• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Russia sends floating nuclear power plant across the Arctic

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Well there has been nucler submachines for a long time, so why should this be any different?
Which I consider a terrible idea! This is worse because it isn't being run by such a disciplined crew and is a much bigger potential disaster.
I guess many dubt it will go well because it is Russia who doing it, I it had been any other country from west i belive nobody would care, bur since Russia have gotteen a bad name, people think they are evil
It's not that it's operated by Russians, although they have a dreadful track record.
I don't trust anybody to do such a thing.
However, it's the Russians who are currently claiming that they can do this safely. I don't believe them.
I wouldn't believe it coming from Trump or the EU or China or India or anybody else either.
But the Russians have a particularly poor record of assessing the risk of catastrophic failure and environmental disaster.
Are the Russians willing to put their own assets on line if this thing messes up and there's a huge human disaster? History says no.
Tom
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Which I consider a terrible idea! This is worse because it isn't being run by such a disciplined crew and is a much bigger potential disaster.

It's not that it's operated by Russians, although they have a dreadful track record.
I don't trust anybody to do such a thing.
However, it's the Russians who are currently claiming that they can do this safely. I don't believe them.
I wouldn't believe it coming from Trump or the EU or China or India or anybody else either.
But the Russians have a particularly poor record of assessing the risk of catastrophic failure and environmental disaster.
Are the Russians willing to put their own assets on line if this thing messes up and there's a huge human disaster? History says no.
Tom
I am glad you say you would not trust it from anybody else either, Yes Nuclear system is terrible and we should never have made it in the first place, totally agree with you on that. But since the world does have it, we must treat it with respect, and i do believe Russia is capable to do so, even they have had accidents happened.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
But since the world does have it, we must treat it with respect, and i do believe Russia is capable to do so, even they have had accidents happened.
But it's still happening.
Humans are floating a pile of utterly deadly stuff on the treacherous waters of the Arctic.
Nobody knows how disastrous a "Chernobyl like" event could be, but we all know that it would be horrendous.

And we all know that the people who profit from it aren't going to take responsibility.

I am totally opposed to this, I don't care who does it.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Suppose some rogue country or terrorist organization decides to sink this thing.
They make it their goal to cause the biggest single environmental disaster in human history. Thereby bringing about the Apocalypse, or whatever their religion teaches about the end times.

Are the people responsible for religion and floating nuclear disasters going to get away with saying, "Well, nobody knew that this could happen!"?
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I live just up the road from Marble Hill.

Marble Hill is a nuclear power plant being built in the 70s. Back then, nobody cared about waste disposal, that was assumed to be handled later. The promise was electricity so cheap we wouldn't even have a meter. Like phone service, you just pay a small monthly fee and use all you want.

Well, it turned out that construction standards were nearly as big of an issue as Japan's tsunamis and California's fault lines. And whatever caused Chernobyl to melt down.
After years of money flowing, basic construction requirements could not be met. It was way over budgets, and still inspectors were finding concrete flaws hidden with concrete colored plaster.
It was a disaster, financially, before it became an environmental disaster. For that I am glad.
The capitalist investors took their loss before there was a Chernobyl like problem. But they didn't lose much, they could write off their judgement failure from their taxes and they could buy in to the new power system with the write-off money.
Win -win.
Except for the consumers who had to buy electricity from the company who inherited the debt.

I consider myself lucky. I didn't have to deal with the outcome of a Chernobyl like incident just down the road from where I live. But it could have happened, had Marble Hill been "finished" to Russian standards.

Tom
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I live just up the road from Marble Hill.

Marble Hill is a nuclear power plant being built in the 70s. Back then, nobody cared about waste disposal, that was assumed to be handled later. The promise was electricity so cheap we wouldn't even have a meter. Like phone service, you just pay a small monthly fee and use all you want.

