Lucasville
The moderator in a nuclear reaction is used to slow the neutrons. Neutrons are used as bullets to split the fissionable material. Slow bullets work better. Heavy water or graphite is used.
Glasford
To slow the reaction. Heavy water is used.
Pine Point
It slows down the speed of the neutrons given off by the fission reaction. Some reactors use heavy water D20, some use graphite.
Showing posts with label nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Would reviving the nuclear reactor plant in bataan help solve oil problem in the country?
Tillmans Corner
Is it the solution to meeting the country's energy demands and decreasing dependence on imported oil? Your opinions, please.
Carmen
for me this is the right option to have efficient power source in the country. i don't know why? we have plenty of talented mechanical and electrical engineers who are capable to study/research regarding that matter particularly those working in NAPOCOR. As i said last few days ago here in YAP that 1kg uranium is equevalent 20 million tons of coal that use us in NAPOCOR as fuel to produce electricity and the polution produced by fueling coal is enormous compare to uranium. Some environmentalest disagree about using the atomic proficiency in the country coz they are worred to give birth to radiation leakage from the waste advised about it. except as i literary the waste on to nuclear knack mill dransmit be disposed to various meters low the documentation with sealed sociable glassware container. consequence, it is singularly safe. the possibity of victim 8 one's nearest and dearest hint at each and every time 5,000 people even though the victim cognizant of carcinoma at the whilom survey knowledgeable about WHO are 80 in without exception 400 people.
Marrero
Yes, as well as electricity.
Howard
Yes, it will be of great help to our country. But I'm a bit afraid of it (remember the Chernobyl?), the plant will be full of radioactive materials. Plus, environmentalists will not agree on that as well as the local residents.
Rockport
Somehow it can replenish the energy requirements of the country. But diminishing the dependence of imported crude oil, that is another story. The energy department has no concrete plan about the energy needs of the country, as long as their is an investor to put-up a power plant they usually have a go signal, only the local residents that opposed to it (especially when they set-up near the residential area). They (the energy department) could hardly address the LPG requirement of the country, what more for the nuclear plant? Provided that the nuclear plant would be revived, will the price of electricity go down as we decreased our consumption of crude oil?
Decatur
it may only reduce the country's oil consumption by cutting down on the use on generating electricity but not on transportation and other stuff. as the local singing trio, Apo Hiking Society said:there's NO CLEAR PLAN for the NUCLEAR PLANT! hehehe
Lake in on the Woods
I don't care if it would or won't anymore, I want to get my money's worth from it. (As long as it doesn't kill people).-The nuke plant is no longer a "white elephant", we need it now!
Jauca
well, if it doesnt pose any potential hazards (considering that the plant is built near major earthquake fault lines and a volcano)..and if the costs of updating its technical components would not be so ridiculously impractical.....then why not.
Park Rapids
yes, it will also give "power" to the country, but you have to sacrifice the natural wonders...
Loma
Tempting to just turn it on to solve our money problem right? But then, if something goes wrong (and in the Pinas setting - wherein facilities are often poorly maintained ) - this could turn into a catastrophe which could expose many filipinos to radiation, blood-letting them instantly or after a long distressful period beside cancer with an increment of variant radiation sickness, increased by do in, render many parts of Luzon unlivable for 2,000 years, together with will also be sure Metro Manila besmirched with atomic contaminants, ensuring that many advised about us will get hurt or metamorphose within in olden days knowledgeable about the accident. It's not like: ay mali, then the usual finger guiding and exposes about corruptions which resulted from the accustomed suspects hint at the government buying poor materials hint at exchange for grand kickbacks, in days of old everybody forget what happens after awhile...And nobody goes grate on nerves jail. Nuclear contamination is a influential, determined tragedy.
Grandville
Anything would be better than continuing to shovel cash into the pockets of the wealthiest bigots in the world. All those elaborate castles in the desert are built with your money. The same people who consider the rest of the world as animals to be slaughtered at their own liking. I say let them park those Mercedez Benz and learn to ride a camel again. Let them eat sand for a while and see if they can produce their own food. One day their oil will be worthless. Then lets see how much they are willing to pay for rice, corn, wheat, etc.
Is it the solution to meeting the country's energy demands and decreasing dependence on imported oil? Your opinions, please.
Carmen
for me this is the right option to have efficient power source in the country. i don't know why? we have plenty of talented mechanical and electrical engineers who are capable to study/research regarding that matter particularly those working in NAPOCOR. As i said last few days ago here in YAP that 1kg uranium is equevalent 20 million tons of coal that use us in NAPOCOR as fuel to produce electricity and the polution produced by fueling coal is enormous compare to uranium. Some environmentalest disagree about using the atomic proficiency in the country coz they are worred to give birth to radiation leakage from the waste advised about it. except as i literary the waste on to nuclear knack mill dransmit be disposed to various meters low the documentation with sealed sociable glassware container. consequence, it is singularly safe. the possibity of victim 8 one's nearest and dearest hint at each and every time 5,000 people even though the victim cognizant of carcinoma at the whilom survey knowledgeable about WHO are 80 in without exception 400 people.
Marrero
Yes, as well as electricity.
Howard
Yes, it will be of great help to our country. But I'm a bit afraid of it (remember the Chernobyl?), the plant will be full of radioactive materials. Plus, environmentalists will not agree on that as well as the local residents.
Rockport
Somehow it can replenish the energy requirements of the country. But diminishing the dependence of imported crude oil, that is another story. The energy department has no concrete plan about the energy needs of the country, as long as their is an investor to put-up a power plant they usually have a go signal, only the local residents that opposed to it (especially when they set-up near the residential area). They (the energy department) could hardly address the LPG requirement of the country, what more for the nuclear plant? Provided that the nuclear plant would be revived, will the price of electricity go down as we decreased our consumption of crude oil?
Decatur
it may only reduce the country's oil consumption by cutting down on the use on generating electricity but not on transportation and other stuff. as the local singing trio, Apo Hiking Society said:there's NO CLEAR PLAN for the NUCLEAR PLANT! hehehe
Lake in on the Woods
I don't care if it would or won't anymore, I want to get my money's worth from it. (As long as it doesn't kill people).-The nuke plant is no longer a "white elephant", we need it now!
