The world famous unmoderated thread

New video of Saddam. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7822f7af06&p=1

 

hahahaahahahahahahah

 

LoL, yeah I remember seeing that one. :lol:

 

The four in the Glostrup case were guilty according to the jury. And now some kind of numbskull of a judge has said only one of them is guilty, and not the others.

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/kriminalitet/2007/02/15/124842.htm?nyheder

And my mind is this: What The Fuck ???

If the jury says they are guilty, how in the fucking way can denote the jurys decision ?

And I am in quite shock because of it. This is fucking insane.

And Madhatter256: most of the global warming is the course of why EU has decided to go into neuclear energy.

 

Indeed, nuclear is way cleaner than any other form of energy, and more light radioactive materials like Thorium are as efficient as Uranium or Plutonium yet can be recycled and are less prone to remain highly radioactive than the other two, plus these fuels are cheaper and safer, cuz you cant make a Thorium bomb.

On the other hand, these fucking hippies that were again nuclear energy may be considered accomplices of this enviromental crisis in the near future, specially since greenpeace has a TON of Shell market stock.

I mean seriously, do any of you think they actually bought them? more like they got those in trade for selling their souls to the oil corporations...

 

The US seriously lacks in proper disposal of nuclear waste. Thorium is new and more expensive. Using uranium, which US has plenty of, is a more economical choice. Nuclear energy will soon take over as it is a more economically feasible source of energy.

 

Hmmmm when you can almost get unlimited energy from bio diesel, and that diesel is REALLY bio diesel. And you can almost unlimited hydrogen out of water, and Windmills, are the way forward(alternative energy is the way forward). And use alcohol from sugar canes.
Then I don´t get the Bushwackers speech about he was all in for the environment, when we all know it was only a show in his speech for the public. And his tampering with the ecological reports.

There are so many ways of using alternative energy, why should we then destroy the Earth ?

Since if we turn around 180 degrees NOW, then perhaps in about 50 years. Then we will still have our poles, but if we don´t then Greenland will become green again, just like in the Viking age. And there will be no poles at all.

My point of view is, never turn your back on mother Earth. And stop poluting the world, with waste. And also stop destroying the rain forest. But I am doing my job not to , but what about all other people ?

And radioactivity isn´t the way forward, but I do see some logic in having that, instead of oil. But still I am for that radio activity should stop.

And by the way, the Chernobyl case is murky also. Since there are facts that aren´t true and vice versa. I saw a documentary some time ago, I just can´t remember what is was about, other than some of the facts were not true. And it was on either DR or TV2.

And an odd thing is this when Chernobyl went balistic then the government in DK said that there was no radio active stuff from Chernobyl here, thanks to the "wind" had blown it over to the rest of Scandinavia, but well I don´t believe in that, because of circumstances

 

there are lots of alternative energy sources and technology, that are reusable, cheaper, cleaner, safer and have the possiblity to be more efficient than the ones we use now...

the problem is i think that whole industries are allready established around oil, gas, and coal... powerfull industries. they dont want competition and they have no incentive to switch to environmentally cleaner safer technology. let alone branch out into other alternative energy sources.

and its not just the energy industry. in the u.s. you find a lot of our food with high fructose corn syrup or [SIZE=-1]high maltrose corn sugar [/SIZE]because of the huge corn farming industry. it would be much healthier to eat food with sucrose from sugar cane and beets...but the corn industry is allready well established, and it's very powerfull.

 

social_drone: oh do I agree with you. What we once thought was run by governments are now the opposite. The grand industry is running many countries around the world. And how "grand" is that....

 

I wonder if there are any corn industry-based assasins.

 

Wolverine, the problem with renewables is that theres just not enough.

Ethanol is only efficient when made with sugar cane, and that only grows in tropical areas, and even in those areas (like brazil) you couldnt run the entire car market on this sole fuel, not without seriously compromising the food reserves (cuz you need soil to plant the sugar cane).

