Dubstepforum.com

Soiree wrote:TRIPPING on SHrOOMS RIgGHY NOEWWWW,

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

Redderious 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.

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.

Phigure wrote:

Redderious 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.

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.

there's a lot more than just those three that harm the atmosphere. and also, the radiation from the sun isn't as localized as a nuclear bomb going off practically inside the ozone layer. sorry if i came off a bit harsh, but i just hate to see people on the internet act all authoritatively while they're clearly no expert

Devry[Kaneda] wrote:if I had a twitter account, all i would do is tweet producers about how much i liked their tracks.

Devry[Kaneda] wrote:if I had a twitter account, all i would do is tweet producers about how much i liked their tracks.

Devry[Kaneda] wrote:TWITTER PROTESTING OF COURSE BECAUSE I WANT TO BE A FORCE FOR REAL SOCIAL CHANGE

Shum wrote:

Devry[Kaneda] wrote:TWITTER PROTESTING OF COURSE BECAUSE I WANT TO BE A FORCE FOR REAL SOCIAL CHANGE

You mean #realsocialchange

scattybeanhead wrote:i genuinely dont get twitter at all. can someone please explain to me why it's good? i keep thinking that i should make an account but before i go to all the effort i just think wtf is actually the point?

Naan Bread wrote:

Soiree wrote:TRIPPING on SHrOOMS RIgGHY NOEWWWW,

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

Then what are you doing posting on DSF?

Fused Productions wrote:Might be moving to another country next year since my father is probably getting promoted. One of the countries he is considering is South Africa. Or Australia.
Don't know if I find a good thing though, even if I like both South Africa and Australia.

epochalypso wrote:

Fused Productions wrote:Might be moving to another country next year since my father is probably getting promoted. One of the countries he is considering is South Africa. Or Australia.
Don't know if I find a good thing though, even if I like both South Africa and Australia.

Australia is a great place. Considering moving there myself. Can't vouch for SA.