Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 798 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Yonni (136 D(S))
04 Oct 11 UTC
Election time
So, it's election time in Ontario on Thursday (but more importantly the start of Hockey) and I'm embarrassingly uninformed so I'm spending today doing a bit of research. Any two cents from my fellow Ontarians?
0 replies
Open
Hobbs (100 D)
04 Oct 11 UTC
Potential Cheat
I'm invovled in a game with no in-game messaging and it look like two countries have just done a manoevre which could only be done with collusion - what can I do about this?
7 replies
Open
hellalt (24 D)
04 Oct 11 UTC
I muted your mothers
I had to. They kept yelling while I was taking their most precious thing...
10 replies
Open
aaronn7 (0 DX)
04 Oct 11 UTC
need 3 more
2 replies
Open
basvanopheusden (2176 D)
04 Oct 11 UTC
We need two extra players, Fast!
2 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
30 Sep 11 UTC
NFL Week 4 Pick 'Em
Week 4, coming up...pick the games, NFL fans, and let's see who gets the most right!

We'll track it week to week, winner at the end of the year gets...a pat on the back as the unofficial NLF pick-meister of one thread of one forum on the Internet! ;) Now...ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?
56 replies
Open
swordsman3003 (14048 D(G))
04 Oct 11 UTC
taking over CD's only to be attacked
I feel ripped off and probably am going to swear off taking over CD countries.
18 replies
Open
santosh (335 D)
29 Sep 11 UTC
Call for Participation
Winter Gunboat Tourney 2011 v2.0

45 replies
Open
kreilly89 (100 D)
04 Oct 11 UTC
WebDip League
Is there a plan for when the next League is going to start up?
1 reply
Open
SenorCardgage (100 D)
04 Oct 11 UTC
First game!
hi, i have experience playing the board game but this is my first web game
Game name is SenorCardgae Mortage
lol spelled it wrong accedently
all welcome
0 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
13 Sep 11 UTC
Congratulations to dD_ShockTrooper
For winning jman777's inane Last Person to Post Wins thread. I just realized that abomination is locked.
93 replies
Open
Octavious (2701 D)
03 Oct 11 UTC
It’s the economy, stupid!
But... is that really the way it should be?
21 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
01 Oct 11 UTC
2011 WebDip NFL Survival Pool
Pick one team to win straight up each week. You can't pick the same team more than once. Lose and you're out. PM me your pick by 12:30pm Sunday Toronto time, I'll cut off the picks at that time, and post a list. Good luck.
5 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
03 Oct 11 UTC
Diplomacy World 115
http://www.diplomacyworld.net/pdf/dw115.pdf
0 replies
Open
tricky (148 D)
03 Oct 11 UTC
Facebook diplomacy
Has anybody else noticed the forum discussion page on the facebook diplomacy is no longer in use.
3 replies
Open
Putin33 (111 D)
16 Sep 11 UTC
Carter: Most underrated President in history?
Discuss
184 replies
Open
gramilaj (100 D)
29 Sep 11 UTC
World Dip Con
Hey all, the Windy City Weasels have a twitter account with some updates from the World Diplomacy Convention: http://twitter.com/#!/WindyCityWeasel
4 replies
Open
steephie22 (182 D(S))
17 Sep 11 UTC
Risk better??
Risk is Diplomacy but then a random start and includes luck, isn't that better??
118 replies
Open
DonXavier (1341 D)
03 Oct 11 UTC
question about adjacent territories
Can an army in north africa move to spain...?
5 replies
Open
King Atom (100 D)
25 Sep 11 UTC
This Mute Thing...
Well, I accidentally muted a thread when I was trying to like it and now I can't seem to find a way to unmute it. HELP!
7 replies
Open
thatonekid (0 DX)
02 Oct 11 UTC
Lets play a sunday game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=69225
WTA anon
150 Pot
0 replies
Open
Tettleton's Chew (0 DX)
02 Oct 11 UTC
The Problem: Debt
Debt is the problem for the economy and we can't keep adding to it and ignoring it.

