Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Chemist

REGISTERED
  • Posts

    204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chemist

  1. Your article implied the first explosion occurred because there was no water. It implies the reactor was running normally until it ran out of water. That’s wrong. The reactor was not running normally. Technicians manually removed control rods far below the bare minimum required for safe operation. The control rods jammed when they tried to put them back. Only their graphite tips were in the reactor. The explosion was a steam explosion that occurred from a sudden release of immense energy, which caused the water to explode. Things didn’t catch on fire and melt until the first steam explosion caused damage to allow it do so.

    • Upvote 1
  2. 3 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

    Traditional nuclear reactors use water to cool the reactor core , but will melt down without continuous flows of water through the core - thats what happened at Chernobyl, 

     

    That’s not what happened. Technicians were running a test which resulted in an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction which caused a steam explosion which blew the reactor apart and it caught on fire.

  3. 11 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

    I'm not a climate change denier (I'm a climate change agnostic) but trying to keep pollution in check is a good thing I support. What I cannot support is the panic driven hysteria from the left that we have to take drastic measures that will wreck our economy to "save the planet" that is is quickly going to be lost unless such drastic measures are taken immediately. The idea that humans are causing climate change is NOT settled science but common sense tells me that humans should work to make the environment as clean as possible regardless. There should be a happy medium here where we can all agree on and take common sense approaches to having  a cleaner environment.

    This

  4. 20 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

    i feel like these are questions our civilization answered like thousands of years ago. This question is beneath me...sorry. 

    So killing a human being is wrong? Even if they are not self sufficient? Ok. I agree.

     

     

     

    But that’s exactly what abortion does. 

  5. 4 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

    OBF, nobody is saying that a baby isn't technically a human being. OFC it is. But in the womb it's a part of the mothers body. YOU are denying science dude. And you're trying to obfuscate that fact by bringing in a west side special. 

    Without modern infant formula, a baby born alive still needs to feed from its mother to survive. Is it ok to kill the infant then?

×
×
  • Create New...