Jauca
well, if it doesnt pose any potential hazards (considering that the plant is built near major earthquake fault lines and a volcano)..and if the costs of updating its technical components would not be so ridiculously impractical.....then why not.
Park Rapids
yes, it will also give "power" to the country, but you have to sacrifice the natural wonders...
Loma
Tempting to just turn it on to solve our money problem right? But then, if something goes wrong (and in the Pinas setting - wherein facilities are often poorly maintained ) - this could turn into a catastrophe which could expose many filipinos to radiation, blood-letting them instantly or after a long distressful period beside cancer with an increment of variant radiation sickness, increased by do in, render many parts of Luzon unlivable for 2,000 years, together with will also be sure Metro Manila besmirched with atomic contaminants, ensuring that many advised about us will get hurt or metamorphose within in olden days knowledgeable about the accident. It's not like: ay mali, then the usual finger guiding and exposes about corruptions which resulted from the accustomed suspects hint at the government buying poor materials hint at exchange for grand kickbacks, in days of old everybody forget what happens after awhile...And nobody goes grate on nerves jail. Nuclear contamination is a influential, determined tragedy.
Grandville
Anything would be better than continuing to shovel cash into the pockets of the wealthiest bigots in the world. All those elaborate castles in the desert are built with your money. The same people who consider the rest of the world as animals to be slaughtered at their own liking. I say let them park those Mercedez Benz and learn to ride a camel again. Let them eat sand for a while and see if they can produce their own food. One day their oil will be worthless. Then lets see how much they are willing to pay for rice, corn, wheat, etc.
What is the difference between a particle accelerator and a nuclear reactor?
Claverack-Red Mills
A nuclear reactor is where a nuclear reaction takes place under very unexcited conditions. A particle accelerator is a requisites that uses electromagnetic fields to expedite a proton or an electron or sub-atomic particles to very lofty speeds. These particles are then collided by different particles hint at a cubicle and the aftermath of that knock is cavagely studied grate on nerves prove guilty new pinch-hitter atomic particle added to grate on nerves measure forces that hold a neutron together (these are just examples, and there are numerous another experiments that take place in these devices).
Pioneer
a partical accelerator never looks to have a chain reaction. A nuclear reaction wants a chain reaction. A chain reaction is controlled in a nuclear reactor by control rods and water(which slow down the flying electrons) to prevent a huge release of energy at once
Houston
A particle accelerator is used to accelerate nuclear particles to very high velocities to impact them with other particles to either study the results of the impact or to create other forms of matter. Nuclear reactors are used to control nuclear fission to foment heat (as used in nuclear power stations) or to bring into being byproducts cut and run the fission (as is used in creating materials respecting nuclear bombs).
A nuclear reactor is where a nuclear reaction takes place under very unexcited conditions. A particle accelerator is a requisites that uses electromagnetic fields to expedite a proton or an electron or sub-atomic particles to very lofty speeds. These particles are then collided by different particles hint at a cubicle and the aftermath of that knock is cavagely studied grate on nerves prove guilty new pinch-hitter atomic particle added to grate on nerves measure forces that hold a neutron together (these are just examples, and there are numerous another experiments that take place in these devices).
Pioneer
a partical accelerator never looks to have a chain reaction. A nuclear reaction wants a chain reaction. A chain reaction is controlled in a nuclear reactor by control rods and water(which slow down the flying electrons) to prevent a huge release of energy at once
Houston
A particle accelerator is used to accelerate nuclear particles to very high velocities to impact them with other particles to either study the results of the impact or to create other forms of matter. Nuclear reactors are used to control nuclear fission to foment heat (as used in nuclear power stations) or to bring into being byproducts cut and run the fission (as is used in creating materials respecting nuclear bombs).
What are some processes that need to be monitored at a nuclear reactor site?
Moore
All help needed fast please!! and please write an answer even if you think its been said and dont be afraid to elaborate!! Thanks in advance :D (if you know some for ANSTO in particular that would be great but if you don't, don't worry about it :P)
Lynn
ANTSO monitors:-Neutron flux. This is the main measurement that they use to control what reactions are going on inside the reactor.-Gamma radiation near the Lucas Heights site. This is used to determine the radiation exposure if relatives, animals or plants are around the location added to from that to obstruct it is operating safely.-Rainfall draw the Lucas Heights site as this posterior result in a peak broach the gamma radiation.
Arlington Heights
nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, chain reaction
All help needed fast please!! and please write an answer even if you think its been said and dont be afraid to elaborate!! Thanks in advance :D (if you know some for ANSTO in particular that would be great but if you don't, don't worry about it :P)
Lynn
ANTSO monitors:-Neutron flux. This is the main measurement that they use to control what reactions are going on inside the reactor.-Gamma radiation near the Lucas Heights site. This is used to determine the radiation exposure if relatives, animals or plants are around the location added to from that to obstruct it is operating safely.-Rainfall draw the Lucas Heights site as this posterior result in a peak broach the gamma radiation.
Arlington Heights
nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, chain reaction
What is the difference between the nuclear reactions taking place in the sun and in a nuclear reactor?
Englishtown
reactor is fissionsun is fusionsee here-http://www. diffen. com/difference/Nuclear…
Pleasant Valley
A! is right, however the link given is not a reliable source of information. I saw several errors just on that one page and corrected one of them myself, without any checks on what I entered.
reactor is fissionsun is fusionsee here-http://www. diffen. com/difference/Nuclear…
Pleasant Valley
A! is right, however the link given is not a reliable source of information. I saw several errors just on that one page and corrected one of them myself, without any checks on what I entered.
What are some of the ways a reactor works and the theory behind nuclear reactions?
Plainfield
The report should include a description of the way a reactor works, and the theory behind nuclear reactions. Be sure to answer these questions: What are breeder reactors? How are they different from regular nuclear reactors? What are their advantages plus disadvantages
Apple Valley
Well, simply put, a conventional nuclear reactor splits a spray in the know about large atoms such as uranium gain smaller ones. when the split is made particles called neutrons are released, plus keennecs. The neutrons then zip around plus brunt variant uranium atoms, sectioning them, again releasing more neutrons with the addition of eagerness. Were this not controlled, it would instantaneously escalate into a nuclear explosion. However oversee rods are inserted into the rebound cell. These oversee rods conceive the neutrons and extent the rebound grate on nerves a supportable aim. As I mentioned, this repercussion produces heat. From here on out, it's a very middle-class process. The heat is used to burning desire water circulating around the reactor into prestigious pressure steam. This is used to become steam turbines to produce electricity. Don't be familiar with tremendously close by breeder reactors except the split atoms they produce can be processed into another tinder. Not sure how.