2 replies
Open
Cockney (0 DX)
30 Sep 11 UTC
classic western triple
when honour and trust was kept throughout

gameID=69042
20 replies
Open
skipper (0 DX)
02 Oct 11 UTC
Sitter needed urgently
PM me if interested, until friday, thanks
0 replies
Open
killer135 (100 D)
02 Oct 11 UTC
how
how can I unmute a thread?
3 replies
Open
dD_ShockTrooper (1199 D)
30 Sep 11 UTC
A suggestion for Kestas:
I think that we should have a record of how many people (But not their identity of course) have muted that person on their profile. It would have a similar reasoning to that of the +1 button, in order for users to see what sort of behaviour is and isn't accepted by the community to promote self-moderation.
19 replies
Open
SantaClausowitz (360 D)
27 Sep 11 UTC
Just walked past a dead guy in the sidewalk
Talk about morality
86 replies
Open
steephie22 (182 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
nuclear stations or not?
well, seems clear to me...
and did i wrote it right??
Page 1 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Draugnar (0 DX)
26 Sep 11 UTC
Clear as mud. I assume by stations you mean plants (as in power plants) but you never said which way you support.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
26 Sep 11 UTC
Do you mean Nuclear Power Stations?

The answer is: yes.
steephie22 (182 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
my opinion is pretty divided and i'm not very up-to-date as well i think...
i'll start with benefits:
endless "fuel"
much energy from few stations
cleaner air (?)

and disadvantages (right word?):
much deaths if it goes wrong
no good solution for the dumb (right word?)
not sure or this is much spoken about too but if they become normal the protection might get lower, things might get illegal and they would be great targets in war and for example for al-qaeda...

any thoughts/opinions??
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
26 Sep 11 UTC
No you did not wrote it right. I am going to assume that nuclear stations are nuclear missile stations in which case, yes, those are one of the main reasons we are still alive.
steephie22 (182 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
sorry, english is my second language and i'm 13 (almost 14) so i didn't know how you call it exactly...
but as long as it's clear...
oh, and please correct me when i say something wrong, still learning...
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
26 Sep 11 UTC
Some clarification:

-The fuel is *not* endless. There's just a lot of it.

-All Nuclear accidents have been user error and were avoidable. Not a single disaster happened because of poor design or lack of understanding of nuclear energy.

-dump, not dumb. Yes, this is a problem, but not an unsolvable one.

steephie22 (182 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
jmo: really, i don't get that one, using them is like being binded to someone with a rope and the throw him in the depth...
you go with him...
also willing to discuss nuclear weapons in this thread :)
Yonni (136 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
"All Nuclear accidents have been user error and were avoidable. Not a single disaster happened because of poor design or lack of understanding of nuclear energy"

Abg, I'm an avid supported of nuclear power but I really don't think statement is accurate.

Just looking at the major ones:
TMI - Certainly had some user errors but it did stem from a poor design and could have been avoided with better planning

Chernobyl - Yes, the commies were idiots.

Fukushima - Certainly a large majority of the issue was design flaws. The diesel generators were prone to common mode disasters and the cooling pools lacked containment.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
26 Sep 11 UTC
@Yonni

I stand by my statement. In the three examples you listed, user error was the critical difference between a minor problem and the disaster that occurred.

From wikipedia:

"Once the secondary feedwater pumps stopped, three auxiliary pumps activated automatically. However, because the valves had been closed for routine maintenance, the system was unable to pump any water. The closure of these valves was a violation of a key NRC rule, according to which the reactor must be shut down if all auxiliary feed pumps are closed for maintenance. This failure was later singled out by NRC officials as a key one, without which the course of events would have been very different"

Fukushima is a particularly embarrassing example. That plant had *decades* of scandal and misuse. Yes, in this case I will agree that there were some design issues, but they were *known* issues that the company did to cut corners, which I think is different than accidentally designing a faulty system.
Yonni (136 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
If you extend "user error" to poor design then, yeah, Fukushima was a product of user error. However, you did say that no nuclear accident has been a product of poor design and that's simply not true. Heck, even the idiots at Chernobyl would have been able to handle the disaster if they had designed some sort of containment.

