what will happen in year3000...........

[RM-girl]

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_172.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_159.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_147.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_111.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_163.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_154.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_166.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_171.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_164.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_161.gif

if u like it i will continue the pic.............

[Venom]

the future looks scary

[MarieL]

Love the 4th one! :D

[Dado_Prso_09]

hahah awsome :ronaldo: :D

[Maxpayne]

Awesome work rm-girl! funny pics.. my favorite is 7-th pic.. I would love to do the same thing in math test when my old teacher finally gonna stop looking at me and wait for me to cheat :( :D

[Lance Knight]

i doubt we would make it pass 2012 or 2025 after that

[nachi88]

i doubt we would make it pass 2012 or 2025 after that
why not?? we will only be very old by then...

[Maxpayne]

By the way if anyone of you belive that our planet will live until 3000 year? right now is on 60 %destroyed.. deforestation and all thos stuffs, grabage... Bye - bye earth... After 50 years we will gonna live in mars cause there is no life left on earth and gonna start doing mess from mars too :ronaldo: with our tehnology

[MarieL]

Maybe we'd have a chance if people realized that nuclear power is the safest energy source in the long run, by a mile. I'm starting to get so annoyed with those environmentalists who are too busy hugging trees to actually study what they're against.

[nachi88]

By the way if anyone of you belive that our planet will live until 3000 year? right now is on 60 %destroyed.. deforestation and all thos stuffs, grabage... Bye - bye earth... After 50 years we will gonna live in mars cause there is no life left on earth and gonna start doing mess from mars too :ronaldo: with our tehnology

60% destroyed... i dont think so.. where did you get this figure from??

I read a book called 'state of fear' by michael chrichton some time ago, in which he claims ( its not fiction) that the effects of depletion of ozone layer and all ecological pollution are vastly exxagerated.

[Maxpayne]

lol i din't understand any word you say after the first sentence.... Anyway 60% cause i'm said so :D Look brother! There is some fat gusy - So fat that he drinking oil now cause stomach do not accept fresh water anymore.. He eat chips "pringols" every second and after that he eat "cheatos" every 2-nd second! did you know how many mictobs he got? and he smells worse than i when i get out of toilet.... So look.. there is many of peoples here that just like him... Ok,ok i said already too much false crap here. And smoking - our atmospheree is ruining each hour little bid from that.. And from those fat guys that i just told about. and did you seen the traffic in new york? oh boy you don't want to be in this traffic.. i'm sure somebody throw nuclear bomb there after years cause tiny new york killing whole civilithation. And this nuclear bomb will make less bad thing to nature than new york doing in 5 days ...

[nachi88]

Maybe we'd have a chance if people realized that nuclear power is the safest energy source in the long run, by a mile. I'm starting to get so annoyed with those environmentalists who are too busy hugging trees to actually study what they're against.

hey.. actually nuclear power is the most efficient, but by no means the safest. chernobyl and long island were dangerous accidents.. the effects of chernobyl spillout are felt even now till lodz, poland

maxpayne, ur ukranian, u will be knowing more about that.

[Maxpayne]

I know everything about that nachi.... that was the same thing as septemeber 11,2001 to u.s.a. Biggest tragedy that happened to ukraine so far. This radition will only gonna be destroyed after like 20 years (chernobil blow up in 1986) so i think 40 years is enough for radiation to wash away... :(

[RM-girl]

glad u like them :) ..............

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_152.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_153.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_132.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_131.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_121.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_125.gif

http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/yourworld/kid3000/pics/pic_197.gif

[ARBANITAI]

Scary awsome WHAT a FUTURE !! :)