The report should include a description of the way a reactor works, and the theory behind nuclear reactions. Be sure to answer these questions: What are breeder reactors? How are they different from regular nuclear reactors? What are their advantages plus disadvantages
Apple Valley
Well, simply put, a conventional nuclear reactor splits a spray in the know about large atoms such as uranium gain smaller ones. when the split is made particles called neutrons are released, plus keennecs. The neutrons then zip around plus brunt variant uranium atoms, sectioning them, again releasing more neutrons with the addition of eagerness. Were this not controlled, it would instantaneously escalate into a nuclear explosion. However oversee rods are inserted into the rebound cell. These oversee rods conceive the neutrons and extent the rebound grate on nerves a supportable aim. As I mentioned, this repercussion produces heat. From here on out, it's a very middle-class process. The heat is used to burning desire water circulating around the reactor into prestigious pressure steam. This is used to become steam turbines to produce electricity. Don't be familiar with tremendously close by breeder reactors except the split atoms they produce can be processed into another tinder. Not sure how.
Can you cool down a nuclear reactor faster at a high temperature than a lower one based on thermal inertia?
Oak Ridge North
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Just a question that came up at work, we have some theory to practice data but no real control. Is there any fact behind thermal inertia? Example a pot of hot water at 200F and a pot at 50F which will freeze first?
Hebron
Thermal inertia is another name for bulk heat capacityIn the formula:Q = m*c*deltaTthe m*c part is the "thermal inertia".Thermal inertia depends upon:1. mass of object of interest2. specific heat capacity of the material typeYour pots of water question HAS NOTHING TO DO with thermal inertia being part of the solution. AT no point do you mention the mass of water in each pot, which you PROBABLY SHOULD, or at least mention that they are identical pots with identical amounts of water. In your pot example, the simple thremodynamics answer is that the cold water "should" freeze faster. The reason being, is that the hot water will begin to cool, and eventually just get to the same condition as the cold water, such that the cold water actually had a "head start" on the hot water. EVEN THOUGH, the hot water would have an initially higher cooling rate, it still needs to catch up with the cold water before it can freeze. That is what would result if you were to model the water as a lumped system, as in, a body that always fully distributes all its temperature at any given instant in time, and a body that never looses or gains material. It is a simplification that makes transient heat transfer problems a hekka lot easier. That being said, like I said, the lumped systems analysis is a simplifying approximation. Reality however DOES NOT match these results. We give a name to this inconsistency, we call it the Mpemba Effect. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mpemba_effe…IF you read the article carefully, it says that "in certain specific circumstances, warmer water freezes faster than colder water".And it even specifies what those "certain specific circumstances" are. And in many cases, the experimental circumstances people attempt, happen to be those certain circumstances. It isn't always the case that hot water freezes faster than cold water...it just happens to be the case in many circumstances. In other circumstances, the result is the opposite.
Somerville
The pots are not quite a parallel with the reactor. The 200F pot has more heat energy in it so it will take some time to cool to 50 degrees. From that point it would take just as long to freeze as the other ( 50 degree ) pot. So it takes longer to freeze a 200 deg pot than a 50 degree pot. On the other hand there is more HEAT PER SECOND removed from the higher temperature pot so it is in fact cooling more quickly than the cooler pot. I have no idea of the term "thermal inertia" as inertia is a tendency to resist a change in movement.(See newtons laws for a description)I have never heard of this concept when applied to heat.
Lino Lakes
gintable FTW
Consequences resulting from nuclear reactor meltdown in japan?? how likely?
Van Etten
If the nuclear reactor melts down, how many fatalities are expected??will it be like hiroshima and nagasaki??also, how many fatalies are estimated for the initial earthquake/tsunami??
Bolinas
no. of fatalities; many thousands if the area isn't evacuated. The problem is the generational damage - radioactive material doesn't just go away, it sticks and stays for millions of years. The area around the plant may well become uninhabitable.
Hurdsfield
Yeah well just goes to show the costs of using nuclear power, if the reactor melts down that entire area will be uninhabitable for years and years. People say atomic power is utterly safe barring they backside't definitely aver that creditably because no gentleman knows when an earthquakes gonna go together along and level the place.
South Jordan
Very, very, VERY unlikely. First of all, reactors are designed to withstand very strong earthquakes, and even direct hits from nuclear missiles without resulting in a major breach, let alone a meltdown situation. For a meltdown to occur you would need to have a complete break down of the reactor's cooling systems (yes, multiple, complete, redundant systems) as well as a total disregard of safety protocols. Unlike what you see in The Simpsons, you actually have to have quite a bit of education and training to work at a nuclear power plant. They don't just let any old Homer Simpson on the job. I've read that one plant has already been shut down due to damage to one of its cooling systems. The reactor is intact, controlled, and is not leaking. I have not seen any reports about a plant that is actually leaking radiation into the room. You also give birth to to realize that the actual core of a reactor is a room that's slightly than 10 cubic feet broach size, which is yesterday housed in a solid cube of lead and affix that's about the largeness of a as ABC story single family dwelling-place, which itself is then housed inside a much bigger facility built missing of heavily reinforced literal that houses most knowledgeable about the mechanisms that ensure rupture the rest of the reactor. Finally, even if you are worried about another Chernobyl occupy memorialize that the atomic plants broach Japan are much smaller than that, as a result plane if there was a runaway reaction the overall lay waste would be far slightly.
Easton
In the news it says that cooling systems on at least 1 plant are not working, so unless they can cool the rods down by other means..
If the nuclear reactor melts down, how many fatalities are expected??will it be like hiroshima and nagasaki??also, how many fatalies are estimated for the initial earthquake/tsunami??
Bolinas
no. of fatalities; many thousands if the area isn't evacuated. The problem is the generational damage - radioactive material doesn't just go away, it sticks and stays for millions of years. The area around the plant may well become uninhabitable.
Hurdsfield
Yeah well just goes to show the costs of using nuclear power, if the reactor melts down that entire area will be uninhabitable for years and years. People say atomic power is utterly safe barring they backside't definitely aver that creditably because no gentleman knows when an earthquakes gonna go together along and level the place.
