.....

Quote from: Idreyn on February 25, 2013, 05:40:44 AM

Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.

Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.

NEXT QUESTION

You mean the very same Geiger counters that all the thriving animals are using in that soaked to death radioactive city?

Those plus the animals that have been mutated:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chernobyl Mutations

i want a 2 headed turtle! hero in a  half shell!

i want a 2 headed turtle! hero in a  half shell!

There is hope, you may eventually evolve up to one of those.

Quote from: Idreyn on February 25, 2013, 05:40:44 AM

Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.

Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.

NEXT QUESTION

You mean the very same Geiger counters that all the thriving animals are using in that soaked to death radioactive city?

There are animals there, but to say they were thriving is not entirely accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Plant_and_animal_health

in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.

i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.

look skeptic this is a source.

http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html

Quote from: Rama Set on February 25, 2013, 08:22:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2013, 06:02:20 AM

Quote from: Idreyn on February 25, 2013, 05:40:44 AM

Nuclear power plants aren't secretly using hydrogen fuel. Diatomic hydrogen isn't common in nature and they'd need to separate it from water using electrolysis, which is itself an energy-intensive process. Hydrogen doesn't provide 100% efficiency; in fact it's likely to be less efficient than nuclear on power plant-level scales.

Want proof that nuclear power plants are what they claim to be? Grab a Geiger counter and go sunbathing in Chernobyl. Or pick up a tenth-grade chemistry textbook.

NEXT QUESTION

You mean the very same Geiger counters that all the thriving animals are using in that soaked to death radioactive city?

There are animals there, but to say they were thriving is not entirely accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects#Plant_and_animal_health

The documentary on TV showed it as thriving. Of course,me being a sceptic, I also know that what we see and are told, could be anything but, either way to be fair.

What does "showed it as thriving" entail?  Perhaps that is your interpretation of the health of the animals as shown in footage, or did they actually say that?  Was it a documentary on PBS or FOX?  There are links in that wikipedia article that speak to the long-term effects on the health of animals living in and around Chernobyl.

well being as i am not a brainwashed sheep such as your self i believe my own research and my own research shows far more studies show adverse effects on wildlife. some  even go as far as to say that Russian and Ukrainian investigators are playing down the health effects to try and make the disaster seem not as bad as it really is.

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 25, 2013, 08:33:12 AM

in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.

i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.

look skeptic this is a source.

http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html

It depends on what you believe. They may say this and that has been found, yet that's all we can go on and I don;t buy it.
Also, I said maybe , Nuclear plants are Hydrogen plants, I didn't say they were definitely Hydrogen. That's simply used as a guess as in saying they are probably using some abundant resource and passing it off as Nuclear, so my thinking is Hydrogen, especially when they come out with Hydrogen explosions and such.

Did I miss something in the thread (there's a lot to go through after the weekend ), what Hydrogen explosions?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2013, 08:38:53 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 25, 2013, 08:33:12 AM

in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.

i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.

look skeptic this is a source.

http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html

It depends on what you believe. They may say this and that has been found, yet that's all we can go on and I don;t buy it.
Also, I said maybe , Nuclear plants are Hydrogen plants, I didn't say they were definitely Hydrogen. That's simply used as a guess as in saying they are probably using some abundant resource and passing it off as Nuclear, so my thinking is Hydrogen, especially when they come out with Hydrogen explosions and such.

Did I miss something in the thread (there's a lot to go through after the weekend ), what Hydrogen explosions?

its hilarious. its well worth a flick back a few pages. but ill sum it up sceptic says nuclear power stations use hydrogen for power. then he says nuclear power is used in electrolysis to create hydrogen which is then burnt for power. then he realizes he said nuclear power doesnt exist so changes his mind and says he didnt say they produce hydrogen in the 1st place and its just 1 of his theory's. but he still thinks hydrogen is used some where he just doesn't know where. he seams to have a fixation with hydrogen because of the hydrogen explosions at fukushima.

Quote from: Manarq on February 25, 2013, 09:14:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2013, 08:38:53 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on February 25, 2013, 08:33:12 AM

in fact most inderpendant studies show drops in biodiversity. even as far a 1000 miles away radiation build up has been found in apex predators.

i wander how hydrogen can do that. lol.

look skeptic this is a source.

http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chernobyl-radioactive-deer-antlers.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10819027
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/18/chernobyl-animals.html

It depends on what you believe. They may say this and that has been found, yet that's all we can go on and I don;t buy it.
Also, I said maybe , Nuclear plants are Hydrogen plants, I didn't say they were definitely Hydrogen. That's simply used as a guess as in saying they are probably using some abundant resource and passing it off as Nuclear, so my thinking is Hydrogen, especially when they come out with Hydrogen explosions and such.

Did I miss something in the thread (there's a lot to go through after the weekend ), what Hydrogen explosions?

its hilarious. its well worth a flick back a few pages. but ill sum it up sceptic says nuclear power stations use hydrogen for power. then he says nuclear power is used in electrolysis to create hydrogen which is then burnt for power. then he realizes he said nuclear power doesnt exist so changes his mind and says he didnt say they produce hydrogen in the 1st place and its just 1 of his theory's. but he still thinks hydrogen is used some where he just doesn't know where. he seams to have a fixation with hydrogen because of the hydrogen explosions at fukushima.