I'll concede the point that it is possible to build a reactor that is almost impervious to catastrophic releases of radioactivity if they're operated appropriately.

But I won't agree that NPPs have always been built that way.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
26 Sep 11 UTC
By "poor design" I meant accidental poor design. I didn't mean blatant corner-cutting, which the designers knew would result in unsafe plants.
Draugnar (0 DX)
26 Sep 11 UTC
I would say NPPs built today *would* be built that way. At least here in the US with government funding and backing and watchdog groups all over their ass keeping an eye on things. Nuclear power can be safe. The past is gone and the technology and construction of modern plants today are much safer and pose less environmental risk than the pollutants put out by coal and oil-fired plants.
Yonni (136 D(S))
26 Sep 11 UTC
@Draug,
I would like to think so. However, I think it is prudent to recognize the limitations of practical design considerations. If the design basis for a reactor is a 1 in 10,000 year earthquake, then that earthquake might still happen. Just look at what happened in Virginia last month.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the notion that we should keep building NPPs and that they are part of the solution to fossil fuel dependencies. However, it's never 100% fool proof and we (the nuclear community, as well as the public) need to continue to be critical of the methods to insure that nothing catastrophic happens.
Draugnar (0 DX)
26 Sep 11 UTC
Agreed, Yonni. We must weight the risks, but NPPs are safer based on the measurable data and probability than the health hazards proposed by the continuing use of fossil fules to provide our electricity.

As far as the engineering goes, I worked on a superfund project back in the early 90s wher I analyzed the worst case wind event for the life of the nuclear materials being stored at Fernald so the engineers could design the storage silos to withstand that scenario. Could an even worse wind event occur like a direct tornado strike? Sure, but the probability is so low that the risk of trying to transport the material made it safer to stor it there until it was safe to handle.
Draugnar (0 DX)
26 Sep 11 UTC
Sorry, sent a little soon...

The point of that example is that the engineers who did the cleanup of the superfund sites are no more conscientious than the ones who design the plants. And the builders of the containment units are no more competent than the ones who build the reactors.
Alderian (2425 D(S))
27 Sep 11 UTC
steephie22 - "jmo: really, i don't get that one, using them is like being binded to someone with a rope and the throw him in the depth...
you go with him..."

Actually it is more like being binded to someone with a rope and saying "If you throw me over the edge then you are going over the edge too." Of course there is the risk that someone will say "Fuck it" and off the edge you go.
largeham (149 D)
27 Sep 11 UTC
Yes, I completely support nuclear power stations. Also re Fukushima, it took a massive earthquake and a tsunami to cause the meltdown. Also, the plant had been built in the 70s (IIRC), since then safety standards and engineering have come a long way forward (I hope).
Invictus (240 D)
27 Sep 11 UTC
I liked that post, largeham. If anything, Fukushima has show how safe nuclear power is, since even with a ridiculous amount of things going wrong in an out-of-date plant there has been limited damage. It's still incredibly serious and shows how much precaution is needed to make this wolf by the ear safe, but I'll bet anything that the world has more problems from the hundreds of nuclear weapons tests that have been carried out than ever could happen from accidents at nuclear plants.

HAvign said all that, once fusion is perfected we need to get rid of all these thing ASAP.
King Atom (100 D)
27 Sep 11 UTC
Excuse me, but Nuclear power...whether electrical power or strength...provides many benefits and anyone who says the risks are too high is obviously a cold-hearted liberal who is to be hated and shunned.
Yonni (136 D(S))
27 Sep 11 UTC
"once fusion is perfected we need to get rid of all these thing ASAP"

Said the nuclear engineer 50 years ago, and 25 years ago... and now
steephie22 (182 D(S))
27 Sep 11 UTC
ok, first the weapons: ever thought of Al Qaeda with their suicide-people??
once they get it done to build them they keep firing on America and all other countries they hate and away goes the world...
and probably it would even work when they want to kill more then lose people since America can't fire nukes anywhere without killing friends wich they can't...
if no one would've started building them it would be much harder for terrorists to get them... besides, i said use them, not have them... :)

ok, now the power-stations...
everybody says it's very safe IF they are built right and all those things but you shouldn't expect that, things will get illegal and also, like i mentioned before, they would be great targets for terrorists...
easier then building nukes and firing them...
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
27 Sep 11 UTC
@steephie

Turning Pu-239 into a nuclear bomb is not a trivial process. Making a dirty bomb out of Pu-239, or even U-235 is certainly possible, but the reality is that there is already tons of this stuff all over the ex-Soviet bloc, if the terrorists wanted it. Further more, it's possible to use Th-232, which is OK for NPP, but not good for bombs.