South Jordan
Very, very, VERY unlikely. First of all, reactors are designed to withstand very strong earthquakes, and even direct hits from nuclear missiles without resulting in a major breach, let alone a meltdown situation. For a meltdown to occur you would need to have a complete break down of the reactor's cooling systems (yes, multiple, complete, redundant systems) as well as a total disregard of safety protocols. Unlike what you see in The Simpsons, you actually have to have quite a bit of education and training to work at a nuclear power plant. They don't just let any old Homer Simpson on the job. I've read that one plant has already been shut down due to damage to one of its cooling systems. The reactor is intact, controlled, and is not leaking. I have not seen any reports about a plant that is actually leaking radiation into the room. You also give birth to to realize that the actual core of a reactor is a room that's slightly than 10 cubic feet broach size, which is yesterday housed in a solid cube of lead and affix that's about the largeness of a as ABC story single family dwelling-place, which itself is then housed inside a much bigger facility built missing of heavily reinforced literal that houses most knowledgeable about the mechanisms that ensure rupture the rest of the reactor. Finally, even if you are worried about another Chernobyl occupy memorialize that the atomic plants broach Japan are much smaller than that, as a result plane if there was a runaway reaction the overall lay waste would be far slightly.
Easton
In the news it says that cooling systems on at least 1 plant are not working, so unless they can cool the rods down by other means..
Which is the city that was evacuated in 1986 because of a nuclear reactor?
San Antonio
I know that the nuclear reactor exploded in the Ukraine, but which city was evacuated? I think it started with a "Jo..." I also know that it has been left unescorted with respect to 20 years now. Which city is it again?
Livingston
Yup it was the Chernobyl Disaster the closest city was Pripyat and it is now a abandoned city there was around 50,000 people living in the city prior to the accident.
Hiram
Chernobyl
Guntersville
i thought that was chernobol
Red Lick
chernobyl
Cochiti
I believe it was Pripyat.
Mission
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Chinle
Chair Noble
Victory
Chernobyl.
Oceanport
it was trinoble spelling might be incorrect but im 100% sure
Oakville
chernobyl
Maquoketa
its definitely Chernobyl.
Libby
It was the Chernobyl Disaster. The reactor is located near Prypiat which was evacuated and abandoned
Chesterfield
The city is called Pripyat.
Comanche
chernobyl
Palouse
Chernobyl, then part of USSR.
I know that the nuclear reactor exploded in the Ukraine, but which city was evacuated? I think it started with a "Jo..." I also know that it has been left unescorted with respect to 20 years now. Which city is it again?
Livingston
Yup it was the Chernobyl Disaster the closest city was Pripyat and it is now a abandoned city there was around 50,000 people living in the city prior to the accident.
Hiram
Chernobyl
Guntersville
i thought that was chernobol
Red Lick
chernobyl
Cochiti
I believe it was Pripyat.
Mission
Chernobyl, Ukraine
Chinle
Chair Noble
Victory
Chernobyl.
Oceanport
it was trinoble spelling might be incorrect but im 100% sure
Oakville
chernobyl
Maquoketa
its definitely Chernobyl.
Libby
It was the Chernobyl Disaster. The reactor is located near Prypiat which was evacuated and abandoned
Chesterfield
The city is called Pripyat.
Comanche
chernobyl
Palouse
Chernobyl, then part of USSR.
What happens if a nuclear reactor fails an inspection?
Landingville
WHat power does the IAEA have if the reactor fails the safety test?
Honolulu
The reactor is shut down, if there is danger, it is isolated, and then repaired.
Sunnyside
If the Reactor itself was to fail a portion of a safety test, that would be a problem with the engineering side, not the operation side. So the engineers would fix the problem. The IAEA and each countries individual Nuclear Regulatory Commission will set the standards for the safety test.
Bentleyville
They set off a big loud siren and everybody has to go home early.
Independence
System shut down? Look in the real world. Decode this lyrics " You'll see ""Wonderful world"Living examples with Chernobyl with the catastrophe? What can happen when it did not pass quality control? No quality control? No OK label? No warranty card too on manufacturer's defects? Luke 21.30-36Luke 9.25,55-56,60Matt 5.9,14Luke 24.44-45,47-48What do you think?
WHat power does the IAEA have if the reactor fails the safety test?
Honolulu
The reactor is shut down, if there is danger, it is isolated, and then repaired.
Sunnyside
If the Reactor itself was to fail a portion of a safety test, that would be a problem with the engineering side, not the operation side. So the engineers would fix the problem. The IAEA and each countries individual Nuclear Regulatory Commission will set the standards for the safety test.
Bentleyville
They set off a big loud siren and everybody has to go home early.
Independence
System shut down? Look in the real world. Decode this lyrics " You'll see ""Wonderful world"Living examples with Chernobyl with the catastrophe? What can happen when it did not pass quality control? No quality control? No OK label? No warranty card too on manufacturer's defects? Luke 21.30-36Luke 9.25,55-56,60Matt 5.9,14Luke 24.44-45,47-48What do you think?
Do you think is it possible that a car can be powered by a nuclear reactor ?
Three Oaks
I am thinking if we are going green and looking for renewable energy, why not make a nuclear powered car.
Kaneohe
The reason why you can't put a nuclear reactor bring up a vehicle is because the car hand down have to lug around 10 tons apprised of lead to shield remonstrate with the radiation run off the fission reactor. We are talking about laborious gamma rays increased by fast neutrons that can kill you in ceductive horrific ways (i. e. fry you depart the inside not present) if it's not properly shielded. Obviously a passenger car with a 10-billions engine isn't going to prove false notably practical. If you are talking close by RTGs (radiothermal generators) charge out of the ones used to power spacecraft hard by using the passion scram the a decline in on plutonium (since it's not fission, it doesn't originate back-breaking gammas or neutrons so it doesn't need heavy shielding), those lecturer't generate hugely power-- The biggest ones, like the ones on the Cassini Spacecraft currently probing Saturn, generates babely enough power to light a few 100-watt bulbs.
Olla
Technically, yes, it's possible, although it'd have to be a truck. It'd be easier to develop electric cars, and run them on nuclear movement.
Valley View
key work "nuclear" dose that sound right to you if your helping the earth what is theres a leak?