K, I'll have a look back later on. I thought he might have got on to hydrogen bombs.

uneducated opinion with no source or evidence. well done sceptic.

im just pointing out that your opinionated statement isnt backed up by any scientific evidence or knowledge on your behalf. sorry if this upsets you.

Let me ask you this: what is it about nuclear power that you find so incredibly difficult to believe in?

Those plus the animals that have been mutated:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chernobyl Mutations


markjo, this video is a hoax.

the very first two headed turtle seems to be a baby african spurred tortoise, found in subsaharan africa.



other pictures show indian zebus, baby alligators, a picture of an apparently ordinary parrot, and so on.

reptiles and amphibians do this all the time, even without radiation. i've seen adult two headed snakes and turtles before in the US

Don't forget the mutated frogs, cattle, chickens, pig and duck.  Also, parrots aren't supposed to be orange like that.

Compare that parrot with the one in the video and tell me that the one in the video looks normal.

i refuse to take the bait

i don't need help looking like an idiot. i do that fine already

Quote from: Idreyn on February 25, 2013, 03:52:47 PM

Let me ask you this: what is it about nuclear power that you find so incredibly difficult to believe in?

6/10 year continuous heating of a metal that uses nothing but a side by side fissioning.

You see, it's not the metal itself that supposedly fissions. What you have to do  is put rods or pellets side bay side and control rods between them.
Yet when this piece of crap metal over heats, it melts down into a molten mass at the bottom of the reactor.
Does this stop it's fissioning, now that it's melted together like a pan full of liquid lead?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
It just continues to melt down for some reason and going super mantal all the way into the ground.
Somehow, it forgot that it was fissioning between rods and decides to go stupid when molten.

I wish I had the opportunity to go and clean it up  when this happens, because I'd make sinkers out of it. 

I will take you seriously when you can first explain to me what a nuclear reaction is and then tell me specifically what part of accepted nuclear physics you think makes fission reactors impossible. "It's sooo crazy it can't be true" isn't a real argument against anything, and it makes you sound almost purposefully ignorant. I am sincerely sure you're capable of better.

Somehow, it forgot that it was fissioning between rods and decides to go stupid when molten.

I can answer your question (was it a question?) about control rods. Nuclear fission happens when a neutron knocks more neutrons off of an atom, causing those neutrons to scatter and hit more atoms, causing a chain reaction. All that control rods do is provide a material that absorbs those neutrons to prevent the reaction from continuing. It's not magic, it's science. This is kind of a good example of why Zeteticism in general is so idiotic — it asks us to rely on our senses alone for explanations about the natural world, but our senses can detect just the tiniest fraction of phenomena going on around us. That's why we have tools like math, and logic, and telescopes, and spectrometers, and particle accelerators: to see what our eyes can't. The people who use these tools are called scientists. You should get to know one.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all?  For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 06:15:43 AM

Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all?  For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?

I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.

If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 07:43:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2013, 06:36:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 06:15:43 AM

Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all?  For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?

I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.

If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?

In my opinion, Uranium and Plutonium are simply either dense lead like metals or made up.

I think you should change your name to "The Contrarian".

What about Radium?

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 07:43:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2013, 06:36:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 06:15:43 AM

Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all?  For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?

I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.

If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?

In my opinion, Uranium and Plutonium are simply either dense lead like metals or made up.

Do you believe that any elements are naturally radioactive?

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 08:40:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2013, 08:05:48 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 07:43:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2013, 06:36:15 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 28, 2013, 06:15:43 AM

Skeptimatic, do you believe in any kind of radiation at all?  For example, do you believe that x-rays are real?

I believe in all kinds of radiation. I just don't accept nuclear power and it's radiation.

If you believe in radiation, then where do you think that the radiation from Uranium and Plutonium comes from?

In my opinion, Uranium and Plutonium are simply either dense lead like metals or made up.

Do you believe that any elements are naturally radioactive?

It all depends on what you actually mean by saying "radioactive"..just simply explain what you mean by this.

I mean radioactive in that it releases radiation.

Some atomic nuclei are instable. They decay emitting radiation consisting of electrons ("beta rays"), protons/neutrons ("alpha rays") and electromagnetic waves ("gamma rays"). That all is easy to verify and easy to understand. What is so incredible in that? A friend of mine while studying physics was involved in experiments involving beta rays. Is he one of "them"?

Wow he just doesn't get it.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2013, 12:35:43 PM

Wow he just doesn't get it.

Oh but I do, I'm just waiting for confirmation of just exactly what you lot mean before I jump in.

Nuclear fission and fusion does not produce a unique variety of ionizing radiation. Uranium and Plutonium do not produce unique kinds of ionizing radiation. The radiation used in cancer treatments is the same as the radiation in an H-Bomb, is the same as produced by the sun.

What the hell is a "NUCLEAR ATOM", man?!?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT NUCLEAR MEANS?

I think sceptic thinks nuclear just means something to do with bombs and power