You solve all problems, next Nobel price sure as hell will go to you. Glad you found a solution for waste problem, no one so far has a solution except storing it under our table but you genius will tell us all how it works.
Is your research a pro nuclear supporter video or based on actual science not paid off by Microsoft, NASA and other pro nuclear based people who work together with the industry… I am curious, please give us a teaser … Lesch among other scientists and Ph.D. people said there is no solution for waste, but apparently you have one.
You solve all problems, next Nobel price sure as hell will go to you.
Why thank you, you flatter me. But in all humbleness, I cannot take the credit for anything, not even claiming I solved it. I only plan to discuss existing solutions.
Is your research a pro nuclear supporter video or based on actual science not paid off by Microsoft, NASA and other pro nuclear based people who work together with the industry… I am curious, please give us a teaser
I’m not sure why you bring a tech company and space company into it, but no, I don’t like using videos as sources. They are good for explanations, which is why I linked the original one. There’s your teaser.
You can answer here all you want and find excuses, I already won and you bring nothing on the table, waste is unresolved problem.
I’m not sure why you bring a tech company and space company into it, but no, I don’t like using videos as sources. They are good for explanations, which is why I linked the original one. There’s your teaser.
Please inform yourself, Microsoft is pro nuclear energy and has researchers and simulations with nuclear power planst. The article linked claiming nuclear saves more lives is written by one single NASA dude, the only reason it got some attention. So yes, they are worth mentioning because this is what people typically bring forward but I debunked them already, thorium as well as thorium molten salt reactors still produce waste and nuclear energy does not save more life as pollution is caused by coal and not by wind, water etc. and the NASA dude also forgot to mention that you cannot backtrack cancer or deaths related to nuclear energy as there is no technology directly connecting all deaths that might be caused by it over a long run, you only can get some basic statistics such as living near plant increases your chance of getting cancer. But who knows what other cancer is not caused by compromised ocean water or the fish we … or the japanese people eat.
They are good for explanations, which is why I linked the original one. There’s your teaser.
The author is again not a professional, he stitched other videos together claiming nuclear energy is secure, not outlining actual disasters and history as well as the waste problematic, which remains as of today unresolved.
Why thank you, you flatter me. But in all humbleness, I cannot take the credit for anything, not even claiming I solved it. I only plan to discuss existing solutions.
Solutions, lol, there exist none. Other reactor types need cooling as well as having waste problem, does not matter if its less waste, it will pile up over time which is the bottom line. And Uranium lasts 130 years but I already said I am optimistic, so make it 200 years, and then what. Even Microsoft solutions are depleted within 1000 years, as they admit themselves.
You cannot play cards with me when you have nothing in your hands, and this is why I declared myself the winner as there are no further argumentation possible.
I am not playing cards with you. I have said I am willing to address your grievances. I do not claim that nuclear energy is perfect or that it has no problems. But I am willing to talk. Just not here. This argument is fruitless, off-topic, and helping no-one.
If you will block the community and declare yourself the winner, then fine, more power to you, go and be happy.
As for me, I am not here to “win”. So I will keep posting. If you change your mind and stop stonewalling, you are welcome to join the conversation. In the meantime, good day.
Attempting to have a discussion with CK appears to be a surreal experience. Whether one is arguing in support or opposition of CK’s position, they respond as if one were attacking their position in bad faith.
I greatly appreciate the deep variety of well considered points CK raises, but damn, it becomes a tedious undertaking to follow the ensuing discussion.
You solve all problems, next Nobel price sure as hell will go to you. Glad you found a solution for waste problem, no one so far has a solution except storing it under our table but you genius will tell us all how it works.
Is your research a pro nuclear supporter video or based on actual science not paid off by Microsoft, NASA and other pro nuclear based people who work together with the industry… I am curious, please give us a teaser … Lesch among other scientists and Ph.D. people said there is no solution for waste, but apparently you have one.
You answer in rt, so why not…
Why thank you, you flatter me. But in all humbleness, I cannot take the credit for anything, not even claiming I solved it. I only plan to discuss existing solutions.
I’m not sure why you bring a tech company and space company into it, but no, I don’t like using videos as sources. They are good for explanations, which is why I linked the original one. There’s your teaser.
You can answer here all you want and find excuses, I already won and you bring nothing on the table, waste is unresolved problem.
Please inform yourself, Microsoft is pro nuclear energy and has researchers and simulations with nuclear power planst. The article linked claiming nuclear saves more lives is written by one single NASA dude, the only reason it got some attention. So yes, they are worth mentioning because this is what people typically bring forward but I debunked them already, thorium as well as thorium molten salt reactors still produce waste and nuclear energy does not save more life as pollution is caused by coal and not by wind, water etc. and the NASA dude also forgot to mention that you cannot backtrack cancer or deaths related to nuclear energy as there is no technology directly connecting all deaths that might be caused by it over a long run, you only can get some basic statistics such as living near plant increases your chance of getting cancer. But who knows what other cancer is not caused by compromised ocean water or the fish we … or the japanese people eat.
The author is again not a professional, he stitched other videos together claiming nuclear energy is secure, not outlining actual disasters and history as well as the waste problematic, which remains as of today unresolved.
Solutions, lol, there exist none. Other reactor types need cooling as well as having waste problem, does not matter if its less waste, it will pile up over time which is the bottom line. And Uranium lasts 130 years but I already said I am optimistic, so make it 200 years, and then what. Even Microsoft solutions are depleted within 1000 years, as they admit themselves.
You cannot play cards with me when you have nothing in your hands, and this is why I declared myself the winner as there are no further argumentation possible.
I am not playing cards with you. I have said I am willing to address your grievances. I do not claim that nuclear energy is perfect or that it has no problems. But I am willing to talk. Just not here. This argument is fruitless, off-topic, and helping no-one.
If you will block the community and declare yourself the winner, then fine, more power to you, go and be happy.
As for me, I am not here to “win”. So I will keep posting. If you change your mind and stop stonewalling, you are welcome to join the conversation. In the meantime, good day.
Attempting to have a discussion with CK appears to be a surreal experience. Whether one is arguing in support or opposition of CK’s position, they respond as if one were attacking their position in bad faith.
I greatly appreciate the deep variety of well considered points CK raises, but damn, it becomes a tedious undertaking to follow the ensuing discussion.