Outcomes Make application for Credit history How

It is possible to Apply For Credit ratings The most effective way for the newcomer to generate credit ranking using xboter 2014

Posted by Pearlene Bailon (guest) on Thu 12 Jun 2014 20:19:48 PDT

nuclear barsuk

RBMK is the great soviet reactor. West peoples never understand what is a russian s.

Posted by Guest on Sat 12 Dec 2009 18:20:01 PST

TokenBob

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I've been a pro-advocate for nuclear energy since childhood. Many of my science repots in school were about nuclear-related things. In America (where I'm from), the ignorance of people thinking that driving a...

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I've been a pro-advocate for nuclear energy since childhood. Many of my science repots in school were about nuclear-related things. In America (where I'm from), the ignorance of people thinking that driving a hybrid is going to save the world. ???, it burns two fossil fuels, oil and coal, when it's plugged in. Which is what still powers 2/3 of our homes in the U.S., coal. Not to mention the pollution created to produce a hybrid battery alone. Oh that's right, Obama is magic and grows them in flower ponds. Other countries are getting it together and going nuclear, America is just sitting there imagining other things, wasting their time. My faith relies in the nuclear future and i stongly stand behind the technology. I'm not the same person as I was 20 years ago, and neither was Russia/Ukraine, cut'em some slack. I've also seen some real winners for comments. Post no haste from the person who said we got along fine without energy years ago, she can start by turning off her computer and walking to a far land and live in a cave, dumbass. But my favorite comment was about firing the waste into space, at the sun. Why at our most precious asset in the solar system, our refuse, or make it our neighboring planets' problem. Then there's a possible booster failure halfway up to space and you get atomized radioactive fuel dispersed high in the stratosphere. That's happened before with a small amount of Plutonium Snap-9A, used for keeping satellite electronics from freezing. The rocket exploded and was distributed. Now there isn't a person on the planet without a trace amount of snap-9A in their system. For the radiation exposure at TMI, you're probably absorbing more radiation looking at your computer screen while reading my bullshit entry. On a more nice note, I like Russians, they seem like a fun, festive bunch of people. My father served in the Air Force during the cold war, he never hated Russia, nor the people. He knew they were people that loved their familes and their country, as he did his. I'd raise an Amercan beer with a Russian and his vodka to toast our past differences, present resolve and future peace times. Excellent pictures.

Posted by Guest on Sat 26 Sep 2009 17:16:59 PDT

noboy

i just wanna make me cry

Posted by Guest on Wed 11 Mar 2009 02:56:58 PDT

twitter.com/mccaw

Wow, a great place for Nadya Suleman (the octuplet mom) to raise her brood of 14 children. Plenty of space to stretch out in. A _whole_ 30KM area.
:-)

Posted by Guest on Wed 25 Feb 2009 03:13:47 PST

dragonfromthedepths@hotmail.com

why would they send people in there, that's just cruel! there is that saying that 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it' i hope that the second sarcophagus is built soon and our government wants to build nuclear power stations here...

why would they send people in there, that's just cruel! there is that saying that 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it' i hope that the second sarcophagus is built soon and our government wants to build nuclear power stations here then they just going to repeat histoy

Posted by Guest on Fri 19 Dec 2008 02:55:54 PST

Joe Soap

Great pictures.
Intend to go to Ukraine/Belarus to see first hand the landscape.
History will ALWAYS repete itself. It's only a matter of time until
there are other major nuclear accidents (like car crashes), just hope they do not...

Great pictures.
Intend to go to Ukraine/Belarus to see first hand the landscape.
History will ALWAYS repete itself. It's only a matter of time until
there are other major nuclear accidents (like car crashes), just hope they do not effect you. How close we came to Nuclear exchanges in 50's 60's is unclear but the day WILL come. Perhaps not in my lifetime but definitely in someone's.........

Posted by Guest on Wed 30 Jul 2008 05:50:44 PDT

timi

this whole thing is bullshit. screw the rusians

Posted by Guest on Wed 14 May 2008 16:32:46 PDT

petra777888@msn.com

I gave read much said here and can honestly say that there are some very cold people who think this is something that is minor or as one comment I seen,"diasters are great". This is something that will haunt for generations to come and I have watched...

