Scratch

jji7skyline wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

Well, if they used something like plutonium instead of uranium, it would be much safer, but they don't. Why? Because using uranium creates a by-product that is useful for making nuclear weapons. Nuclear is just a no-no for me. Much rather use old-fashioned oils and gases until they run out, then start using sustainable sources like sun, wind, tidal and geothermal.

What makes plutonium safer? Plutonium actually is a byproduct of you-238 reactions, and is used more often than uranium for nuclear weapons. Spent fuel rods, while radioactive, can be safely sealed away to ensure they do not harm humans.

I'm not exactly sure about the facts, but there are safer nuclear processes than using Uranium. Anyway. I'm glad nuclear reactors are pretty much banned in Australia 

After some research, there are definitely safer ways to generate nuclear power than standard U238 and U235 reactions. As you have said, most of these byproducts are wanted by the same governments that wanted plutonium for nuclear weapons. Some research came up with Thorium: It reacts with more stability than U235, then breaks down eventually into U233 which can be used in its own reactions without as many byproducts.

marcin388 wrote:

There won't be no future because world ends in about 3 months from now 

Did /anyone/ ever seriously think this because I feel like every mention I've heard has been a parody of those who believe it.

But that's EVERY mention, not a single serious one for the jokers to have heard.