commercial nuclear power reactors

  • 152 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Brosephus_Rex
Brosephus_Rex

467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151 Brosephus_Rex
Member since 2012 • 467 Posts

[QUOTE="Brosephus_Rex"]

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"] = you've actually got nothing to say :)BiancaDK

Don't flatter yourself. It means that I'm not going to bother with you. Obstinate stupidity is not worth the effort. You really should know better.

no, it means you've run out of things to say that actually support your argument, that's what it means when everyone else begins to fling poo, and thats what it means when you begin to fling poo :p doesn't really take a psych degree to figure that one out ;3 cheers though

Neither you nor I believe that, so you are probably trolling. On that note, I'll bid you adieu.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

here's my 2 cents on this issue (for tonight that is), anyone who is unwilling to admit that nuclear energy has it's drawbacks is as just an unreliable source of information on the subject as a person who is unwilling to admit that nuclear energy has positive features.

Serraph105
Sure it has drawbacks, however I would say that the positives far outweigh the negatives. Its clean given that its safely and properly run, and with new advances in reactor technology we can get more and more use out of the fissionable material. We SHOULD be designing and constructing newer facilities that will operate much more efficiently and safely while retiring older ones.