I gave read much said here and can honestly say that there are some very cold people who think this is something that is minor or as one comment I seen,"diasters are great". This is something that will haunt for generations to come and I have watched countless heart crushing footage on the ones fallen and who still are,this is not what we need to happen again yet it will,probably here in america where I live for time being and I have lived here all my life yet I agree with svetlana,nothing is ever good enough for this country.Has any of you smart asses ever watched someone you love,die from cancer? I buried my mother when I was 18 and countless numbers of little children have died such horrible,painful deaths and all I can say is if I could, I would take thier pain and die in thier place. Yet I will not be afraid and plan to relocate to someplace in ukraine as I feel God calling me there and I have the utmost love and respect for them as people from uktaine are some of the most kind and warm hearted people on earth and since I am a single man I will glady find my wife there too as they need to know that not all americans are heartless and cold as I have seen here

Posted by Guest on Sun 23 Mar 2008 20:10:16 PDT

Unseen

It was realy disgusting

Posted by Guest on Thu 07 Feb 2008 03:45:10 PST

ashleyroyds@btinternet.com

interesting arguments from both sides... jurys still out on this but the case for nuclear is growing stronger in my book

Posted by Guest on Tue 09 Oct 2007 10:32:03 PDT

bomberosmdp@hotmail.com

Im a firefighter and currently working in a HAZARDOUS MATERIALS unit. ive never faced radiation and haven´t been able to find a proper course here in Argentina. Could any of you tell me where to get good and reliable information on protective gear for...

Im a firefighter and currently working in a HAZARDOUS MATERIALS unit. ive never faced radiation and haven´t been able to find a proper course here in Argentina. Could any of you tell me where to get good and reliable information on protective gear for ALFA, BETA, and GAMMAR RAYS ??

Posted by Guest on Sat 28 Jul 2007 12:48:25 PDT

dk

OK people, do any of you work at a nuclear power plant? Well I do and can tell you it is ridiculously safer than any other industry out there. I would rather work at a nuclear power plant than the 3M chemical plant down the road. I can't even begin...

OK people, do any of you work at a nuclear power plant? Well I do and can tell you it is ridiculously safer than any other industry out there. I would rather work at a nuclear power plant than the 3M chemical plant down the road. I can't even begin to tell you all the safety measures we go through on a daily basis. In the "real world" what would be a 30 minute job, can easily take up to 8 hours, I have seen it take longer. All the preparations, safety talks, etc. What I am trying to say is that nuclear power is very safe. We freak out at work if someone receives a paper cut.

Posted by Guest on Thu 26 Jul 2007 13:54:36 PDT

kim

Tant de souffrances !!! Tant de bêtise humaine !! L'humanité a-t-elle tiré une leçon de cette catastrophe ? L'homme détruit l'homme et ce sont les enfants qui souffrent dans leur chair et leur âme, alors qu'ils sont censés être notre devenir !

Posted by Guest on Tue 15 May 2007 04:35:39 PDT

Nicole

Why do we need so much energy? Did we not survive without it before? I could see the need for hospitals, water recycle places and such, but most of the energy we use today is not needed, just desired for convenience. Light bulbs, dishwashers, ect.

Posted by Guest on Fri 20 Apr 2007 16:43:04 PDT

jdd

lol, cant even keep global warming out of a site like this... that's really sad, seing as global warming has not been shown to be caused by anything man does... but anyway, i was greatly amused by the whole...

