Global warm. .. I'm a nuclear physicist, I'm really sick of people thinking when I go to work they feel the need to say "Be safe". Seriously, they put a of safeguards
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Global warm

+1755
Views: 44339
Favorited: 73
Submitted: 08/12/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to reuploaded Subscribe to oc-comic-makers E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(343):

[ 343 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#338 - kotos ONLINE (08/14/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
0
#334 - racans **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#333 - stupidfuckingidiot (08/13/2012) [-]
Yuh Joe Heller is a fonny guy isnt he?
User avatar #326 - Zeltip (08/13/2012) [-]
A repost put in a channel called "oc-comic-makers"...
User avatar #366 to #326 - georgeapg (08/14/2012) [-]
well the oc in oc-comic-makers means that you took the time to draw it and not just use ragefaces
but ya this guy is just reposting everything he finds
User avatar #317 - swittig (08/13/2012) [-]
France gets 70% of its power from nuclear sources.
User avatar #320 to #317 - AbsentMinded (08/13/2012) [-]
it's a pretty good idea if you ask me.
User avatar #321 to #320 - swittig (08/13/2012) [-]
It is, the fear associated with it is an overreaction, previous accidents were simply flukes with poor oversight
#315 - anonymous (08/13/2012) [-]
its funny how OP posted this comic in the channel he did.....
0
#319 to #315 - racans **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #312 - lemmingonesevenone (08/13/2012) [-]
Nuclear power is relatively safe with regards to explosions, its the waste thats the real problem.
#309 - pallypal (08/13/2012) [-]
Actually, only idiots argue about 'wind energy' with that logic.

The REAL argument is that they don't produce enough power to run your house for 10 minutes unless the winds are over 50 km/h in the right direction.

They're publicity stunts, nothing more. Even the hundreds of them around where I live do next to nothing on the scale we need.
User avatar #324 to #309 - MrPadre ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
That and they can change birds migratory patterns which can wreak havoc on an evironment
#306 - bdowns (08/13/2012) [-]
**bdowns rolled a random image posted in comment #256 at 217 Notifications Later ** whats in my yard
**bdowns rolled a random image posted in comment #256 at 217 Notifications Later ** whats in my yard
User avatar #313 to #306 - coshocker (08/13/2012) [-]
Source?
User avatar #298 - reuploaded (08/13/2012) [-]
thumb up my repost up you peice of ***** .

0
#296 - cerealisticbeing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #294 - leightonsolomon (08/13/2012) [-]
I can understand how everyone likes this "clean energy" stuff, but you can cover the entire state of Kansas in wind turbines and it won't generate as much energy as ONE nuclear power plant. Just sayin.
User avatar #322 to #294 - AbsentMinded (08/13/2012) [-]
Let's just cover Africa completely then.
User avatar #336 to #322 - leightonsolomon (08/13/2012) [-]
That might just be crazy enough to work.
User avatar #293 - theaceofthespade (08/13/2012) [-]
As I'm sure a ton of people have said below, nuclear is actually extremely safe. And if it were more common, it would only advance that much more, and become that much safer/cleaner, the same way that we have become more and more efficient/clean with our fossil fuels (relatively)
0
#302 to #293 - cerealisticbeing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #318 to #302 - theaceofthespade (08/13/2012) [-]
The actual point of my post was that we are slowly finding more and more ways to recycle the waste, instead of just dumping it somewhere. Like with electric cars, the more that they are used, the more that they will be advanced.

We actually had a lot of ways in the past - a lot of our problems came from deals where people were dumping it instead of disposing it properly, and then pocketing the money.
+1
#316 to #302 - elscorcho **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#300 to #293 - anonymous (08/13/2012) [-]
I'm sure Chernobyl agrees with your statement ;)
User avatar #307 to #300 - theaceofthespade (08/13/2012) [-]
Saying Chernobyl is why we shouldn't have nuclear power is like saying 9/11 is the reason we shouldn't have planes. It was so avoidable it's not even funny. Even they knew that the disaster was coming - they just refused to fix it.
0
#303 to #300 - cerealisticbeing **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
0
#292 - unicornasscrack has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #290 - Spongesrsquare (08/13/2012) [-]
wind energy is also really inefficent compared to nuclear
#280 - thisshipdied ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
Don't get me wrong, I'm ALL over wind power, but have you seen the turbines? They are over 100 ft tall, cost multiple millions of dollars to make, and the electricity they save will never amount to profit due to the cost and necessity of repairs. Also farmers get paid thousands per year, PER TURBINE.(much more than whatever crop would be there.) So the backyard argument is gone.