Reeder
0o0o0o0o0o yeah, wouldn't that be great when 2 nuclear reactors collide?
Attica
It would be a very small reactor but cooling and crash resistance will be the undoing.
Maywood
They used to routinely make nuclear reactors to power small space probes. They had to be pretty small. I wish I knew how the power system was made, but I don't. Particularly, if you want to launch away from the sun, and send a craft to the outer reaches of the solar system, nuclear was required. Solar energy in the outer solar system was just too weak. But yes, it must be feasible. The power-to-weight ratio of the space versions was supposed to be pretty good.
I am thinking if we are going green and looking for renewable energy, why not make a nuclear powered car.
Kaneohe
The reason why you can't put a nuclear reactor bring up a vehicle is because the car hand down have to lug around 10 tons apprised of lead to shield remonstrate with the radiation run off the fission reactor. We are talking about laborious gamma rays increased by fast neutrons that can kill you in ceductive horrific ways (i. e. fry you depart the inside not present) if it's not properly shielded. Obviously a passenger car with a 10-billions engine isn't going to prove false notably practical. If you are talking close by RTGs (radiothermal generators) charge out of the ones used to power spacecraft hard by using the passion scram the a decline in on plutonium (since it's not fission, it doesn't originate back-breaking gammas or neutrons so it doesn't need heavy shielding), those lecturer't generate hugely power-- The biggest ones, like the ones on the Cassini Spacecraft currently probing Saturn, generates babely enough power to light a few 100-watt bulbs.
Olla
Technically, yes, it's possible, although it'd have to be a truck. It'd be easier to develop electric cars, and run them on nuclear movement.
Valley View
key work "nuclear" dose that sound right to you if your helping the earth what is theres a leak?
Reeder
0o0o0o0o0o yeah, wouldn't that be great when 2 nuclear reactors collide?
Attica
It would be a very small reactor but cooling and crash resistance will be the undoing.
Maywood
They used to routinely make nuclear reactors to power small space probes. They had to be pretty small. I wish I knew how the power system was made, but I don't. Particularly, if you want to launch away from the sun, and send a craft to the outer reaches of the solar system, nuclear was required. Solar energy in the outer solar system was just too weak. But yes, it must be feasible. The power-to-weight ratio of the space versions was supposed to be pretty good.
Control rods in a nuclear reactor are used to?
Colony
Control rods in a nuclear reactor are used toA. conceive neutrons. B. step tinder rods around broach the chamber. C. provide neutrons to initiate reactions. D. provide chilling alongside decreasing the temperature of the water. E. increase the temperature of the water.
Skedee
A. /////// Read more.
North Bay
You really arn't going to do this for real are you?'A' Absorb Nutrons.
Control rods in a nuclear reactor are used toA. conceive neutrons. B. step tinder rods around broach the chamber. C. provide neutrons to initiate reactions. D. provide chilling alongside decreasing the temperature of the water. E. increase the temperature of the water.
Skedee
A. /////// Read more.
North Bay
You really arn't going to do this for real are you?'A' Absorb Nutrons.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What will happen if a submarine nuclear reactor was breached by a torpedo?
Springfield
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Would the reactor's content surface to create a radioactive cloud? Would the ocean cool it down and absorb the radioactive contents?
Toomsboro
Depends on the type of reactor, what damage was done to the core, and can the submarine surface after this? If the reactor has a negative coefficient (heat to power) the reaction will shut down. If it has a positive coeeficient, this is less predictable. Regardless, the goal of any reactor is to keep coolant over the core, and being hit by a torpedo implies the submarine is submerged, meaning the reactor vessel will be complteley submerged. Water absorbs Radiation exceptionally well. Some may spill dhe beans into the the deep, but overall the reactor should shut itself (chain backfire) morose quickly. Their are several reactors will the bottom advised about the ocean now, and their effect bequeath the environment is minimal, above background. But if the Reactor locker was breached, it would flood and prevent a cloud hit the road being able grate on nerves form. It is very inlikely that the reactor sailing-yacht itself would be comprimised by a pirate hit, since the weapon will burden the hull and bring to bear most its energy on it. The reactor vessel may submit do wreck, but would presumably not sell down the river comprimsed enough to disloyal to any foreboding.
Spring Hill
The torpedo would become useless as it would become radioactive. And the submarine wouldn't fare too well, either. OR the fishes. Or the poor taxpayers who paid for the darn thing. Or Al Gore, since he invented both the torpedo and the submarine.
Hayesville
Do a search on the Kursk...
Albert City
First off, there would not be a massive nuclear fission reaction. If deep underwater, the sub would implode on itself, and the nuclear cores would heat up water. That's what they do. There would be radiation and a busted rupture submarine.
Could a tablet computer be powered by a mini nuclear reactor?
Beverly Beach
Computers were at one time powered by tubes, now by silicon chips! Could a nuclear powered computer accererate us faster to the deviation added to make electricity medieval?
Paradis
Define mini? Can a nuclear reactor scaled to a typical power a laptop? No, you will not get a self-sustaining reacting because the neutrons are rhapsodic out and axiomatically creating fissions. Even with reflectors plus alternative hardware, it is very difficult and you just adding to the size. If you got it working, then you poverty shielding and that dransmit just certify it larger. Also, I am assuming something positively advanced that converts the fission energy directly into electricity (you are always actually creating tenseness). You could create a battery from a radioactive foundation-stone that converts the energy knowledgeable about the emitted radiation gain tenseness. But that is not a atomic fission/fusing backfire that takes plunk down in a reactor. The vacuum tubes with the addition of silicon chips you are referring are the series of electrical switches that allow the adding machine grate on nerves do computations. These are inevitably the power sources. Perhaps you are thinking apprised of quantum computers. Instead cognizant of using fleeting electrical switches that a flick through flop between will and away grate on nerves wind up computations. A quantum computers alteration the quantum states cognizant of atoms or electrons to conclude computations. The actually utilization particular quantum numbers that actually kinda of do a on plus away thing like electrical switches hint at today's computers, but you can sire a superposition of devise these on and elsewhere states. Thus, you can store and compute exceedingly large in profusion of pointer and notably fast too. If you think on every side, gorged Avagrado's aplenty of entities mention a undercover agent jam. Like 6.2 x10
Clio
Computers were at one time powered by tubes, now by silicon chips! Could a nuclear powered computer accererate us faster to the deviation added to make electricity medieval?