lol, cant even keep global warming out of a site like this... that's really sad, seing as global warming has not been shown to be caused by anything man does... but anyway, i was greatly amused by the whole throwing-nuclear-waste-into-the-sun-will-blow-up-the-earth thing. the sun consumes it's own mass at such a rate that, no matter how much junk we throw at it, it won't make a lick of difference. and besides, the sun already absorbs a huge number of kinetic events (comets, meteors, stuff like that, some of which contain radioactive material) we could throw our whole planet at the sun, and absolutely nothing would happen (besides our planet being destroyed...) Also note, the moon, which definitely is important as far as mass goes, but is a measly bythought compared to the sun. The moon's farside is absolutely riven with kinetic event craters, but it's orbit remains stable, and probably will continue to be stable for the next few billion years or so. Also the mass of the moon has not noticeably changed. Therefore, the orbital configuration of the moon is not influenced by kinetic events. (asuming of course, the event is not of sufficient mass to fracture the moon) now there are a lot of things in the solar system bigger than the moon, but nothing even close to the mass of the sun. Therefore, nothing humans can do can upset the stability of the sun.

Posted by Guest on Tue 03 Apr 2007 14:35:21 PDT

Derek

The estimates at this point are that 4-9 thousand people are dead, directly caused by the reator...by the time it is said and done, 95000 peoples lives are to be taken early by adverse effects of the radiation

Posted by Guest on Sun 25 Mar 2007 22:58:27 PDT

Cheryl

The accident at Chernobyl terrifies me!!
It would be one thing if the land would only be contaminated for a short time, but we are talking hundreds of years that lots of land will be uninhabitable.Many people had to leave their homes never to...

The accident at Chernobyl terrifies me!!
It would be one thing if the land would only be contaminated for a short time, but we are talking hundreds of years that lots of land will be uninhabitable.Many people had to leave their homes never to return to this hightly contaminated land. I feel so sorry for them and the poor children. What a sad, sad situation. I do not feel that nuclear energy is safe and would be willing to do without . Three Mile Island could have been like Chernobyl if that hydrogen bubble would have burst. Also, what about all of the waste from these reactors. What will we do with all of it??

Posted by Guest on Wed 07 Mar 2007 14:19:31 PST

withoutadoubt@nnex.net

I see all of you people saying how awed you are at these images and that someone should build a second sarcophagus... with how many people there are in the world, and with how many people are so interested in Chernobyl, I am pretty sure the Government...

I see all of you people saying how awed you are at these images and that someone should build a second sarcophagus... with how many people there are in the world, and with how many people are so interested in Chernobyl, I am pretty sure the Government would accept a worldwide donation fund to be set up. It seems logical, at least. I know I would donate some cash as to help create a safer environment for hundreds of thousands of people.

Posted by Guest on Fri 09 Feb 2007 14:40:30 PST

egonfreeman@gmail.com

Quote: "Waste is problem, but I think this is only acceptable solution, but it would be very, very expensive: In orbit, there should be constructed large constructions. The waste should be stored in those constructions. Then, when a construction gets ...

Quote: "Waste is problem, but I think this is only acceptable solution, but it would be very, very expensive: In orbit, there should be constructed large constructions. The waste should be stored in those constructions. Then, when a construction gets full of waste, it should be "pushed" towards the Sun (or some gas gigant, like jupiter), by some kind of rocket engine. The rest of the trip to Sun should be possible because of inertion (no resistance in space)."


As a reply to Costi and the post cited above, why won't anyone think about what would that do to our sun? I mean, we're worried about our precious little ecosystem, so instead of letting the waste spill around here, we're going to put freakin' tons of fissible material into a giant fusion reactor?! I'm sorry, did I hear that correctly? You *DO* know that without the sun, our ecosystem is pretty much useless? Not to mention that without it, we can't really keep any ecosystem different that the one found on Pluto or some similar space-rock (read: none)... It may be that the amount of the waste we'd be putting there would be like 10^-10, but all in all there are also other dangers we have to consider, apart from our sun burning out too soon (as it inevitably will, though we have a few billion years or so before that happens - let's not accelerate the process by putting more mass to it). For example, a "small" solar flare directed straight at us would be enough to graciously wipe out half of our planet's life. The ecosystem wouldn't rebuild, not to mention the vast amount of space radiation (which, believe me, is MUCH more deadly than, say, ten Chernobyl explosions in one place, simultaneously?).