Both biodiesel and ethanol are great ways to use what would otherwise be useless waste (like used fry oil and rotten apples) but not when you've to use fresh vegetables that would otherwise feed the population.

Eolic energy only works when there's wind, which is only constant in certain places, and solar was crippled when the reagan administration decided to cut the funding on research. If they hadnt done that, more than 30% of US energy today would be from the sun, which is quite a big share.

Hydrogen is just a big fat lie, simply becos you need more energy to take the hidrogen off the water than what you'll get when using it in a fuel cell. If you ask me hydrogen is the oil industry's plan to keep us addicted to their fuels, cuz while you can make biodiesel and electricity in your own house, hydrogen needs a big facility, even bigger than those needed for turning oil into gas.

So we are left with nuclear simple becos is the only one that can keep things working. Electric cars also are even more efficient and clean than any fuel-based system, even if the energy from the grid comes from fossil fuels, simply becos big energy plants will always be more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Chernobyl was just one case, and a nuclear plant that was poorly designed from the get go and run by a corrupt bureaucratic government.

Thorium is waaaaay cheaper and more abundant than Uranium. Theres a lot of it in the world and nuclear reactors using it cant suffer a chain reaction like the one in chernobyl.

A guy I know got beaten up badly with a corn cobb, does that count?:lol:

 

Living in a 'nuclear town' and having a roommate that's majoring in nuclear engineering, I hear and in turn 'know' a lot about nuclear power and am a big supporter of it. With reprocessing techniques, all (or most all) nuclear waste we have now can be reused. It's already been stated, but I'm going to drive this point home and that is nuclear power is MUCH cleaner. Not to mention, with reprocessing techniques, current uranium deposits being much more plentiful than coal and natural gases, and fast reactor technology, Nuclear power goes a long way.

As for nuclear scares, the only one to ever happen in the US (Three Mile Island), no one was even exposed during the incident. As for Chernobyl, that was just stupidity on the Soviet's part. They were so careless with their nuclear technology, it's not even funny.

Anyway, I'm glad the current administration is really pushing Nuclear power, and I hope to see new nuclear power plants spring up.

 

I agree, althought I rather see those heavy uranium reactors being replaced for more light one like thorium based ones.

I laugh at those idiots who talk about the "coal economy" as if that was a real solution. I tell them to go to virginia and see the huge aftermath for themselves.

Back to the topic. in theory a thorium reactor is far cheaper to build and use, specially since thorium is even more abundant than uranium.

As a matter of fact I once heard that uranium reactors are actually inefficient and that the only reason those are working is becos the government buys the cheap plutonium subproduct for weapons.

I'm not entirely sure so you could ask your friend if thats true or not.

 

Unfortunately the NIMBY mentality will almost always trump nuclear power in the US.

 

Yep.

 

Well, plutonium is a byproduct of uranium based power plants. As for using the plutonium for weapons, I'm not really sure. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if it did happen.

However, from what I understand with newer Fast Reactor technologies nuclear weapons can be disassembled and the products can be used to provide power, thus they have the ability to get rid of nuclear weapons AND provide power. Two birds with one stone. Sounds like a good deal to me.

 

I know warheads have expiration dates and after that they can be reassembled with a significant power loss or recycle the plutonium core.

Honestly I'll for thorium since is chain-reaction proof, so you get rid of crazy iranians making bombs and stupid engineers causing a reactor overload.

 

Legalizing the ganja would help out our energy woes .

I'm not the most informed person when it comes to alternative sources of energy, but I think it's shitty that once gas prices go back down everyone seems to quit caring about different energy. I hate to be all tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory guy here, but I just get the feeling there is something shady going on with oil companys and the government.

 

http://msnbc.wmod.llnwd.net/a275/e1/video/100/tdy_vieira_jesusfamily_070226.asf?e=1172499152&h=4bb24736d9a93a85be30f0ff5058f780



Jesus grave maybe found.

 

Those caskets only contain Cameron's ego.