{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/22/2014 9:41:30 PM
42
-
Let me start by saying I'm no expert, from reading your posts I figure it's safe to assume you aren't either. Radiation and radioactive materials aren't just some bogeyman that lays waste to everything that comes in contact with them. They are physical things that have properties, properties that, while making them dangerous, can, in certain cases, also make them manageable. Certainly more manageable than the side effects of long term power production from fossil fuels. They're also more reliable than solar, wind and other similar power production methods that depend on quantities that can vary over time(not saying they shouldn't be pursued). Tritium has a half-life of about 12.32 years, this is peanuts compared to the half-life of most fissile materials and to the possible long term affects of fossil fuel burning. Tritium is also a relatively low decay energy beta emitter meaning that externally it poses no risk only doing so when inhaled or ingested the form of tritiated water(HTO). It is not bioaccumulative, with a biological half-life of 7-14 days(leaves the body rather quickly). This combined with good containment protocols and the possibility of [i]total containment[/i] being researched at ITER make the risk from tritium leaks mostly negligible and certainly safer than our mostly outdated fission infrastructure(a shame because it could be so much safer). I'm not saying other energy production methods shouldn't be pursued. On the contrary any thinking individual would pursue as many avenues as (within reasonable bounds) possible. I'm actually kind of partial to solar as an important complementary energy source.
-
Nuclear fusion, if we can finally initiate it and have enough helium to use in the needed coolants, would be completely safe if properly maintained. But I'm more pro-renewables, seeing as that's what I'm doing my dissertation on.
-
Edited by Sentra: 5/23/2014 12:58:34 AMNo wonder no one here takes you or your bait seriously.
-
It's called Fusion, not Fission.
-
If we are talking Fission, I can understand that point. If we are talking Fusion - Nope.
-
I would even argue that modern nuclear energy is infinitely preferable to fossil fuels. There are difficulties but they're mostly far less difficult than difficulties of fossil fuel.
-
Edited by Hargbeast: 5/22/2014 11:08:41 PM[i] [/i]
-
Why is everything bait now? This is in no way bait. Nuclear energy is unclean and unsafe.
-
Fusion is completely clean.
-
Yet it still leaks radioactive gas all over the place.
-
A large-scale fusion accident has never occurred.
-
Edited by Logfish111: 5/23/2014 12:19:35 AMNo but radioactive gases such as Tritium still escape on a regular basis.
-
Have any evidence of that?
-
Look it up if you want.
-
There's only leaks from fission plants. Nothing from fusion, mainly because they don't exist.
-
But it would leak anyway. It's not safe.
-
That's some of the weakest reasoning/argumentation I've ever heard. I'm calling bait on this one.
-
Well I dunno about you but I wouldn't be happy with radioactive gas running rampant across my country when there are much cleaner and safer energy sources out there.
-
[i] [/i]
-
>Lose an argument >Accuse poster of bait Typical B.Net
-
>Still baiting nonetheless
-
I accused you of baiting in the very beginning. Your entire argument--circular logic fallacies and all--proved my point exactly.
-
You made the claim therefore the burden of proof is on you.
-
He is baiting. He admitted as much in a pm. [spoiler]sorry logfish, but this has gone on long enough.[/spoiler]
-
What? I never PMed you.