Injecting it into a gas giant like Jupiter is also out of the question, as such a "creature" also relises heavily on its mass, and the gravitational pull resulting from it. So, on one side we have a potential "big match" that'd burn our atmosphere (the sun), and on the other - a potential black hole resulting from rapidly increased mass (Jupiter). It's not a matter of a decade or two, of course, but we'd still be dropping the problem on our grand- grand- grand-... grand- grandchildren anyway.

I'd consider the He-3 proposition. Although it is widely known that the last machine (as in: rocket propeller) that could safely carry a human-being-in-a-can onto the Moon has been de-comissioned (and taken apart, if those terms don't mean the same thing) by NASA some fifteen years ago...? I guess we'll get around to that either after World War III or some global event that'll unify all of mankind... Possibly in a struggle for power, in which case it will be too late. I wonder why we're fu**ed up as a race. Anyone? ;-)


PS.
And PLEASE, if you're thinking about injecting it into our own core (which consists of solid and molten rocks (commonly known as lava)), FORGET ABOUT IT. We'd blow our planet to cinders or distrupt its magnetic axis, and we'd be gone before you could say "interstellar escape" really, really fast.

Posted by Guest on Sun 31 Dec 2006 19:35:19 PST

Me

I believe nuclear power is a very safe alternative, and although there have been some major accidents in the past the safty track record is very good, especially compared with coal burning and gas plants. My understanding of the accident was that many ...

I believe nuclear power is a very safe alternative, and although there have been some major accidents in the past the safty track record is very good, especially compared with coal burning and gas plants. My understanding of the accident was that many of the operators were not trained for the RBMK, a lot of them only had previous experience in coal or small reactor plants. So nobody quite realized what was going on, I don't blame the russians or anyone, it was an unfortunate accident, that everyone learned from, it could have just as easily have happened in the U.S if they were using the same type. Think of the SL-1 disaster if that had been in a town the size of Chernobyl same thing would have occured. Every reactor type has its pros and cons.

Posted by Guest on Sun 17 Dec 2006 22:40:01 PST

Svetlana

What can I say; us good old russians!
We are tough little basterds and we take lots of pride in what we do. Despite of all our hard work and effort the we put in; there is still a margin for mistakes and failier. We learn new things every day and...

What can I say; us good old russians!
We are tough little basterds and we take lots of pride in what we do. Despite of all our hard work and effort the we put in; there is still a margin for mistakes and failier. We learn new things every day and we try to strive for profection. But yet even that is not good enough for americans. May God truely bless those who linger in suffering due to catastrophic disaster, and mey God open up the eyes of those who are blind.

Posted by Guest on Wed 22 Nov 2006 15:19:25 PST

skull

wow... those guys are really brave... but i think a little bit too brave... even after 20 years, there is still radiation in the plant, and just for looking insight what's goin' on there, i wouldn't do that.
Nuclear power is bad, very bad. But...

wow... those guys are really brave... but i think a little bit too brave... even after 20 years, there is still radiation in the plant, and just for looking insight what's goin' on there, i wouldn't do that.
Nuclear power is bad, very bad. But there are advantages with it. Much electrical power. And this catastrophe wasn't the mistake of the plant, it was the mistake of the workers, who worked there. They weren't informed good about how to control the plant. I think in nearly 50 years, living near the plant is possible again... let's hope that it was and stays the worst nuclear catastrophe in the exist of humanity.

Posted by Guest on Sun 12 Nov 2006 06:52:15 PST

Dave_SuthAfrica

This is a great resource - thanks Spaceman, and thanks to those who added valuable insight. And a HUGE thanks to those who cleaned it up and will work to make the place safer in future

Posted by Guest on Mon 06 Nov 2006 06:47:16 PST

Costi (RO)

There is risk in all of man's industrial activities. It happens to be higher regarding nuclear power. As long as this risk is assumed with a conscience we have nothing to worry about. The real scientists don't make things to hurt people, but to help...

