View Single Post
Unread 18 Jan 2006, 17:56   #47
wu_trax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
wu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet societywu_trax is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Seriously, Greenpeace, what the ****?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
first of all, the aim of smashing a plane into a nuclear plant is not to make it explode like a bomb (as you say, you can't get the critical mass because it isn't enriched enough) but to just blow up the plant itself and disseminate radioactive waste into the atmosphere. In many ways this is far more destructive in the long term than a nuclear bomb is (apart from the really massive ones like the tsar bomba).

Secondly, only the russian designed power stations and some older plants were capable of meltdown because of their design. modern power stations simply cannot have a meltdown because of the way the feedback mechanisms work and the general design.
The only problem i see with nuclear power is where to put the waste.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
wu_trax is offline   Reply With Quote