Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

En vous enregistrant, vous pourrez discuter de psychotropes, écrire vos meilleurs trip-reports et mieux connaitre la communauté

Je m'inscris!

Why we need nuclear power

IJesusChrist

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Juil 2008
Messages
7 482
I LOVE THIS REPORTER!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29741813@N05/sets/72157623153551324/
Fuck that is definitely NOT the right url, but it is pretty, here it the correct:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=why-im-becoming-a-pro-nuke-nut-cont-2010-08-23

Fear of nuclear attacks by terrorists "has inspired protective and policing expenditures that are likely to prove substantially excessive," Mueller wrote. "Actually, it is not at all clear that any terrorist groups really want the weapons or are remotely capable of obtaining them should the desire to do so take hold of them. If they try, there are a host of practical and organizational difficulties that make their likelihood of success vanishingly small."
 

viljo

Elfe Mécanique
Inscrit
20 Fev 2009
Messages
396
It's so early in the morning I'm not sure if I can handle a nuke discussion.
 

viljo

Elfe Mécanique
Inscrit
20 Fev 2009
Messages
396
it was a joke!

otherwise IJC can post what ever he she feels like.
 

spice

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Déc 2006
Messages
3 774
yeah, no shit.....


why would you joke about that.....it's not funny. That's the kind of humor george bush had, that fucking idiot

Anyway, the big issue with nuclear power is NOT 'rogue terrorists' it is ROGUE FUCKING GOVERNMENT GODDAMMIT

There are plenty of terrorists 'out there', and most of them work for/in/around government.
 

Sticki

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
13 Sept 2007
Messages
1 362
The future of Nuclear power is Thorium as Thorium Fluoride I believe, Much cleaner cycle then Uranium and in abundance world wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

Nuclear power seems essential for the modern world, however Im sure in the TED talk - 6 Ways Mushrooms Could Save The World. Paul Starnets points out that the earth has possibly seen nuclear holocaust in the past and that mycelium and giant mushrooms had played a role in cleaning the earths soil, No indecation if it was mans hand or natural disaster??
 

spice

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Déc 2006
Messages
3 774
there are archaelogical indications that Ancient civilizations managed radioactivity, I do not believe we are mature enough to handle the power.....the only 'reason' it seems to be a necessity is because people allow themselves to be convinced its a
necessity.
 
G

Guest

Invité
I'd say nuclear power is, considered the society we live in, the best currently available alternative.

Feel free to prove me wrong though.
 

viljo

Elfe Mécanique
Inscrit
20 Fev 2009
Messages
396
From nuclear tapping to nuclear spice production.

wHAT IS NUCLEAR FUEL?
 

Sticki

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
13 Sept 2007
Messages
1 362
I believe Nikola Tesla produced free energy over 100 years ago, We really do not need Nuclear power but in the world we live in the big dicks like to have the power behind them....

I agree that 90% of those with Nuclear capabilities are too immature to handle them but I also think it offers great potential for multiple applications if the cycle is refined and I am very sure the minority of those research scientists with nuclear capabilities will be making some positive differences in the Nuclear world :)
 

spice

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Déc 2006
Messages
3 774
Mismanagement is the reason we aren't mature enough to utilize it, and may never be.

Tiax- Here in the US, there is a facility in Hanford Washington, which was infamous for the amounts of plutonium and nuclear waste that it produced.

wiki says-

"Many of the early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate, and government documents have since confirmed that Hanford's operations released significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River, which threatened the health of residents and ecosystems."

DO YA THINK THEY GIVE A FUCK?

I think that WE, the 'people', are ENTIRELY TOO TRUSTING, too programmed by TV, too EAGER to believe these traitorous motherfuckers, we are innoculated with statements that amount to -

'trust them'

'they care'

'they wouldn't be doing it if it were bad'

It's a SHEEPLE thing.

Here's more-

"The weapons production reactors were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War, but the manufacturing process left behind 53 million U.S. gallons (204,000 m³) of high-level radioactive waste that remains at the site"

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR DISPOSAL STRATEGY IS?

They bury that shit in steel drums. A few years back that shit started leaking into the ground.......why the fuck don't people get it? I expect more from a group of people who call themselves 'psychonauts'....

Who runs ALL nuke programs?

The government.

Considering their heinous track record, as well as their penchant for treating us like ruminant animals, WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANY OF YOU advocate trusting them?

Is it that you don't have alternatives?

BULLSHIT, there are alternatives galore, its just that propaganda has brainwashed it out of you all.

QUIT BELIEVING THAT BS, look at their track record, LIES,LIES,LIES


wiki, again- "Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States"

more....

"A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. These releases were kept secret by the federal government......

and....

