Here's one primitivist's answer to the nuclear question

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 4 2004 10:09
Here's one primitivist's answer to the nuclear question

(since you asked)

stilllooney wrote:
nuke waste

Use whats sitll in the reactors for power to make things that will be needed in a post civ primitive society. The rest will need to be buried very deep (up to a mile it is said) in stable ground. Very dangerous process. One last task for the scientists/military.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 4 2004 10:23

You can't keep nuclear power stations going without a whole host of other technologies.

And you have to keep the material safe for so long that you can't bury it without monitoring it constantly, and when necessary building new containment facilities when techtonic plate shifts make previous ones unusable.

So that's shite I'm afraid.

Next!

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 4 2004 11:22

Steven is right. Imagine, the slightest cracks in the containers would leak out radioactive material into the ground waters polluting vast areas. The current storage methods are not reliable past few hundred years, which is only about 1% of the time they would need to be relied upon.

Besides this talk about how things would be in the primitivist world is pretty pointless, like talking about how the paradise would look like with jehovas witnesses. You can't just take a point in time in history and try to return to that.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 4 2004 13:11

Shtop! Shtop, Username! This political theory is not ready yet!

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Oct 4 2004 15:55

Oh me Oh my, Revol, That is some funny shit. grin

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Oct 4 2004 16:03

And how about this one!

Quote:
Primitive man also had natural selection on his side when it comes to handicaps and such; people with handicaps was less likely to survive and reproduce, and this kept many of the "bad" genes away from corrupting future generations. In our highly politically correct modern society, it's quite the opposite. It seems that we're doing just about everything we possibly can to work against this kind of "natural eugenics program" which keeps our gene pool clean. Thanks to the hospitals and their medicines and treatments, more and more crippling genes are accumulated in our species by every generation, and so are the handicaps, the dependencies and the misery that they cause. I know that I'm heading out on deep waters now by starting to sound like a Nazi or whatever, but this is a serious matter which I think should not be overlooked just because of political correctness, naziphobia or whatever. We've had enough of that ignorance from lefties already.

Can anybody tell me why these lunatics call themselves anarchists?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 4 2004 17:48

LOL, yeah down with naziphobia!

Fucking twats roll eyes

revol I just Love the Random Capitalisation of words In those quOtes grin

gawkrodger
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Oct 4 2004 21:08

i just showed my mother these quotes. she also pissed herself laughing! haha

edited 'cos the spelling was so bad!

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 4 2004 22:59
Quote:
would any of you consider an urban area post civilization wilderness? i would. it seems so poetic to me to picture an overgrown feral city. a whole different type of wild. instead of gathering you would scavenge, and instead of hunt you would loot.

sorta like 28 days later without the hollywood zombies.

But 28 days later wasn't even a hollywood production. Fucking primitivists piss me off on so many levels.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 5 2004 21:34
revol68 wrote:
SO folowing usernames link on nuclear waste i decided to explore the rest of the mesageboard it was posted on, heres some other gems i found

Also, check out the anarchism forum that he's also posted on. Their usernames make them sound like anarchist superheroes - "Sanarchus", "DestroyerOfLaws". Also one of their biggest posters is called "AnarchoConservative", so I guess you can see why Username is used to being taken seriously.

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Oct 6 2004 16:46

The naziphile is not only talking political shite (and offensive shite at that) but scientific shite as well - though no surprises there. Most 'bad' genes are recessive so the majority of people that carry the gene don't suffer from the illness, this means bumping off or sterilizing those that do doesn't really affect the gene frequency.

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 6 2004 21:14

hello, moderators? can y'all keep this thread on topic? revol68, you really should have started another thread for your off topic commentary. every time i come here to see discussion about nuclear waste, all i see is discussion about how dumb primitivists are. let's try to stay on topic, okay, people?

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Oct 6 2004 21:31

but it is on topic. your thread was about one primitivist's solution to nuclear waste. it was dumb. Steven and jdmf demolished it comprehensively in the first two posts. there's only so many ways you can say that your ideas are shit, and revol68 and wayne seem to have thrown most of them at you already on other threads. as there's no point in repetition, so they thought they'd have a look at some of the other ludicrous ideas on the forum. if that's the best primitivists can come up with to deal with nuclear waste, then how dumb they are is entirely relevant.

hey, if we bury all the primitivists very deep (up to a mile it is said) in stable ground, do you think the world will be safe from their loopy theories? or, thousands of years hence, when the tectonic plates shift, will a concentrated jet of essence of john zerzan be released into the atmosphere, turning our beautiful anarchist communist utopia to poo? maybe we should launch them at the sun instead...

