WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

909

Do you trust these clown world players to run a nuclear reactor of any design in your town or locale? They won't be hiring White men for the jobs so you be assured no one working at the power plant will be risking their lives to save your ass when SHTF due to their incompetence. And don't expect them to keep all hazardous waste and radioactive materials safely contained and guarded at all times.

Do you trust these clown world players to run a nuclear reactor of any design in your town or locale? They won't be hiring White men for the jobs so you be assured no one working at the power plant will be risking their lives to save your ass when SHTF due to their incompetence. And don't expect them to keep all hazardous waste and radioactive materials safely contained and guarded at all times.

(post is archived)

[–] 11 pts (edited )

I think the danger of radiation is vastly exaggerated. Especially compared with stuff like tens of thousands of gallons of flaming vinyl chloride. I'd be much more willing to work in a uranium mine than follow the advice of the average doctor these days. Diversity hires are a danger to all of society no matter where they work. Getting killed from a plane crash, inadequate railroad safety, a nuclear plant melting down, or having a windmill fall on me is all going to end up with dead people from willful incompetence. At least when a nuclear plant melts down and the molten core burns its way to the center of the earth we might see something cool before our inevitable painful death.

I also believe that if this group of (((communists))) are going to steal everything me or my ancestors ever worked for and destroy any possible future for me an my family then it's perfectly okay to salt the earth so the only thing they will conquer is a barren wasteland.

[–] 5 pts

I think the danger of radiation is vastly exaggerated

Radiation isn't the problem. Unless you have an exposure that is significantly high and for a prolonged time, radiation isn't a big threat. What is a big threat is radionuclides, radioactive particulate matter. if radionuclides enter the body tissues, they irradiate the local area and cause much more harm because they are essentially trapped in your body. Your body can deal with radiation that is external but it does not deal well with internal radioactive sources, especially small particles scattered about in the body. This is what makes radioactive fallout dangerous. You should be concerned about radionuclides rather than radiation as energy emission.

[–] 1 pt

I very much understand how radiation causes disease and why something like inhaling radioactive particles is worse than just standing in front of low level emissions. I still contend that the danger is vastly overstated or at least very poorly documented. Most of the evidence of disease around Chernobyl and Fukushima is very poor. I'm not saying it's benign. I'm saying compared with all the other poisons we're exposed to, it barely raises the likelihood of disease. I think if proper precautions were taken, living around either meltdown would be almost undetectable in disease probability and outcomes.

[–] 1 pt

Also the fact that coal power plants exhaust radioactive material that's in the coal as a part of normal operation.

[–] 0 pt

SAY THE LINE BART! SAY THE LINE!

"Radioactive waste is overrated"

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

[–] 0 pt

I'm not talking about radionuclides from a meltdown. I'm talking about waste materials contaminated with radionuclides or raw radioactive waste material that is improperly stored, handled or secured getting out into the open by accident or theft. We don't need low-IQ monkeys letting radioactive materials escape and get spread in the world or worse used in a deliberate contamination event. One need only research incidents like the Goiania Incident to see what can go wrong if the waste and radioactive source materials are not kept securely in check. You fear a Times Beach level incident (dioxin used on dirt roads to reduce dust) more than Goiania but they are equally bad incidents. We can't be blind to one hazard because we fear another one more.

[–] 0 pt

The danger of radiation is underplayed by pretty much all of (((mainstream media))). Radiation invisibly destroys your DNA. No DNA, no future. You might think you're fine for years, then you find out you've got a brain tumor, you're sterile or your kids come out retarded or stillborn. No population will survive that lets it's rulers irradiate them.

[–] 7 pts (edited )

I was just applying for a job. All pajeet contractor house. They had a job forwarding to a major company name. They led me on for days, leading to me doing demo work to show I can do the task that is being asked for. They literally didn't listen to that I literally just yesterday did what's being asked for in the job, converting an app from one major lib version to another. And they just simply said "You have a 2 year gap in your resume, so we didn't even forward your resume to the major company".

I was flabbergasted. "You didn't even send it to let them decide?" I told them what bearing does a 2 year gap have on my ability to do the task? I have 10 years experience in the version specific libraries and overall 20+ years in development, and 1 full month recent non stop coding.

What I'm getting at is once you've got diversity hires in enough density in high tech spheres, they'll basically just shut themselves down.

[–] 4 pts

Nuclear power is the cleanest, least polluting and least dangerous form of power we can use. Do you know how many people died in the "Three Mile Island tragedy?" None. As in, not one person died. They made a movie about this great disaster for America, and not one fucking person was killed by it. How many people were injured? Yeah, nobody. Not one.