Well, it turned out that construction standards were nearly as big of an issue as Japan's tsunamis and California's fault lines. And whatever caused Chernobyl to melt down.
After years of money flowing, basic construction requirements could not be met. It was way over budgets, and still inspectors were finding concrete flaws hidden with concrete colored plaster.
It was a disaster, financially, before it became an environmental disaster. For that I am glad.
The capitalist investors took their loss before there was a Chernobyl like problem. But they didn't lose much, they could write off their judgement failure from their taxes and they could buy in to the new power system with the write-off money.
Win -win.
Except for the consumers who had to buy electricity from the company who inherited the debt.

I consider myself lucky. I didn't have to deal with the outcome of a Chernobyl like incident just down the road from where I live. But it could have happened, had Marble Hill been "finished" to Russian standards.

Tom
Where do you think this photo was taken? Yes you are right, In RUSSIA Not any worse building standard there then in USA or any country i Europe.
Russia has become just as good in standard as other countries. So stop complaining about Russia lack of standard
 

Attachments

  • Moscow_International_Business_Center_A_01.jpg
    Moscow_International_Business_Center_A_01.jpg
    191.2 KB · Views: 0

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
So stop complaining about Russia lack of standard
Stop pretending that I am complaining about Russia's lack of standards.
The USA doesn't have much better. I said that, quite clearly. That's why Marble Hill sucked up a ton of money, but never generated a kilowatt of electricity.

I'm sure I said that.
Tom

~Looking back at my post I realize that I didn't point out the simple fact that Marble Hill never generated a single kilowatt of electricity. It never got finished. It was a disaster.
But not the kind of ecological disaster a floating nuclear power reactor could be.
~
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Where do you think this photo was taken? Yes you are right, In RUSSIA Not any worse building standard there then in USA or any country i Europe.
Russia has become just as good in standard as other countries. So stop complaining about Russia lack of standard
I guess that is why Russias nuclear subs are by design unsafe, and why many of their submariners wind up with varieties of radiation caused illnesses. They shield their reactors with shielding about half as thick as in US nuclear submarines ( another thing we invented).

Who can forget Chernobyl, the greatest nuclear disaster in human history, a result of great Russian engineering and and safety standards.

Less than two weeks ago they had another nuclear accident with a small reactor, they only blew up about 20 people, they say.

So, the result of this latest stunt could be a real source of danger. They don´t care, expending people has never been a problem for them.

For our little Russian sycophant , who loves all things Russian, and hates all things US ( though he uses our technology on a big scale, every day) Russian technology is mostly borrowed or stolen from us, and their safety standards are poor.
Let's hope it fares better than the Kursk, Komsomolets, K-8, K-159, K-429, K-27, & K-219, eh.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I guess that is why Russias nuclear subs are by design unsafe, and why many of their submariners wind up with varieties of radiation caused illnesses. They shield their reactors with shielding about half as thick as in US nuclear submarines ( another thing we invented).

Who can forget Chernobyl, the greatest nuclear disaster in human history, a result of great Russian engineering and and safety standards.

Less than two weeks ago they had another nuclear accident with a small reactor, they only blew up about 20 people, they say.

So, the result of this latest stunt could be a real source of danger. They don´t care, expending people has never been a problem for them.

For our little Russian sycophant , who loves all things Russian, and hates all things US ( though he uses our technology on a big scale, every day) Russian technology is mostly borrowed or stolen from us, and their safety standards are poor.
You can mock me as much you want for being Russian friendly and less US-friendly, I am used to that. And I have no intention to change my view of America, just as you guys have no intention to change your view of Russia.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You mean,
besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Tom
Two were planned, and ended the war with Japan. Without them, and we had Okinawa as a preview, defeating Japan would have cost 100,000 American lives, at least, as well as hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in conquering the Japanese home islands.

Dropping them was the best decision for a rapid end to the war.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You can mock me as much you want for being Russian friendly and less US-friendly, I am used to that. And I have no intention to change my view of America, just as you guys have no intention to change your view of Russia.
I don´t recall asking you to change your views, as misguided as they may be.
 
Top