There is risk in all of man's industrial activities. It happens to be higher regarding nuclear power. As long as this risk is assumed with a conscience we have nothing to worry about. The real scientists don't make things to hurt people, but to help them. The real problem are the politicians, they are the ones messing everything up. People must understand that no one should play with nuclear power.
When you talk about the Russians I hope you reffer to the government and not the regular people who have no bussines in the matter.
The Americans have a word: "You cannot make an omlet whitout braking eggs". We just have to make shure that we don't brake the whole basket :P !
So, let there be nuclear power plants, they offer many advantages as long as they are kept safe. The only problem that requires an immediate solution is the waste disposal.
Someone wants to launch them into the sun. Can anyone realise what are the costs in getting them to orbit? We have to think to something else.

Posted by Guest on Fri 08 Sep 2006 06:58:23 PDT

Alan

A Coal "accident" will not leave an impact on the world for dozens or even hundreds of generations to come.

That said, instead of using Ur-235 to fuel our nuclear powerplants, why don't we use He-3? Even if there are no accidents, the...

A Coal "accident" will not leave an impact on the world for dozens or even hundreds of generations to come.

That said, instead of using Ur-235 to fuel our nuclear powerplants, why don't we use He-3? Even if there are no accidents, the disposal of the radioactive spent Uranium is still a problem. We just keep burying it in containers which will eventually leak and cause problems for future generations. Using radioactive He-# helium as a fuel source pretty much eliminates this problem. While there is very little He-3 here on earth, scientists tell us that the moon is rich in He-3 desposits. Depending on who you talk to, a single ton of He-3 is worth anywhere between $4 - $32 billion!

Even taking the conservative numbers, that should justify a return to the moon for mining of He-3 to be used as a safe source of nuclear energy.

Posted by Guest on Wed 12 Jul 2006 01:22:31 PDT

mikeb

This site is educational. By understanding the risks, we can learn and move forward with NUCLEAR ENERGY as the power of the future. Even with Chernobyl, it is yet the safest and most efficient method of providing clean power to the masses. ...

This site is educational. By understanding the risks, we can learn and move forward with NUCLEAR ENERGY as the power of the future. Even with Chernobyl, it is yet the safest and most efficient method of providing clean power to the masses. COAL-burning technology is still many times more dangerous and potentially disasterous than nuclear energy technology. COAL burning plants are an in-efficient stop-gap means to produce dirty power and at high-costs: coal is completely capital-intensive and labor-intensive (coal mining, transportation, scrubbing/sleaning and generating) not to mention the risks to human life in the process. For this one Chernobyl accident photo site, there should be a-thousand coal-accident sites. Thank god for modern technology and the prospects of a brighter nuclear future.....

Posted by Guest on Mon 26 Jun 2006 08:14:58 PDT

claw

Has anyone stopped to think about the people? How about the children? What of them in all of this? It seems that all we are concerned about is technology, lack of judgment; does anyone know what happened to the kids that no one wants because they are...

Has anyone stopped to think about the people? How about the children? What of them in all of this? It seems that all we are concerned about is technology, lack of judgment; does anyone know what happened to the kids that no one wants because they are handicapped due to this disaster? Let us all hope that we have learned a valuable lesson from this -- that our future engineers will come up with better, safer means to obtain energy.

Posted by Guest on Wed 21 Jun 2006 20:11:18 PDT

Tim H

Well said Chris, I don't think people realsie just how important Nuclear energy is as a sustainable energy resource. Just look at France, it wont be long until we (the UK) are buying our energy from the French, because the current and previous...

Well said Chris, I don't think people realsie just how important Nuclear energy is as a sustainable energy resource. Just look at France, it wont be long until we (the UK) are buying our energy from the French, because the current and previous goverments have hesitated to invest in the new generation of nuclear power plants.
Sure wind & hydro have many pros, but one main prob, apart from limited resources, are they are dependant upon the weather! Not much good when a nation all decided to put the kettle on at once!

Posted by Guest on Thu 15 Jun 2006 16:40:10 PDT

Don't know much

This disaster has to rank in the top 3 worst of the 20th century. Everytime I read about or see pictures of it I can't help becoming overwhealmed with deep saddness.

Posted by Guest on Wed 07 Jun 2006 12:58:09 PDT