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 6 2004 22:05
GenerationTerrorist wrote:
but it is on topic. your thread was about one primitivist's solution to nuclear waste. it was dumb. Steven and jdmf demolished it comprehensively in the first two posts. there's only so many ways you can say that, and revol68 and wayne seem to have thrown most of them at you already on other threads. as there's no point in repetition, so they thought they'd have a look at some of the other ludicrous ideas on the forum.

hey, liar, that is called getting off topic. just start a new thread if you want to talk about how dumb we are or how you would like to erase us from the earth. i'd appreciate that, "comrade". thanks.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 6 2004 23:11

Who cares if its off topic? Look if you didn't have such shit politics maybe you wouldn't find every time you posted the thread turns into a huge primitivist ass-whupping session. Even people like WeTheYouth and Lazlo Woodbine can shoot your arguments to shit. Can we take the fact that your last two posts were pretty meaningless attacks on people for "going off topic" to mean that you've given up? I mean surely it would make much more sense from your point of view to actually defend your original post?

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 6 2004 23:11

The sad fate of HMS Username:

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 6 2004 23:37
Username wrote:
hello, moderators? can y'all keep this thread on topic? revol68, you really should have started another thread for your off topic commentary. every time i come here to see discussion about nuclear waste, all i see is discussion about how dumb primitivists are. let's try to stay on topic, okay, people?

Your argument was destroyed within seconds.

Answer the criticisms, if you can eh?

Otherwise this thread is over, and you lost tongue

red n black star

Username
Offline
Joined: 15-09-04
Oct 7 2004 00:33

why are y'all still off topic? what is with this inane silliness? why are my politics so threatening that you delude yourself into believing you've whooped my ass? answer the criticisms or i lose? this isn't a game, people. this may be the internet and your pastime, but i have all the time in the world; and i find it really lame that all you want to do is score little points for every little post/thread. cool, but please, start a new thread unless you have a new point about nuclear waste.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Oct 7 2004 07:45
Username wrote:
why are y'all still off topic? what is with this inane silliness? why are my politics so threatening that you delude yourself into believing you've whooped my ass? answer the criticisms or i lose? this isn't a game, people. this may be the internet and your pastime, but i have all the time in the world; and i find it really lame that all you want to do is score little points for every little post/thread. cool, but please, start a new thread unless you have a new point about nuclear waste.

Dude getting sense from them is like getting blood from a stone. twisted

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 7 2004 09:05
Username wrote:
why are y'all still off topic? what is with this inane silliness? why are my politics so threatening that you delude yourself into believing you've whooped my ass? answer the criticisms or i lose? this isn't a game, people. this may be the internet and your pastime, but i have all the time in the world; and i find it really lame that all you want to do is score little points for every little post/thread. cool, but please, start a new thread unless you have a new point about nuclear waste.

Can you not read? Or is language too oppressive for you?

*Second post on the thread

Steven: ''You can't keep nuclear power stations going without a whole host of other technologies.

And you have to keep the material safe for so long that you can't bury it without monitoring it constantly, and when necessary building new containment facilities when techtonic plate shifts make previous ones unusable.

So that's shite I'm afraid.

Next!''

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Oct 7 2004 09:29
Username wrote:
(since you asked)
stilllooney wrote:
nuke waste

Use whats sitll in the reactors for power to make things that will be needed in a post civ primitive society. The rest will need to be buried very deep (up to a mile it is said) in stable ground. Very dangerous process. One last task for the scientists/military.

Since you ask, you clearly kow fuck all about the nature of radioactive waste and even the most basic science seems to be beyond your grasp.

Nuclear waste has a shelf life of thousands of years, and we have probably over half a million tonnes of the stuff.

To bury that a mile deep would be a staggeringly huge project and equivalent to some mad maoist wet dream, requiring millions of workers, and noones going to be fucking stupid enough to volunteer for this, except possibly people like you.