[MarieL]

hey.. actually nuclear power is the most efficient, but by no means the safest. chernobyl and long island were dangerous accidents.. the effects of chernobyl spillout are felt even now till lodz, poland

maxpayne, ur ukranian, u will be knowing more about that.
I'm very well aware of those disasters, but the point is they happened a long time ago. The techonology wasn't that developed and the people working in nuclear plants weren't nearly as educated as they should have been. Nowadays you can hit a nuclear generator with a plane and nothing happens, except the plane is crushed of course.
But that's not what I meant by safe, I meant the affects on nature. Safest are of course wind and solar power but they will never cover more than a tiny part of the world's energy demand. While developing those we are polluting this world more year after year with traditional energy sources, so the people against nuclear power which does not pollute (the small amount of radioactive waste that is buried deep and which loses most of it's activity in a few years does not count) cannot seriously say they are thinking about the environment. There will soon be no environment to worry about.
Besides the dangers of nuclear disasters are highly exaggerated as it is. I just read somewhere that if you were standing next to a bucket of nuclear waste fresh from the generator, you'd have 2 minutes to get away unharmed. If the waste was 5 years old, you'd have hours.

[Equis5]

Mariel, I think it's the time for the new renewable technologies: Solar energy, wind, water; they are everywhere, they are clearly safer than the nuclear energy and it doesn't hurt the Nature.

At this time these technologies are expensive, but a monetary sacrifice would improve new cheaper and more effective methods. I think everything is better than continued revisions and dismantelation of the nuclear centrals to avoid accidents, and with those ways you no longer have to worry about the nuclear waste, it's dumb to put it underground; imagine that in 100 years there is a city in that place; and the people start building a house above the waste... And I dislike the other solution, throw all the waste to the sea... very funny, loads of fishes that you could eat some day, living near the scum...

[nachi88]

Mariel, I think it's the time for the new renewable technologies: Solar energy, wind, water; they are everywhere, they are clearly safer than the nuclear energy and it doesn't hurt the Nature.

At this time these technologies are expensive, but a monetary sacrifice would improve new cheaper and more effective methods. I think everything is better than continued revisions and dismantelation of the nuclear centrals to avoid accidents, and with those ways you no longer have to worry about the nuclear waste, it's dumb to put it underground; imagine that in 100 years there is a city in that place; and the people start building a house above the waste... And I dislike the other solution, throw all the waste to the sea... very funny, loads of fishes that you could eat some day, living near the scum...

here is a link comparing various ebergy sources
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm

see guys, if u compare effiency, 1 kg of nuclear fuel (U235 or Plutonium) given equivalent energy release of 300,000 kgs of coal. That speaks a lot. Also, pollution caused by coal and other fossil fuels is alarming. The radiation due to nuclear wastes is a probelm, but generally the wastes are kept stored in containers for some time ( especially those with small half life), and when very less radioactive content is remaining, they are burried.

If we leave apart security concerns ( which is no small thing) then Nuclear energy is the future.

The problem with solar, wind etc as u say equis5, is that they cannot be iimplemented economically on a large scale. Otherwise, we woulod be all driving solar powered cars by now :D

[penalty_20]

yeh we need to stop polluting lol
the future looks pretty awesome

[Mexi]

Mariel, I think it's the time for the new renewable technologies: Solar energy, wind, water; they are everywhere, they are clearly safer than the nuclear energy and it doesn't hurt the Nature.

At this time these technologies are expensive, but a monetary sacrifice would improve new cheaper and more effective methods. I think everything is better than continued revisions and dismantelation of the nuclear centrals to avoid accidents, and with those ways you no longer have to worry about the nuclear waste, it's dumb to put it underground; imagine that in 100 years there is a city in that place; and the people start building a house above the waste... And I dislike the other solution, throw all the waste to the sea... very funny, loads of fishes that you could eat some day, living near the scum...
yep that's true. i heard that aside from putting the fussion rods underground, they're going to start putting them in mountains too. that's what my chem. teacher told us. mountains...can u imagine?

[Lance Knight]

the future is in space,

[penalty_20]

we have nowhere to build but up

[Mexi]

it's harder to breathe higher up

[Majid]

in year 3000 well... maybe the world end in that time so we dont live that time..

