terrible

Three reasons why we should stop using nuclear energy. One: nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear technology made a violent entrance onto the world stage. Just one year after the world"s first-ever nuclear test explosion in 1944, two large cities were destroyed by just two single bombs. After that, reactor technology slowly evolved as a means of generating electricity. But it"s always been intimately connected with nuclear weapons technology. It"s nearly impossible to develop nuclear weapons without access to reactor technology. In fact, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty serves the purpose of spreading nuclear reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons with limited success. In forty years, five countries have developed their own weapons with the help of reactor technology. The fact of the matter is that it can be very hard to distinguish a covert nuclear weapons program from the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In the nineteen seventies, the big nuclear powers were happily selling peaceful technology to smaller countries which then developed weapons of their own. The road to deadly nuclear weapons is always paved with peaceful reactors. Two: nuclear waste and pollution spent. Nuclear fuel is not only radioactive but also contains extremely poisonous chemical elements like plutonium. It loses its harmfulness only slowly over several tens of thousands of years and there is also a process called reprocessing which means the extraction of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. It can be used for two purposes: to build nuclear weapons or to use it as new fuel, but hardly any of it is used as fuel because we don"t have the right kind of reactors for that. A milligram will kill you a few kilograms make an atomic bomb and even an inconspicuous country like Germany literally has tons of the stuff just lying around because reprocessing sounded like a good idea decades ago. And where will all the waste go? After dumping it into the ocean was forbidden, we"ve tried to bury it, but we can"t find a place where it will definitely stay secure for tens of thousands of years. Over 30 countries operate nearly 400 reactors managing several hundred thousands of tons of nuclear waste and only one is currently serious about opening a permanent civilian waste storage: tiny Finland. Three: accidents and disasters. Over sixty years of nuclear power usage, there have been seven major accidents in reactors or facilities dealing with nuclear waste. Three of those were mostly contained but four of them released significant amounts of radioactivity into the environment. In 1957, 1987 and 2011. Large areas of land in Russia Ukraine and Japan were rendered unfit for human habitation for decades to come. The number of deaths is highly disputed but probably lies in the thousands. These disasters happened with nuclear reactors of very different types in very different countries and several decades apart. Looking at the numbers, we may as well ask ourselves: are 10 percent of the world"s energy supply worth a devastating disaster every 30 years? Would thirty percent be worth another Fukushima or Chernobyl somewhere on earth every 10 years? What area would have to be contaminated so we say no more? Where is the line? So, should we use nuclear energy? The risks may outweigh the benefits and maybe we should stop looking into this direction and drop this technology for good.

Nine Inch Nails Terrible Lie Hey God, why are you doing this to me?Am I not living up to what I"m supposed to be?Why am I seething with this animosity? Hey God, I think you owe me a great big apology Terrible lieTerrible lieTerrible lieTerrible lieHey God, I really don"t know what you meanseems like salvation comes only in our dreamsI feel my hatred grow all the more extremehey God, can this world really be as sad as it seems?Terrible lieTerrible lieTerrible lieTerrible lieDon"t take it away from me, I need you to hold on toDon"t take it away from me, I need you to hold on toDon"t take it away from me, I need you to hold on toDon"t take it away from me, I need someone to hold on toDon"t tear it away from me, I need you to hold on toDon"t tear it away from me, I need someone to hold on toDon"t tear it away from me, I need you to hold on toDon"t tear it... don"t tear it... don"t take it, don"t take it, don"t...Hey God, there"s nothing left for me to hide.I lost my ignorance, security and pride.I"m all alone in a world you must despise.Hey God, I believed the promises, your promises and liesTerrible lieTerrible lieTerrible lieTerrible lieYou made me throw it all awayMy morals left to decay (terrible lie)How many you betrayYou"ve taken everything (terrible lie)My head is filled with diseaseMy skin is begging you, please (terrible lie)I"m on my hands and kneesI want so much to believeDon"t take it away from meI need someone to hold on toDon"t take it away from meI need someone to hold on toi give you everything.my sweet everythinghey God, i really don"t know who i am.in this world of pisshttp://www.vvpo.com/baidu/10494.Htm试听http://www.nyazian.net/extra/fissures/2-TerribleLieSympathetic.mp3下载``` ^_^

这是多重复合句，第一重〔主句〕It relieves loneliness （它缓减了寂寞）〔同位语从句〕that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss.第二重 〔主句〕 terrible loneliness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss （可怕的寂寞越过天边望到阴冷而无生气的无底洞中）〔定语从句〕in which one shivering consciousness （寂寞中发抖的意识如何如何 ） 【只有主语，缺少谓语部分，可能是落掉了】 参考译文：它缓减了寂寞，也就是说发抖的意识在其中（什么什么）的令人生畏的寂寞越过天边延伸到阴冷而无生气的无底洞中。

意思不同。poor英 [pʊə(r)] 　 　 美 [pʊr] 　 　adj. 可怜的；贫穷的；低劣的；n. 穷人。poor的基本意思是“贫困的，贫穷的”，用于描写长期或临时处于贫困状态的人，也可指那些被认为没有足够钱的人所具有的卑劣、无知和不道德； 用于物时，还可作“低劣的，次等的”“贫乏的”“贫瘠的”解，主要指在数量上、质量上不足或低于期望值。terrible英 ["terəbl] 　 　 美 ["terəbl] 　 　adj. 可怕的；极度的；糟糕的。terrible的基本意思是“可怕的，恐怖的”，指具有较大力量的某事物能造成极度的、令人不安的恐惧，若不加以减缓，则会达到令人痛苦得无法忍受的程度，含有感情上厌恶的意味，一般不用于人，也可指“令人震惊的，极其令人讨厌的”“剧烈的，严酷的，严重的”。terrible，horrible，terrific，appalling辨析1、terrible侧重指给人以长久的惊骇，极端的恐怖，令人难以忍受。2、horrible指因骇人听闻的丑恶而令人毛骨悚然，着重厌恶的成分多于害怕。3、terrific多指外表、形状或力量等的可怕。4、appalling指既令害怕又使人惊异、胆寒。