taxes to the town, their taxes actually go to helping to run the town dump, and that's about it.. Not one of our town services gets paid for by that plant in town.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

well the plant around here pays for everything but dinner for the locals.

I'd like to waste my Sunday by addressing every point you bring up but alas, you are just another one of those brainwashed (for whatever reason) people who think they can compare the downsides of solar and wind with those of nukes and not sound ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Wind, Geo-Thermal, Solar, Ocean Tides, Gravity...to name a few.

Hell, we got loads of ways to make smart, abundant and clean energy.
Just like we have loads of ways other than than chemotherapy to deal with cancer.

Then why are we relying on dangerous radioactive materials?
Follow the money.

It's that simple.

Tesla had the solution and here we are about 100 years later, we are still making energy in ways that will eventually kill us all because of the sole reason to make money over the poor to keep the power.

Open up your eyes and see through the lies.
edit on 8-12-2013 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join