Dubstepforum.com

imo, to completely understand would be to be enlightened (in the Buddhist sense).
Enlightenment is the only perfection.
Reunification with the cosmos is the only perfection.
Heaven is the only perfection....


Words fall short.

Redderious wrote:

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

Actually no, that's bullshit.. and thanks but I'm well aware of the science behind achieving critical mass. They are very harmful to the atmosphere, that's why even back in the 60's they passed laws preventing atmospheric testing. If you don't think that releasing massive amounts of energy in our atmosphere is dangerous, then I'm sorry but you are just retarded.

Redderious wrote:

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

while i don't really believe that nukes caused/contributed to global warming significantly (not that i'm supporting them), you still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. while your descriptions of fission and fusion aren't incorrect, you're still only scratching the surface of what happens at an extremely basic level, and ignoring a lot of the bigger issues

first of all, all that radiation has a tremendous impact on EVERYTHING, cause with energies that high, they easily rip apart the bonds in most molecules (eg, ozone in the ozone layer).

and besides the immediate radiation, nuclear fission creates a TON of radioactive isotopes, many with ridiculously long half lives, that continue to decay and radiate long after the initial explosion.

Phigure wrote:

Redderious wrote:

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

while i don't really believe that nukes caused/contributed to global warming significantly (not that i'm supporting them), you still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. while your descriptions of fission and fusion aren't incorrect, you're still only scratching the surface of what happens at an extremely basic level, and ignoring a lot of the bigger issues

first of all, all that radiation has a tremendous impact on EVERYTHING, cause with energies that high, they easily rip apart the bonds in most molecules (eg, ozone in the ozone layer).

and besides the immediate radiation, nuclear fission creates a TON of radioactive isotopes, many with ridiculously long half lives, that continue to decay and radiate long after the initial explosion.

Right, thanks for an intelligent response.. I don't think they are the cause either, but I have always been curious as to what their impact on the ozone was. I mean in the late 80's and early 90's they convince everyone that aerosol was the cause of holes in the ozone layer. I've always felt the nuclear explosions we've set off had more to do with that then what they claimed, but I'm not an environmental scientist either...

dj2slo wrote:

Phigure wrote:

Redderious wrote:

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

while i don't really believe that nukes caused/contributed to global warming significantly (not that i'm supporting them), you still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. while your descriptions of fission and fusion aren't incorrect, you're still only scratching the surface of what happens at an extremely basic level, and ignoring a lot of the bigger issues

first of all, all that radiation has a tremendous impact on EVERYTHING, cause with energies that high, they easily rip apart the bonds in most molecules (eg, ozone in the ozone layer).

and besides the immediate radiation, nuclear fission creates a TON of radioactive isotopes, many with ridiculously long half lives, that continue to decay and radiate long after the initial explosion.

Right, thanks for an intelligent response.. I don't think they are the cause either, but I have always been curious as to what their impact on the ozone was. I mean in the late 80's and early 90's they convince everyone that aerosol was the cause of holes in the ozone layer. I've always felt the nuclear explosions we've set off had more to do with that then what they claimed, but I'm not an environmental scientist either...

i don't doubt that they damaged the ozone layer, but i think (obviously not im an environmental scientist either ) that it was a relatively localized effect, and not really comparable to the "actual" cause. you never know though

but even if they're not responsible for global warming, the effect that they've had on the world is ridiculously downplayed

Phigure wrote:

dj2slo wrote:

Phigure wrote:

Redderious wrote:

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

while i don't really believe that nukes caused/contributed to global warming significantly (not that i'm supporting them), you still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. while your descriptions of fission and fusion aren't incorrect, you're still only scratching the surface of what happens at an extremely basic level, and ignoring a lot of the bigger issues

first of all, all that radiation has a tremendous impact on EVERYTHING, cause with energies that high, they easily rip apart the bonds in most molecules (eg, ozone in the ozone layer).

and besides the immediate radiation, nuclear fission creates a TON of radioactive isotopes, many with ridiculously long half lives, that continue to decay and radiate long after the initial explosion.

Right, thanks for an intelligent response.. I don't think they are the cause either, but I have always been curious as to what their impact on the ozone was. I mean in the late 80's and early 90's they convince everyone that aerosol was the cause of holes in the ozone layer. I've always felt the nuclear explosions we've set off had more to do with that then what they claimed, but I'm not an environmental scientist either...

i don't doubt that they damaged the ozone layer, but i think (obviously not im an environmental scientist either ) that it was a relatively localized effect, and not really comparable to the "actual" cause. you never know though

but even if they're not responsible for global warming, the effect that they've had on the world is ridiculously downplayed

Agreed

There seems to be more and more hot, single girls with kids out there.


Do people class these girls as total no-go's?

LA_Boxers wrote:There seems to be more and more hot, single girls with kids out there.


Do people class these girls as total no-go's?

kinda no go, but i know what you mean.

I should be a lot more tired than I am after the amount of sleep I've had this week. <4 hours a night crew, represent!