Personally, I'm in favor of a failsafe design for nuclear reactors which prevents meltdown when the cooling system fails. There are more modern reactor designs (most of them designed in the 1950s, for fuck's sake) that could be used, and that do not have meltdowns. But the nuclear power industry is completely crippled by regulations and penalties. It is the same thing they are trying to do to the coal industry, and the oil industry right now.

[–] 1 pt

You get it. Nuclear plants are very hard to intentionally fuck up; you have to be quite intelligent to understand how to make it go wrong so the shitskins won't figure it out. The plants will sit shutdown until Whites return.

[–] 4 pts

Any grid not actively expanding with nuclear is a grid designed/engineered to fail.

Which do you want? Darkness and chaos or glow in the darkness?

[–] 7 pts

If these plants are run by niggers and troons, you will definitely have darkness, chaos and glow-in-the-darkness. Nuclear power is only possible in nations that are high trust and high capability White nations. You can't have diversity hires who don't give a shit running nuclear power facilities. That can only end in disaster of epic scale.

So which do you support?

[–] 5 pts

Diversity is one of the primary reasons reprocessing no longer takes place. I remember a reprocessing "accident." Killed people. Caused the entire industry to be labeled dangerous. Was a black guy who decided he knew better than the rules.

[–] 4 pts

niggers and jews are why Whites cannot have nice things.

[–] 5 pts

> Darkness and chaos or glow in the darkness?

At this point I'd prefer for darkness and chaos. At least our people would naturally survive.

[–] 1 pt

Darkness and chaos or glow in the darkness

Gather wood. Light fire. Job done.

Alternatively, build gasifier. Collect anything that combusts. Light fire. Connect gasifier to pretty much any combustion engine you can imagine. Electricity. Job done.

[–] 1 pt

ours is only failing because the greens are shutting down our coal plants wtf are you smoking.

and theyre still actively selling 'herp derp coal r bad' to everyone else that wants to buy it.

its all money.

[–] 0 pt

Actually, wrong. It's because they are expanding with green without a backing energy source. It's compounded by shutting down coal and NG. Regardless, nuclear is base load. Without a reliable base load grid reliability falls.

How you can pretend it's one and not all is beyond odd.

Any grid not actively expanding base load (nuclear) is a grid actively engineered to fail.

[–] 3 pts

Considering BEANER labor will be used to BUILD them Hell no. Those fuckers can't build a cardboard hut and make it come out right.

[–] 2 pts

I never did because I saw this coming when I was a child, except the troons, I saw that coming about a dozen years back though.

I support a thorium first energy policy, "Fossil" fuels belong in second place because of their fallback utility and the financial dependency on scale to make it affordable, third place is Local, Green and Efficient, it's got to be all three, if you have good thermal, utilize it, if you have good wind utilize it, if you have good hydro go for it, if you get a load of sun build and use panels everywhere. If you get none of that use more thorium and coal, if you have an average IQ over 100, can aggressively maintain or raise it, and are hundred of miles from any theoretical conflict region you can consider old nuclear.

[–] 1 pt

Yeah green energy is neither reliable nor efficient by any stretch of the imagination.

[–] 0 pt

When applied universally, its a fuckin' disaster, when applied where all the key factors align it can be highly efficient.

Geothermal is the best example, essentially it's free energy at the cost of infrastructure, but the only places its reasonably efficient are in northern europe and northern japan AFAIK.

Solar makes a hole lot of sense in equatorial and desert nations, but people who think it's efficient in a place like Scotland should be removed from the gene pool.

Hydro electric and wind both work great if you build them in the right places but the damage to local ecology can be mighty fucking bad so that further narrows the places they should be.

The problem with green energy was the upfront cost a decade back so they figured economies of scale should fix that but nobody did the research on materials costs. Now it looks like that strategy will prevent green from ever really being green.

[–] 1 pt

Nuclear power is not a good idea, period.

Spent fuel cells have to be maintained so they don't meltdown.

The half-life of spent fuel rods is 500,000 years.

Humans have been on this planet 200,000 years, by some estimates.

It's a disaster waiting to happen, and it will

[–] 1 pt

Good, we can save a fortune on shielding and there is a steady supply when they run out.

[–] 1 pt

This problem will self resolve.

[–] 1 pt

Why not? "Nuclear power is perfectly clean and safe"(TM)

[–] 0 pt

yes, i completely trust them to die first.

Load more (1 reply)