Weatherlawyer wrote:
Something I was studiously avoiding was the windmill thread however I
had to say something in response to this:

Only when you have a really STUNNING case on paper - as nuclear power was in the 50's -

In Britain the cost of nuclear research cost the general public a
secret amount of money, so secret that even cabinet members were
unaware of the expense.

(It was such a vast amount that the economy, already devastated by WW
2, took much longer to recover than the rest of western Europe where
the Nazis had stripped it of all they could loot and eradicated vast
sections of the population either in death camps and forced labour, or
to other casualties of war.)

The cost effect was to cripple not only Britain in the 50's but have
damaging long term effects as the shoddy, unstable reactors were kept
in production and their faults kept secret up to today.

If it was that secret, where does your evidence come from for these
assertions?


I am not validating anything Tory BLiar has said about nuclear fuel.
The man is a maniac lickspittle and should be shot out of hand not
respected as a leader of men.

Who respects Tony Blair as a leader of men?


Work on the Chernobyl site seems to back this idea up. Less people were
known to have died directly from the disaster than are killed each week
on the roads in the UK.

Tell that to the Chernobyl children who are still dying, or those still
suffering whose reproductive systems are ruined. For each of those who
have died, the effect of exposure was 100% mortality



BTW I am not against the nuclear power option!