"The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia. Downwinders were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, with the heaviest releases during the period from 1945 to 1951. These radionuclides filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where dairy cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's routine operations, while a few of the larger releases occurred in isolated incidents.

SEE? THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED, and they have demonstrated this to EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU time and time again.


The real question is why do you all keep giving them the chance to do it to you over and over?

Ask yourselves, as psychonauts, because3 this is a very real issue with humanity; Is our capacity to accept deceit and abuse nearly infinite?

What will it take to wake up?

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, many of you seem to have your minds made up, based on WHAT, exactly, I don't know, and cannot understand....it is an examination you, each of you who believe that this is a sustainable vision for the future, need to ask yourselves.
 
G

Guest

Invité
Spice, from what I read from you, what I see is that the governement isn't able (yet?) to deal with nuclear power in a efficient/safe way.

Still, does that automatically means that there is currently a real alternative for nuclear power?
 

spice

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Déc 2006
Messages
3 774
The answer is YES, hell yes.


There are a lot of alternatives, but 'we' as a people, all over the world, have been led to think that what we are given in textbooks is all that there is....I say that our very THINKING in these areas has been creatively led down a specific 'path',
a safe path (for them) and that we are all still being led down it.

Ask yourself, using your critical thinking skills:


Who has THE MOST to lose if I/WE/YOU/THEY begin utilizing self-reliant energy that isnt dependent on some MAN-MADE factory produced process?

Who has the MOST TO LOSE if the truth ever comes out about guys like Nikola Tesla, Victor Schauberger, and others?


Who has the most to lose if we decide to go 'off the grid'?

Nuclear power just does not have enough inherent safety to outweigh the energy produced. The waste alone is enough to really negate the use, but when you factor in humanitys penchant for being lazy about the proper processing and disposal, then you have a recipe for eco-disaster.

The REAL truth is out there, and the real truth is that what we percieve as 'options' pertaining to energy, are carefully orchestrated ways of thinking that have been programmed into us through our hidden masters.
 

Sticki

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
13 Sept 2007
Messages
1 362
Salt water has been proven to be a viable fuel - http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/11/can- ... d-as-fuel/

Nikola Tesla's work on free energy is priceless however, some what almost forgotten by the majority most likely due to major supression at the hands of large power companys and unruley governments.
 
G

Guest

Invité
This salt water experience is really interesting, still one question remains :

Dr. Roy say the question now is the efficiency of the energy

Otherwise, could someone give me a link to this "Telsa's free energy" thing you're all refering to?
 

polska224

Neurotransmetteur
Inscrit
3 Sept 2010
Messages
22
This saltwater thing is very interesting. But how much heat be produced from "burning" salt water? It doesnt seem to be a very high-output energy source.

With regards to the whole nuclear waste issue, I live about 30 minutes from Love Canal, which is still a total shithole. You would think there would be more government regulations about waste "disposal" (i use the term loosely). Yeah, there isnt. Less than 5 minutes away from me there are acres upon acres of fenced off areas that say GOVERNMENT PROPERTY KEEP OUT. And everything surrounding these tracts is residentially zoned.
 

viljo

Elfe Mécanique
Inscrit
20 Fev 2009
Messages
396
I was not aware of all those facts to tell the truth and I have never really put enough thought into the reality of nuclear fuel. I myself have relied on nuclear fuel for far to long.

Cutting down consumption and using alternative or clean production (renewable) on a individual level to reduce the need for let's call it Government control is not an unreachable goal.

In this day and age everyone should be more accountable or aware of there personal power usage.

I personally have woken up.
Gonna put away some cash for solar panels.

Thanks SPICE.
 

polska224

Neurotransmetteur
Inscrit
3 Sept 2010
Messages
22
Unfortunately, with today's technology, solar panels simply arent efficient enough to fully power a home.

If we could just figure out what to do with the waste, nuclear power could easily solve the worlds energy problems. At our current consumption rate, the amount of available fuel (uranium, thorium, etc) could power us for 15 MILLION YEARS. Not to mention the price is almost one tenth of gas or coal. But, like I said, waste buildup is the problem here.
 

spice

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Déc 2006
Messages
3 774
(laughing)


No, nuclear isn't the way to go.....it is so much more than 'what to do with the waste'

Why dont you, polska, do some research on why cannabis is illegal, in order to get a bigger picture.....


The problem is US, our way of thinking, and the way our thinking is molded by government/religion/ industry

(ALL 3 FACETS OF THE SAME THING)

Someone please draw the line which separates the three.....where does one stop and the other begin?


Who has the most to lose if we ever 'wake up'?

(and, BTW, yes solar can power a modern home....you aren't supposed to believe otherwise)


Who has the most to lose?
 
Haut