Homer2911 wrote:
Bob Mannix wrote:
"Homer2911" wrote in message
ups.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Homer2911 wrote:

For each of those who have died, the effect of exposure was 100%
mortality

where does your evidence come from for these assertions?

What evidence do you need to prove the assertion that for someone who
has actually been killed by radiation, the mortality rate is 100%?


Well, a mortality rate includes people who weren't killed (thus giving a
rate) so a mortality rate just for those who died is pointless. The
mortality rate for those who die of bee stings is 100% but we don't ban
bees.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

I have not suggested we ban anything - I am in favour of exporing the
nuclear power option. Pointing out that the mortality rate for those
who die is 100%, may be pointless, but it may prevent them being
written off as a mere statistic

Interesting you didn't realise you'd been spoofed. Taking your eye off
the ball is all it takes to lose the thread.

The subtle art of politics is made of such conjouring.

This is he original:
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 could actually tell you the answer to that question but your
mortality might be effected to unity.