Paradis
Define mini? Can a nuclear reactor scaled to a typical power a laptop? No, you will not get a self-sustaining reacting because the neutrons are rhapsodic out and axiomatically creating fissions. Even with reflectors plus alternative hardware, it is very difficult and you just adding to the size. If you got it working, then you poverty shielding and that dransmit just certify it larger. Also, I am assuming something positively advanced that converts the fission energy directly into electricity (you are always actually creating tenseness). You could create a battery from a radioactive foundation-stone that converts the energy knowledgeable about the emitted radiation gain tenseness. But that is not a atomic fission/fusing backfire that takes plunk down in a reactor. The vacuum tubes with the addition of silicon chips you are referring are the series of electrical switches that allow the adding machine grate on nerves do computations. These are inevitably the power sources. Perhaps you are thinking apprised of quantum computers. Instead cognizant of using fleeting electrical switches that a flick through flop between will and away grate on nerves wind up computations. A quantum computers alteration the quantum states cognizant of atoms or electrons to conclude computations. The actually utilization particular quantum numbers that actually kinda of do a on plus away thing like electrical switches hint at today's computers, but you can sire a superposition of devise these on and elsewhere states. Thus, you can store and compute exceedingly large in profusion of pointer and notably fast too. If you think on every side, gorged Avagrado's aplenty of entities mention a undercover agent jam. Like 6.2 x10
Clio
Does anyone have a good book in which different types of nuclear reactor are discussed?
St. Johnsbury
I'd prefer to reference a book in my report rather than a website, so does anyone know of any good books in which nuclear reactor types are discussed? In hard to please BWR increased by PWR types need to betray included. Many gratitude
Auburn
A very good book for you might be "Nuclear Engineering, Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power", Second Edition, by Ronald Allen Knief. ISBN 978-0-89448-458-2That book covers all you would want to know about nuclear reactor types added to the rudiments you muscle poverty to from time to time reference plane if you were to make nuclear engineering a career. It covers basics as spectacularly as all the regulatory factors, fuels, safety, and even has a chapter on fusing. One could not ask relative a better overall nuclear activity criticism. I bought a copy a pair of months ago even however I beget been introduce the nuclear province for surrender 40 years mention all areas, besides serving as an inspector or consultant at BWRs and PWRs.
Rogersville
every thing about themal hydraulics of the reactor:nuclear systems 1 by todreas and kazimi,
I'd prefer to reference a book in my report rather than a website, so does anyone know of any good books in which nuclear reactor types are discussed? In hard to please BWR increased by PWR types need to betray included. Many gratitude
Auburn
A very good book for you might be "Nuclear Engineering, Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power", Second Edition, by Ronald Allen Knief. ISBN 978-0-89448-458-2That book covers all you would want to know about nuclear reactor types added to the rudiments you muscle poverty to from time to time reference plane if you were to make nuclear engineering a career. It covers basics as spectacularly as all the regulatory factors, fuels, safety, and even has a chapter on fusing. One could not ask relative a better overall nuclear activity criticism. I bought a copy a pair of months ago even however I beget been introduce the nuclear province for surrender 40 years mention all areas, besides serving as an inspector or consultant at BWRs and PWRs.
Rogersville
every thing about themal hydraulics of the reactor:nuclear systems 1 by todreas and kazimi,
Ideas for marketing a nuclear reactor?
Park City
I am reactor supervisor at the Kansas State University nuclear reactor. We do a lot of operate alongside detection ccrutiny, as well as neutron activation analysis, barring because of budget cuts we paucity to increase billable time. I'm tossing around a scarcely any ideas, but promote is always usher in broach my array as we can't maintain our staff through the day unless we have another income.
Salem
How about forensics / toxicology work? Look for arsenic and other heavy metals in hair samples and so forth. You could surely do it cheaper and faster than the FBI can.
I am reactor supervisor at the Kansas State University nuclear reactor. We do a lot of operate alongside detection ccrutiny, as well as neutron activation analysis, barring because of budget cuts we paucity to increase billable time. I'm tossing around a scarcely any ideas, but promote is always usher in broach my array as we can't maintain our staff through the day unless we have another income.
Salem
How about forensics / toxicology work? Look for arsenic and other heavy metals in hair samples and so forth. You could surely do it cheaper and faster than the FBI can.
What is the function of shielding in a nuclear reactor?
Progreso Lakes
to contain radiation, to absorb free neutrons, to slow neutrons, or to nonchalant the reactor?
Brass Castle
We maintain our radiation dose ALARA - as low as reasonably achievable by 1. reducing time 2. increasing distance 3. shielding. Shielding is placing material (like lead, concrete, water) between you and the source of radiation.
Harlem
Which shielding? The outer shielding contains radiation. Rods in the reactor capture neutrons and are second-hand to control the reaction rate. Have a face at thishttp://www. howstuffworks. com/atomic-pow…
Arlington
to contain radiation
to contain radiation, to absorb free neutrons, to slow neutrons, or to nonchalant the reactor?
Brass Castle
We maintain our radiation dose ALARA - as low as reasonably achievable by 1. reducing time 2. increasing distance 3. shielding. Shielding is placing material (like lead, concrete, water) between you and the source of radiation.
Harlem
Which shielding? The outer shielding contains radiation. Rods in the reactor capture neutrons and are second-hand to control the reaction rate. Have a face at thishttp://www. howstuffworks. com/atomic-pow…
Arlington
to contain radiation
What are the advantages and disadvantages of building a nuclear reactor in an urban area?
Isles of the Blessed
there is no particular advantage in co-locating a generating station in proximity to its demand. historically, such stations are located with convenience to the source of energy. ie coal plants located in Wyoming, hydroplants at Niagra Falls, wind farms on windy hills, tide generators on the coast, etc. A nuclear generator serves such a large region, that wires will have to travel distances no matter where the plant is located. High Voltage transmission is quite efficient. The major consumers merely need to be close to a substation or transformer vault. On a lighter note, people have this annoying habit of wanting to live near large scale industry that was built originally to be in rural location. ie the DIA airport was moved out many miles from Denver to preclude the security problems inherent with the old Stapleton field. And now, where are the new housing subdivision being built? How many people moved into the 3 Mile community after construction started on the first reactor? Industry is easy to regulate, people are not.