TLDR farmers get paid to have them of their property and the only reason its not practical is the massive cost to build and maintain them. Same with solar power.
User avatar #287 to #280 - xjessicaxrabbitx (08/13/2012) [-]
Farmers get paid by the electric company for sending back energy, not for having the turbine. Anyone can get paid for that. If you produce your own electricity you can send back the extra and get paid for it. Having turbines is just a slight tax break. The best argument against them is they ****** birds.
#269 - brosephus (08/13/2012) [-]
Also - wind turbines have killed an incredible number of birds, many of them endangered.
#275 to #269 - zeustesticle (08/13/2012) [-]
>bird

>care
#279 to #275 - brosephus (08/13/2012) [-]
I'm really unsure how to respond to that. Would you like a class in basic sentence structure and grammar.
#281 to #279 - zeustesticle (08/13/2012) [-]
**zeustesticle rolls 24**
User avatar #288 to #281 - theaceofthespade (08/13/2012) [-]
I lold
User avatar #268 - fosforgasxiii (08/13/2012) [-]
Accidents with nuclear powerplants are very rare so I can understand that people still support them, but I can't understand how there are still people supporting fossil fuels.
User avatar #276 to #268 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
because it's cheap, relaible, and effective.
User avatar #283 to #276 - fosforgasxiii (08/13/2012) [-]
It is cheap now, but it won't be when oil production starts to decline and that is probably going to happen within the next 20 years, while the demand for oil keeps rising.
User avatar #330 to #283 - SteyrAUG ONLINE (08/13/2012) [-]
See, nuclear power used to be cheap, reliable and effective. Now it's just reliable and effective because the US government stuck their nose in it without actually knowing anything about it.
User avatar #271 to #268 - teutoburg (08/13/2012) [-]
just try to find something cheaper and more reliable
User avatar #277 to #271 - fosforgasxiii (08/13/2012) [-]
It is indeed cheap and reliable ... for maybe 30 more years at best.
User avatar #285 to #277 - teutoburg (08/13/2012) [-]
thats exactly what they said 40 years ago
besides once the situation becomes dire utility companies will start pouring money into R&D
change doesn't happen until it absolutely needs to happen and until then nothing can beat fossil fuels
User avatar #299 to #285 - fosforgasxiii (08/13/2012) [-]
Once the oil production dicline the prices will raise very quickly. And you can't change an oil-based economy into something else in just a few years. That's why we have to start pouring money into R&D now so we have time to reform our economy slowly.
User avatar #310 to #299 - teutoburg (08/13/2012) [-]
no one will ever get anything done without a crisis, a company isn't going to throw millions or even billions into something that may or may not work unless it has to.
The only alternative is government funded research, and major public funding happens only in crises and when there is extra money. Should it be funded now? Yes, but it won't happen especially after the DOE was embarrassed by Solyndra.
#264 - robbayyy (08/13/2012) [-]
It's funny how your username is reuploaded
User avatar #266 to #264 - reuploaded (08/13/2012) [-]
yea
#253 - totallywhiteguy (08/13/2012) [-]
nuclear power is actually extremely safe, the only major meltdown was in chernobyl and that was because they ignored all safety measures. It is actually an incredibly efficient source of energy, and it is much cleaner than oil or coal
User avatar #263 to #253 - screwyouman (08/13/2012) [-]
What about the nuclear waste?
User avatar #308 to #263 - CakeOrDeath (08/13/2012) [-]
Bro, 1 gram of uranium produces as much energy as 3 million grams of coal, so there really isn't that much nuclear waste involved in the process. Of course, we could just pump tons and tons of pollution into the atmosphere, that's cool too. -_-
#286 to #263 - zerolimz (08/13/2012) [-]
it actually doesn't make a lot of waste ,ok it is something but the are now tring to recycle it or store it in some kind of safe container place

WIKIPEDIA: Another option is to find applications for the isotopes in nuclear waste so as to re-use them.[68] Already, caesium-137, strontium-90 and a few other isotopes are extracted for certain industrial applications such as food irradiation and radioisotope thermoelectric generators


if they would get energy from : , coal,wood,... there would be lots more of waste just blown in the air
User avatar #295 to #286 - screwyouman (08/13/2012) [-]
So...they put it in a chamber until it expires.
User avatar #314 to #295 - zerolimz (08/13/2012) [-]
nope just keep it in there and leave it there until they know how to recycle it
User avatar #274 to #263 - teutoburg (08/13/2012) [-]
dig a big hole and throw it in
#273 to #263 - anonymous (08/13/2012) [-]
There are plenty ways of stocking nuclear waste on a safe way and there are already experimental programms to reduce the waste. Within 25 years nuclear waste won't be a problem anymore.
User avatar #284 to #273 - screwyouman (08/13/2012) [-]
Hmm, seems like an okay plan.
[ 343 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)