It would need to be constantly monitored due to techtonic shifts and the nature of the material stored. That requires technology.

And why do you want to put all our nuclear waste back in the hands of the military, thats fucking insane!

Your politics aren't threatening, primitivism offers nothing to anyone. Its just a pile of snivelling hippie shit.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 7 2004 10:38

Username -- if you link to sites with dodgy far-right politics we're going to want to discuss this. And then if you don't distance yourself from these right-wing primitivists we're going to assume that you feel some community with thse people.

There's a big difference between anarcho-primitivism and right-wing primitivism, just as there is between anarchist communism and leninist communism.

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Oct 7 2004 11:30

I have to admit that I don't know enough about primitivism or indeed nuclear waste to be able to comment, but surely the only option would be to dump the stuff in space and get rid of it once and for all. Not big, not clever and not dignified, but would probably do the job.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 7 2004 11:35

Hey! That's on-topic angry

I agree with Steven when he said that rockets aren't reliable enough to transport 1,000s of tonnes into space. IN addition the amount of rocket fuel needed is probably more than our entire fossil reserves, plus the CO2 emissions from the rockets would contribute massively to the greenhouse effect -- not to mention the massive refining/building operation that a space-solution would need...

I think the monitoring strategy is the only one we can pursue...unless we come up with some bacteria that can eat plutonium sad

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Oct 7 2004 11:42

Shit, so is that site a fair example of primitivists? That's creepy. Fair enough, Primitivists are the spawn of Satan. eek

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Oct 7 2004 11:52

Rockets don't use fossil fuels - they are powered by hydrogen and oxygen afaik. However, since there are no real examples of transporting large masses out of our orbit so far, I'd guess that we simply don't have the technology to do so and that the quantiities of H2 and O2 required would mean that the rocket woul have to be miles high.

On the other hand, this whole discussion is premised on our civilized technology. I hear that the primmie anti-technology is capable of amazing feats, like space travel powered by acorns and moss.

JoeBlack
Offline
Joined: 28-10-03
Oct 7 2004 11:58

OHMYGOD

I've just read the thread and realised that the post that started it was serious rather than a pisstake example of silly stuff primmies say

WOW

Username wrote:
(since you asked)
stilllooney wrote:
nuke waste

Use whats sitll in the reactors for power to make things that will be needed in a post civ primitive society. The rest will need to be buried very deep (up to a mile it is said) in stable ground. Very dangerous process. One last task for the scientists/military.

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Oct 7 2004 12:16
gurrier wrote:
Rockets don't use fossil fuels - they are powered by hydrogen and oxygen afaik. However, since there are no real examples of transporting large masses out of our orbit so far, I'd guess that we simply don't have the technology to do so and that the quantiities of H2 and O2 required would mean that the rocket woul have to be miles high.

One sec here, if we can launch the hubble space telescope out of orbit, we can launch nuclear waste too. The only question is how much we could transport in one go. Of course, if the rocket failed to launch properly and crashed... I don't even want to think about the consequences. That's probably why it hasn't been done. All we need to do now is to devise a reliable rocket which runs on nuclear waste, but moss and acorns would do. tongue

bigdave
Offline
Joined: 25-07-04
Oct 7 2004 13:00

Don't rockets use a binary explosive as fuel? Surely the only place they use Hydrogen and Oxygen is in sciece fiction?

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Oct 7 2004 13:03

dammit! We need some nuclear scientists and astrophysicists on here to sort this out!

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Oct 7 2004 13:11
Quote:
The earliest liquid-fuel rockets, as envisioned and tested by such pioneers as Robert Goddard, employed liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as propellants. In combination, these substances are highly reactive, and therefore make an excellent fuel as they provide a very effective ratio between the mass of the components and the velocity of the exhaust gas. Because of this effective ratio, liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engines have been continued to be employed up to the present time. The primary disadvantage of this fuel combination is the difficulty in maintaining temperatures low enough to ensure that both components remain liquid.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_fuel

IIRC, challenger for example used ammonium percholate as a solid fuel booster and had oxygen and hydrogen tanks as liquid fuel. The technology might have moved on since mind (or backwards to acorns and moss)