Fredericktown
Other than the power... I don't see any advantages of having it in an urban area.
St. Peter
Disadvantages: radioactive waste, target for terrorism or military attacks, possibility of accidents like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
Pearl
disadvantages-radiation could be a problem to citizensanother disaster could happen like the Chernobyl where the fission reaction wasn't controlled properly and it blew up...leaving the surrounding area radio active. Advantages-it is accessible so that there are labourers available to work
Medford
The advantage is that it requires less effort for the workers to travel to the site of the reactor and that the electrical wires connecting the power to the users may be shorter. The disadvantages are due to the greater risk of a failure causing a spread of nuclear materials over a populated region rather than in a more open place. Such a reactor may require a cooling supply of water which is easier to provide if it doesn't have to be shared with the population. However the heat can be used for homes in winter so there are advantages too.
Aniwa
One major advantage would be having the plant close to the load it serves, the city. That mean less transmission lines to build and less loss from power transmission. You also could have access to city services, like potable water, fire department, etc. Now for the disadvantages, which, to my mind, heavily outweigh the advantages. Emergency planning would be an extreme challenge, since you have to arrange evacuation routes for the entire surrounding community. In the US, an entire nuclear unit was built and then shut down without generating even 1 megawatt of electricity because the surrounding localities would not cooperate with the emergency plan (see Shoreham on Long Island). Getting a source of cooling water is an issue, especially if the city is competing for a scarce supply. And in building it, there are massive amounts of steel, concrete and large pieces of equipment that have to travel to the site, which may be difficult traveling through a built-up area. The radiation is not really an issue because regulations prohibit emitting more than a small fraction of the radiation that would impairment anyone who lived handy the furthest plant limit concerning an unreduced year.
Lakewood Village
This question needs some additional context. What might be the advantages or disadvantages of building any kind of power generation system (coal - or natural-gas fired boilers, wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, etc.) in an urban area. All power generation has environmental impacts, and some of the impacts are a little surprising. For example, more uranium is released from burning coal than is released from nuclear power reactors. Even more necessaby is the add up to apprised of transcript dioxide and other gases increased by the amount in on solid waste generated. The alternative part of the question is "what is the claim re electricity?" Engineering and economic evaluation of advantages and disadvantaged of variant methods for power crystallization can betray explored broach the tome "Sustainable Energy" by Tester, Drake, Driscoll, Golay, and Peters. The point of my answer is to rich enough a amend context as to the query consequence that a guileless, direct answer to the ask on one's high horse won't fail misconstrued into the final answer Formal anent a complex topic.
there is no particular advantage in co-locating a generating station in proximity to its demand. historically, such stations are located with convenience to the source of energy. ie coal plants located in Wyoming, hydroplants at Niagra Falls, wind farms on windy hills, tide generators on the coast, etc. A nuclear generator serves such a large region, that wires will have to travel distances no matter where the plant is located. High Voltage transmission is quite efficient. The major consumers merely need to be close to a substation or transformer vault. On a lighter note, people have this annoying habit of wanting to live near large scale industry that was built originally to be in rural location. ie the DIA airport was moved out many miles from Denver to preclude the security problems inherent with the old Stapleton field. And now, where are the new housing subdivision being built? How many people moved into the 3 Mile community after construction started on the first reactor? Industry is easy to regulate, people are not.
Fredericktown
Other than the power... I don't see any advantages of having it in an urban area.
St. Peter
Disadvantages: radioactive waste, target for terrorism or military attacks, possibility of accidents like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
Pearl
disadvantages-radiation could be a problem to citizensanother disaster could happen like the Chernobyl where the fission reaction wasn't controlled properly and it blew up...leaving the surrounding area radio active. Advantages-it is accessible so that there are labourers available to work
Medford
The advantage is that it requires less effort for the workers to travel to the site of the reactor and that the electrical wires connecting the power to the users may be shorter. The disadvantages are due to the greater risk of a failure causing a spread of nuclear materials over a populated region rather than in a more open place. Such a reactor may require a cooling supply of water which is easier to provide if it doesn't have to be shared with the population. However the heat can be used for homes in winter so there are advantages too.
Aniwa
One major advantage would be having the plant close to the load it serves, the city. That mean less transmission lines to build and less loss from power transmission. You also could have access to city services, like potable water, fire department, etc. Now for the disadvantages, which, to my mind, heavily outweigh the advantages. Emergency planning would be an extreme challenge, since you have to arrange evacuation routes for the entire surrounding community. In the US, an entire nuclear unit was built and then shut down without generating even 1 megawatt of electricity because the surrounding localities would not cooperate with the emergency plan (see Shoreham on Long Island). Getting a source of cooling water is an issue, especially if the city is competing for a scarce supply. And in building it, there are massive amounts of steel, concrete and large pieces of equipment that have to travel to the site, which may be difficult traveling through a built-up area. The radiation is not really an issue because regulations prohibit emitting more than a small fraction of the radiation that would impairment anyone who lived handy the furthest plant limit concerning an unreduced year.
Lakewood Village
This question needs some additional context. What might be the advantages or disadvantages of building any kind of power generation system (coal - or natural-gas fired boilers, wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, etc.) in an urban area. All power generation has environmental impacts, and some of the impacts are a little surprising. For example, more uranium is released from burning coal than is released from nuclear power reactors. Even more necessaby is the add up to apprised of transcript dioxide and other gases increased by the amount in on solid waste generated. The alternative part of the question is "what is the claim re electricity?" Engineering and economic evaluation of advantages and disadvantaged of variant methods for power crystallization can betray explored broach the tome "Sustainable Energy" by Tester, Drake, Driscoll, Golay, and Peters. The point of my answer is to rich enough a amend context as to the query consequence that a guileless, direct answer to the ask on one's high horse won't fail misconstrued into the final answer Formal anent a complex topic.
How disingenious is it to attack iran for trying to build a nuclear reactor?
La Harpe
while several countries in that part of the world got nukes...actual atomic weapons, and got them without getting cufferance, together with violating international amiability..including India, Pakistan, Israel. Does it not seem hardly a bit, unfair to Iran that they would prove false targeted for doing something that others have done repeatedly without repercussions. The verbalize that comes grate on nerves mind is disingeniousness.