I think I'm turning into a Margaret Thatcher style insomniac. Need to find something useful to do with all the time otherwise I'll just end up travelling the world closing mines.

magma wrote:I should be a lot more tired than I am after the amount of sleep I've had this week. <4 hours a night crew, represent!

I think I'm turning into a Margaret Thatcher style insomniac. Need to find something useful to do with all the time otherwise I'll just end up travelling the world closing mines.

I think im getting used to it now, cant remember the last time i had more than 5 hours sleep on a work night

southstar wrote:

magma wrote:I should be a lot more tired than I am after the amount of sleep I've had this week. <4 hours a night crew, represent!

I think I'm turning into a Margaret Thatcher style insomniac. Need to find something useful to do with all the time otherwise I'll just end up travelling the world closing mines.

I think im getting used to it now, cant remember the last time i had more than 5 hours sleep on a work night

I've been like this all week, but i am staying in tonight to play video games watch a film, then sleep and have a beautiful lay in tomorrow

brettheaslewood wrote:

southstar wrote:

magma wrote:I should be a lot more tired than I am after the amount of sleep I've had this week. <4 hours a night crew, represent!

I think I'm turning into a Margaret Thatcher style insomniac. Need to find something useful to do with all the time otherwise I'll just end up travelling the world closing mines.

I think im getting used to it now, cant remember the last time i had more than 5 hours sleep on a work night

I've been like this all week, but i am staying in tonight to play video games watch a film, then sleep and have a beautiful lay in tomorrow

I really want to do this, but it's a mate's birthday so I've got to go drinking in Melton Mowbray (livin' the dream...) and then get the first train back in the morning to take my parents to the Da Vinci exhibition at the National. By Saturday evening I plan on wanting a spliff and a zone-out very, very badly.

TRIPPING on SHrOOMS RIgGHY NOEWWWW,

when the doorz of perception are clenzed people will see things as they truly are.

Soiree wrote:TRIPPING on SHrOOMS RIgGHY NOEWWWW,

when the doorz of perception are clenzed people will see things as they truly are.

type?

why do i ALWAYS wake up at 10am after a night out..regardless of what time i went to bed?

can't spell... cybaneciencs? I just saw Midnite too!!!

Sheff wrote:why do i ALWAYS wake up at 10am after a night out..regardless of what time i went to bed?

Getting old?

Do foreign people in the US celebrate thanksgiving... This has baffled me for some time

Phigure wrote:

Redderious wrote:

dj2slo wrote:How come when the topic of climate change comes up no one mentions the hundreds of nuclear warheads we've blown up in the atmosphere?

That's because nuclear explosions aren't exactly harmful to the atmosphere. The most abundent byproduct of nuclear warheads is radiation. The sole purpose of the ozone layer is to catch radiation coming from the sun (UV rays). A nuclear bomb's massive explosion is caused by either nuclear fission or fusion. Fission works by taking an element with a heavy nucleas, adding radiation and splitting it into two smaller particles releasing excess energy. Fussion has a similair reaction, the process of releasing the excess energy is the opposite though. Fussion works by colliding two particles together (hydrogen for example) and causing them to fuse (two hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium), thus releasing all excess energy. If you take the atomic mass of one helium atom and subtract it by the mass of two hydrogen atoms youll get a negative number, that being the excess energy released.

Long story short, both fusion and fission release radiation after completed. Versus TNT which releases combustion bases byproducts.

while i don't really believe that nukes caused/contributed to global warming significantly (not that i'm supporting them), you still have no fucking clue what you're talking about. while your descriptions of fission and fusion aren't incorrect, you're still only scratching the surface of what happens at an extremely basic level, and ignoring a lot of the bigger issues


first of all, all that radiation has a tremendous impact on EVERYTHING, cause with energies that high, they easily rip apart the bonds in most molecules (eg, ozone in the ozone layer).

and besides the immediate radiation, nuclear fission creates a TON of radioactive isotopes, many with ridiculously long half lives, that continue to decay and radiate long after the initial explosion.

I can see that this my theory offended you so much you had to troll that last post. The point i was making seems kind of similair to what you just stated. Radiation is the byproduct of nuclear explosions. The chemicals that cause harm to the ozone are chlorine, bromine, and chloroflourocarbon. None of which comes from nuclear weapons. And while what you stated on how radiation rips molecular bonds is correct, the amount of radiation the ozone layer absorbs/reflects from the sun is tremendous, and this happens on a day to day basis.

I'm just basing my theory off the little information i know about physics and enviromental science. If i'm wrong you shouldn't act like it personaly upsets you. Really not neccesary.

edit:this goes to both of you, it pisses me off that you have to be so fucking arrogant about your supposed knowledge that you have to come out with posts like this. If you're going to make such bold statements of superiority why don't you come out with some evidence proving me wrong. Vs trolling the SHIT out of what should be a decent conversation.

cityzen wrote:imo, to completely understand would be to be enlightened (in the Buddhist sense).
Enlightenment is the only perfection.
Reunification with the cosmos is the only perfection.
Heaven is the only perfection....


Words fall short.