whux:

I go to school with this kid…

Today’s news in the comedy corner

whux:

sensiblehuman547:

We are facing a nuclear threat in the world, but not from North Korea, Iran, or Israel.

The problem with this argument is that, well, for starters, harvesting wind for energy isn’t always possible. Obviously, wind turbines need to be placed in an area with constant sources of wind (as opposed to areas which are temporarily and occasionally puffy). People generally don’t want wind turbines in their backyards since they are eye-stores. Not to mention, it’s nearly impossible to find an area large enough to install a wind farm in industrialized areas (versus the mid-west, for example, where there’s ample land, than on the east and west coasts). So, aside from minor little factors that contribute to the argument against wind farming, these three points are integral to the implementation and production of wind energy. 

I don’t have a large opinion either way (for or against) the usage of nuclear energy. Chernobyl was an atrocity, hands down - however, the main problem did not stem from the nuclear meltdown itself. What I mean by this, is that the explosion only killed one person. All other deaths are attributed to the effects of radiation, rather than the meltdown and explosion. Also, a majority of the deaths could have been avoided! It’s important to realize that the government kept the people in the dark and extracted all information about radiation poisoning from libraries and public knowledge. People were not educated and the government deliberately kept it that way. Had the government of Soviet Russia admitted a mistake had been made, had cities and villages been evacuated properly, had protective gear been administered to liquidators and citizens, had people been educated and had the ability to utilise resources (such as books) to learn about the effects of radiation, the amount of deaths AND defects, health complications, illness, etc… could have been avoided.

Personally, I am in favour of any form of energy that does not directly* harm the environment (such as, but not limited to, drilling, fracking, etc…). However, I do also understand the argument that nuclear energy is harmful to the environment…under the pretense that a reactor has a malfunction and contributes to a nuclear meltdown. However, this is not a common occurrence. As technology improves, we can find better ways to ensure that a meltdown does not happen, and in the case of an error, we can handle it better. Three Mile Island in New York was well contained - people were educated about how to contain a contamination and it was not swept under the carpet, unlike Chernobyl. It is possible to have nuclear power plants that do not harm the environment or the people!

Food for thought.
Cheers

EDIT: I also don’t think that the Canadians would appreciate it if you’d kill of their goose population.

I’d really love to hear viable alternatives to replace these over 20 terawatts of nuclear energy produced in my country, for instance, as you cannot produce energy with wind or solar power only. I have nothing against green energy. Actually, I support it over other sources, but from engineering’s point of view fully wind powered country is impossible.

Seriously, quit wasting money in ridiculously over-sized military budgets and plow it to things like researching fusion power and other ungodly useful things.

constants-and-variables77:

ME3 - Promises by ~JPShieux

so basically someone on the femshep tag was talking about this and I finally found it and ugh

tears.