Google maps conspiracy!
-
@_moz said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@_moz said:I do look forward to a time when nuclear power stations emit neither dangerously warm water nor toxic waste, but it won't get here any sooner for people wishing it so.
Nuclear power stations don't "emit" toxic waste.
Yes they do. There are arguments to be made in favour of nuclear power on environmental grounds, just as there are for and against almost any means of generating electricity. So long as you believe that nuclear power stations don't emit toxic waste (what's with the quotes, anyway?), or that the failure of Areva, GE and Toshiba to produce nuclear power stations which are capable of operating at a wide range of temperatures is the result of a conspiracy between governments, you will never raiseany of them.Releasing a bit of carbon-14 or spilling small quantities of uranium is not part of the plant's design. It's an error made by the waste treatment facility. And it's one of those things that sounds really scary if you have absolutely no idea what it means and/or cannot be bothered to put it into perspective. Remember - you do not live a radiation-free existance. Even if there were no nucliar power plants and fission had never been discovered, you would still be surrounded by radioactive material and gasses. By simply exisitng, you expose yourself to ~0.24 rem per year. If you must worry about something, worry about exposure to automobile exhaust. That's far more dangerous.
Power plants that use steam to convert thermal energy into mechanical energy which is then converted into electrical energy have limits on how warm the condenser injection water can be. How the steam is formed has nothing to do with it. If those plants were solar thermal plants they would have exactly the same problem when the river is too warm, and exactly the same difficulty in releasing waste heat. You can't design around that problem without repealing the second law of thermodynamics. Good luck with that.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@galgorah said:
@morbiuswilters said:
you drink carbon dioxide? do your farts smell like exhaust fumes?I use my own recipe, adding 2 parts carbon to 6 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, for extra zing!
Shouldn't that be C2H5OH?
-
@pjt33 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@galgorah said:
@morbiuswilters said:
you drink carbon dioxide? do your farts smell like exhaust fumes?I use my own recipe, adding 2 parts carbon to 6 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, for extra zing!
Shouldn't that be C2H5OH?
I use empirical, you use structural.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Let's call the whole thing Scotch.@pjt33 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@galgorah said:
@morbiuswilters said:
you drink carbon dioxide? do your farts smell like exhaust fumes?I use my own recipe, adding 2 parts carbon to 6 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, for extra zing!
Shouldn't that be C2H5OH?
I use empirical, you use structural.
-
I love the conspiracy theory that jumps in front of the more likely explanation and waves its hands in the air. It should be obvious that high resolution photos don't exist for every spot on the earth.
When you zoom out to see the area in question, notice that the copyright message at the bottom changes? When you zoom in, it shows you that the better image has come from a different source. It looks like the state or USDA has comissioned photos of the nuclear plant and has released them to Google to use. The state/USDA did not take photos of the wildlife preserve, or if they did, they decided that since they don't own the area they can't release those photos to Google.
The area where I live is photographed on an almost monthly basis at extremely high resolution. However this is done by private companies (coal mines) and they don't release the images to Google so Google Maps gives the message "We're sorry, we don't have imagery available at this zoom level."