Yes, they would be great target for terrorists, but, honestly, so would any power plant. Have any NPP in the world been the victim of a successful terrorist attack?

And, honestly, we shouldn't build NPP because we're worried about terrorists? That's letting them win, man!
Draugnar (0 DX)
27 Sep 11 UTC
The real terrorism concerns with NPPs is the depleted fuel rods being used in dirty bombs. After all, they don't need to go critical to be vaporized into a deadly radioactive gas that wipes out an entire downtown populace.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
27 Sep 11 UTC
Yes, I understand, but there are NPP all over the world, not to mention the countless stores from the Cold War.

How many dirty bombs have there been?
Draugnar (0 DX)
27 Sep 11 UTC
Agreed, abgemacht. I was just making the point that the plants themselves wouldn't really be the targets anyhow.
Yonni (136 D(S))
27 Sep 11 UTC
"wipes out an entire downtown populace"
I'd be hesitant to believe that

"Th-232, which is OK for NPP, but not good for bombs"
The fissile material in a thorium plant is U-233 which is OK for bombs. Granted, it's more difficult to use because of higher gammas, but it's still doable. Furthermore, to drive a thorium plant you're probably going to use some Pu or enriched uranium so it's not the anti-proliferation haven that it's hailed to be.

NPPs are very difficult to attack as a terrorist. Withstanding is an airplane crash is now part of the design criteria (yeah, I know that's not the only form of terrorist attack but it's pretty solid benchmark).

Talking to my prof, he maintains that medical isotopes are the easiest source for dirty bombs. So much of it flows internationally and with insufficient tracking.
Draugnar (0 DX)
27 Sep 11 UTC
@Yonni - I was more making a point that it isn't going to wipe out a whole city, just a few blocks. To me downtown is a 4x5 block (20 square blocks) which is more or less the size of downtown Cincinnati. Downtown Chicago or NewYork? Obviously not. LA maybe as it is a small downtown seeing as it is all urban sprawl between downtown and Hollywood and Bevferly Hills.

And it depends on how much depleted uranium and how much explosives they use to scatter it.

As far as urnakium in a thorium reactor... Urnaium is only the startup material. The thorium is the fuel used in the sustained reaction. The amount of Urnaium required is very very small.
Yonni (136 D(S))
27 Sep 11 UTC
Thorium is not fissile. It must absorb a neutron to be Th-233, which decays to Pa-233, which decays to U-233.Eq'm amounts of U-233 depends on various things but will be between 1% and 2%. As well as U-233, you'll have whatever fissile source you had present to start up the reactor.

Also, if we're looking at closed thorium fuel cycles, you'll need a fair amount of alternative fissile fuel as well to reduce the amount of reprocessing.
steephie22 (182 D(S))
28 Sep 11 UTC
so, long story short:
my state of power stations being easy targets for terrorists is just wrong...
i have to say i didn't got the rest...
Draugnar (0 DX)
28 Sep 11 UTC
Interesting Yonni. This backs you up, to a degree. But it points out that the spent material is far less dangerous and has a much shorter half life.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/

Page 1 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

65 replies
Wolf89 (215 D)
01 Oct 11 UTC
changelog?
Sorry if i bother you, i have been off from webdiplomacy for months and i'd like to read the changes that have been made in this time. Can anybody help me?
2 replies
Open
Philalethes (100 D(B))
28 Sep 11 UTC
Playdiplomacy.com
Anybody knows what's going on? Been down for a couple of days.
82 replies
Open
Page 798 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top