Chrisney
The past is past. What's now is the fact that letting a terrorist state (a state that sponsors terrorism) have access to atomic weapons is irresponsible and dangerous.
Sturgeon Bay
Isreal and Evil jews wants another war with Iran. Losers...
Lake Shore
there are a number of reasons NOT to attack Iran. Here are just a few of them:1. They haven't attacked the US.2. We don't have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do within their own country.3. We are already badly over-extended in terms of military allocation, and another pointless crusade is only going to weaken us even further.4. There are plenty of other countries that are just as bad or worse -- meaning that we'd be picking on that one for no reason other than we don't like what they say or what their dominant religion is.5. There are many more pressing needs for where the US can spend a hundred billion (or more) per year.6. Attacking Iran gains us absolutely nothing.7. The Iranian people are already starting to get annoyed with the current president, and he probably won't win re-election in 2009 -- unless we attack, which justifies his actions and causes the entire country to rally against the US.
Ridgeway
Only in the foggiest of politically correct leftist minds is it disingenuous to attack a country that has been swearing the destruction of another country, been the biggest sponsor of terrorism and providing support military support against the United States. If you are trying to make me feel superior to you; it is working.
Fergus Falls
No...you take them on for 3 reasons:1. A terrorist supportive state trying to develope a NUKE, not a reactor.2. "Convert or die" and "Death to America" as your national slogans combined with #1.3. Since they declared war on US in 1979 by invading our embassy {an act of war by international law} , it's time we dealt with the raghead mullahs. The above 3 can be eliminated if the Iranian people got rid of the mullahs and stopped working on a nuclear weapon. Which one sounds like the best? I prefer the last, but am in full support for dealing with the first 3 !
Frankford
Here is one good reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear anything, even if it means bombing them out of existence. THEY WANT TO KILL US, and this means liberals too.
La Grange
Iran is evil and poses a threat to the world. America should stop nations that will kill us all. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Socialist Liberals, and other should all be taken out.
South Vacherie
It makes a lot of sense to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability. Have you been listening to what Ahmadinejad has been saying? Do you really want this lunatic to have a nuclear weapon?
Fulton
No, it isn't disingenuous or, an act of hypocrisy. You've got a man over there threatening to wipe countries off the map, preaching that the west is impure and asserting his Allah given right to rid the world of infidels. There is no reason to trust such a man with the capacity to do what he desires. If a leader of the free world expressed an open desire to rid the world of Muslims, we'd send that person to the loony pen immediately.
Clio
What international protocol might this be? Are you referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty? The one that was not signed by everybody? Actually, the truth of the matter is that a nuclear Iran would present a debilitating threat to the region and beyond. NOT protesting and determining how to stop this real possibility would be "disingenuousness".Those who would pretend otherwise are simply being foolish. And those who say "Wah! Israel has nukes too!" are sidestepping from the real issue.
Fabius
And you believe that's why they want to build these? Why aren't other countries reacting in outrage then if it was commonly thought that was all Iran wanted?? And you need to research this a little more.
while several countries in that part of the world got nukes...actual atomic weapons, and got them without getting cufferance, together with violating international amiability..including India, Pakistan, Israel. Does it not seem hardly a bit, unfair to Iran that they would prove false targeted for doing something that others have done repeatedly without repercussions. The verbalize that comes grate on nerves mind is disingeniousness.
Chrisney
The past is past. What's now is the fact that letting a terrorist state (a state that sponsors terrorism) have access to atomic weapons is irresponsible and dangerous.
Sturgeon Bay
Isreal and Evil jews wants another war with Iran. Losers...
Lake Shore
there are a number of reasons NOT to attack Iran. Here are just a few of them:1. They haven't attacked the US.2. We don't have the right to tell other sovereign nations what to do within their own country.3. We are already badly over-extended in terms of military allocation, and another pointless crusade is only going to weaken us even further.4. There are plenty of other countries that are just as bad or worse -- meaning that we'd be picking on that one for no reason other than we don't like what they say or what their dominant religion is.5. There are many more pressing needs for where the US can spend a hundred billion (or more) per year.6. Attacking Iran gains us absolutely nothing.7. The Iranian people are already starting to get annoyed with the current president, and he probably won't win re-election in 2009 -- unless we attack, which justifies his actions and causes the entire country to rally against the US.
Ridgeway
Only in the foggiest of politically correct leftist minds is it disingenuous to attack a country that has been swearing the destruction of another country, been the biggest sponsor of terrorism and providing support military support against the United States. If you are trying to make me feel superior to you; it is working.
Fergus Falls
No...you take them on for 3 reasons:1. A terrorist supportive state trying to develope a NUKE, not a reactor.2. "Convert or die" and "Death to America" as your national slogans combined with #1.3. Since they declared war on US in 1979 by invading our embassy {an act of war by international law} , it's time we dealt with the raghead mullahs. The above 3 can be eliminated if the Iranian people got rid of the mullahs and stopped working on a nuclear weapon. Which one sounds like the best? I prefer the last, but am in full support for dealing with the first 3 !
Frankford
Here is one good reason to not allow Iran to have nuclear anything, even if it means bombing them out of existence. THEY WANT TO KILL US, and this means liberals too.
La Grange
Iran is evil and poses a threat to the world. America should stop nations that will kill us all. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Socialist Liberals, and other should all be taken out.
South Vacherie
It makes a lot of sense to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability. Have you been listening to what Ahmadinejad has been saying? Do you really want this lunatic to have a nuclear weapon?
Fulton
No, it isn't disingenuous or, an act of hypocrisy. You've got a man over there threatening to wipe countries off the map, preaching that the west is impure and asserting his Allah given right to rid the world of infidels. There is no reason to trust such a man with the capacity to do what he desires. If a leader of the free world expressed an open desire to rid the world of Muslims, we'd send that person to the loony pen immediately.
Clio
What international protocol might this be? Are you referring to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty? The one that was not signed by everybody? Actually, the truth of the matter is that a nuclear Iran would present a debilitating threat to the region and beyond. NOT protesting and determining how to stop this real possibility would be "disingenuousness".Those who would pretend otherwise are simply being foolish. And those who say "Wah! Israel has nukes too!" are sidestepping from the real issue.
Fabius
And you believe that's why they want to build these? Why aren't other countries reacting in outrage then if it was commonly thought that was all Iran wanted?? And you need to research this a little more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)