• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Nuclear Power? (2 Viewers)

Should we consider Nuclear power?

  • Yes

    Votes: 51 91.1%
  • No

    Votes: 5 8.9%

  • Total voters
    56

Sprangler

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
494
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
NO AUSTRALIA IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR POWER!!!
if we do!!, Their will be Sanctions!! Like 50 of them employed on us!!
We will be threatening the existence of Tasmania. We have always called for Tasmania's destruction, and never really recognised it's existence!
So what do u say fella's, here's our chance!!
HELLL YEAHHHHHHHHHH, GOOD - BYE TASSIE!!!!!!
HAHA! MUSLIM MADE A FUNNY!!


:confused:

But Ziggy is basically correct.
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Australia was building a bunch of nuclear bombs during the Cold War but we gave up, on the premise that NATO had plenty. We're not talking about some policies or theories, either - we were probably about half-way there.

South Africa did develop nukes, then disposed of them when the Cold War ended in the 1990's.
 

Uncle

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
3,265
Location
Retirement Village of Alaska
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
No need for nuclear reactors or weapons.
The potential for misuse presents grave danger for all.

I've been fucking sterilised by nuclear testing.
 

da2756

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
1
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
There are different fuels other than uranium. We could use Thorium, which Australia has in abundance, and is a whole lot cleaner than uranium, with half the half life as well as creating less waste than uranium. Plus you need less reactors to create the equivalent energy. And we already have a nuclear reactor in Lucas Heights
 

TomALb

New Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
1
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
with a current energy crisis looming as sydney and the rest of the state begins to grow, it is essential that more energy be generated and this cannot be done by curbing carbon emissions by building windfarms, solar etc. to stop repeats of the blackout experienced last month in Sydney CBD and continual blackouts throughout the metropolitan area a series of new powerplants must be constructed and if the government is really serious about curbing carbon emmisions a nuclear powerplant is a necessary evil.

thats my 2 cents
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Joyce is a dick with most of his policies, but for now, he is a hero.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
No...unless they can come up with an extremely safe, sustainable method of using it.
 

cookkii

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
53
Location
c'town
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
but have they yet found a safe and sustainable way to dispose of the waste and excess?? there is always the risk of a meltdown, contamination of soil and waterways, health risks for those working with it... why bother?? there are more enviro-friendly methods for energy, that are more sustainable and not as dangerous.
 
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
The Pub
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
but have they yet found a safe and sustainable way to dispose of the waste and excess?? there is always the risk of a meltdown, contamination of soil and waterways, health risks for those working with it... why bother?? there are more enviro-friendly methods for energy, that are more sustainable and not as dangerous.
Plenty of empty desert the store the minute (on a scale of industrial waste lol) amounts of waste products.

There is always a risk that there could be a major accident in any industry, Dams could collapse in Hydro schemes so lets not build dams.

The health risk for people working there is smaller than the health risk or working in a coal fired plant. The health risk to the public is highly reduced by nuclear power compared to coal, and other industries are not fucking developed or viable why does no one understand this??


Dont you think that if there was money to be made out of building thousands of fucking wind turbines and solar panels that it would be happening?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
but have they yet found a safe and sustainable way to dispose of the waste and excess?? there is always the risk of a meltdown, contamination of soil and waterways, health risks for those working with it... why bother?? there are more enviro-friendly methods for energy, that are more sustainable and not as dangerous.
Yes, yes and yes.

Synroc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there have only been two meltdowns in the entire history of civilian nuclear power (and 8 partial meltdowns, with 5 of those being military) just goes to show how safe nuclear power is. It is very sustainable (given Australia holds the world's reserves in uranium) and very safe. The health risks to those working at a reactor are minimal.

You are all unfortuntaely victim to the very successful scare campaign by the likes of Greenpeace.
 
Last edited:

cookkii

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
53
Location
c'town
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
Yes, yes and yes.

Synroc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there have only been two meltdowns in the entire history of civilian nuclear power (and 8 partial meltdowns, with 5 of those being military) just goes to show how safe nuclear power is. It is very sustainable (given Australia holds the world's reserves in uranium) and very safe. The health risks to those working at a reactor are minimal.

You are all unfortuntaely victim to the very successful scare campaign by the likes of Greenpeace.

youre using wikipedia as a source?? one of the most unreliable websites in the history of the internet.
this information is regarding the past, whereas here, we are dealing with the future. we cannot begin to imagine what could happen, and what may be the long term effects of this on our country. we're not just talking about the life on the planet, but the land as well. where are we going to dispose of the waste? let america ruin there part of the world, id rather keep australia as it is.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
youre using wikipedia as a source?? one of the most unreliable websites in the history of the internet.
this information is regarding the past, whereas here, we are dealing with the future. we cannot begin to imagine what could happen, and what may be the long term effects of this on our country. we're not just talking about the life on the planet, but the land as well. where are we going to dispose of the waste? let america ruin there part of the world, id rather keep australia as it is.
Lol okay, stupid comments about Wikipedia aside (you do realise that all of these articles have citations? They're summaries of existing research. Don't be an idiot), Synroc

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? There's no "long term risk" of burying waste in tectonically dead cratons away from the water table or, better, in a subduction zone.
 
Last edited:

cookkii

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
53
Location
c'town
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
Lol okay, stupid comments about Wikipedia aside (you do realise that all of these articles have citations? They're summaries of existing research. Don't be an idiot), Synroc
wikipedia may have citations, but that doesnt mean its particularly reliable. its too easy to bs on it.

and im still sticking by my opiion. they were actually thinking of putting the power plant near where i live, and thats something im completely against.
 
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
The Pub
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
It is very reliable if you have half a brain and can follow the links of the citations. Not that hard.

Nuclear power plants pose a significantly reduced risk to the public than current (coal fired) power plants. Significantly more radioactivity is leaked into the environment from coal fired plants than from nuclear plants. There is nothing to worry about in regards to having a nuclear power plant in your area, infact it would provide a boost to your shitty fucking economy.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top