[ARBANITAI]

in year 3000 well... maybe the world end in that time so we dont live that time..

yes thats an option too :D

[Lance Knight]

well like i said on page 1 the next schelude acopaylise is in 2012

[Majid]

in 2012 really

[Lance Knight]

yup just be ready for anything around May that year

[ema_scg]

here is a link comparing various ebergy sources
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm

see guys, if u compare effiency, 1 kg of nuclear fuel (U235 or Plutonium) given equivalent energy release of 300,000 kgs of coal. That speaks a lot. Also, pollution caused by coal and other fossil fuels is alarming. The radiation due to nuclear wastes is a probelm, but generally the wastes are kept stored in containers for some time ( especially those with small half life), and when very less radioactive content is remaining, they are burried.

If we leave apart security concerns ( which is no small thing) then Nuclear energy is the future.

The problem with solar, wind etc as u say equis5, is that they cannot be iimplemented economically on a large scale. Otherwise, we woulod be all driving solar powered cars by now :D

I agree, Nuclear power is certianly an option that should be contemplated. Considering 16% of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear energy and it avoids 600 million tonnes of CO2 a year then it certainly should be an option in solving our global warming crisis.

The thing with nuclear power is that theres a strange taboo associated with it in that we do not have the techology to dispose of it, personally i think we do have the technological support but not necessarily the support of the people, which is the main drawback. Also many associate Chernobyl when imagining Nuclear power which is true, but in reality Chernobyl was a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those reactors were proven to be old and needed updating but they werent and therefore a tragedy occurred.

As for the use of solar power i think its a great idea but like nachi said it cannot be implemented economically on a large scale, in addition the nuclear energy lobby is much more powerfull than any for the use of renewable energy, so nuclear power would be implemented much more quickly and efficently.

[Majid]

I agree, Nuclear power is certianly an option that should be contemplated. Considering 16% of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear energy and it avoids 600 million tonnes of CO2 a year then it certainly should be an option in solving our global warming crisis.

The thing with nuclear power is that theres a strange taboo associated with it in that we do not have the techology to dispose of it, personally i think we do have the technological support but not necessarily the support of the people, which is the main drawback. Also many associate Chernobyl when imagining Nuclear power which is true, but in reality Chernobyl was a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those reactors were proven to be old and needed updating but they werent and therefore a tragedy occurred.

As for the use of solar power i think its a great idea but like nachi said it cannot be implemented economically on a large scale, in addition the nuclear energy lobby is much more powerfull than any for the use of renewable energy, so nuclear power would be implemented much more quickly and efficently.


why do you have to agree always with nachi :D :D :lol:

[r0naldo4life]

amazing pic rm girl..

[ema_scg]

why do you have to agree always with nachi :D :D :lol:

:lol: Cause nachi seems to be getting it right ;)

[RaulMadrid7]

60% destroyed... i dont think so.. where did you get this figure from??

I read a book called 'state of fear' by michael chrichton some time ago, in which he claims ( its not fiction) that the effects of depletion of ozone layer and all ecological pollution are vastly exxagerated.

vastly exaggerated?

you are living this horror right now, the summers are becoming hotter every year, hurricanes like Katrina are more powerfull, with facts relating to hotter climates in the tropics creating stronger weather fronts. etc... etc.... etc.... these are only the beginning.

The USA is the largest producer of green house gases, and they are one of the only most powerfull nations not to sign tyhe kyoto accord, guess why, money. And their excuse is just like yours, "exaggerated", and then comes hurricane Katrina which is the biggest natural disaster in the USA, and it itself relates to the earth becomnig hotter.

now tell me Nachi, because that guy in "fictional" book said that it is exaggerated, tell me why he would say that?

[RaulMadrid7]

even if we do somehow last till the year 3000, there won't be much left of this earth and people.

these are the early stages of destruction, and for some this idea is too big for them to handle so they ignore it like most of them, but the sad thing is, until reality hits hard, it already has it, then some effective measures will be taken by the ignorant.

[ARBANITAI]

no doubt the world will be changed all, the water will take America over :D also a bit of easter Asia :D the world will be smaller... lol :bounce:

[Mexi]

who knows maybe by that year we'd (humans) live in another planet using it's resources. oh hey i want to go to the moon. i think it's almost possible.

[devious]

lool.. just saw this thread.. they are awsome!