On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:58:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote:
....

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.

Agreed.

Seconded (although shooting is too good for him).

A recent programme on the TV showed that small doses of background
radiation seems to alleviate cancers in that the genes to fight them
seem to be initiated in people who live in regions with fairly high
natural radiation.

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.

A curious and interesting program, both in its timing, its content and
its general conclusion.

Yes. I was thinking the whole way through that it must be sponsored
by nulabour. I was worried that they referred to "Radiation" as if
"it" was all the same. There are at least three different types (If I
remember my A level Physics correctly ;-), all of which have different
effects.

If true, it propbaly means that there is no nuclear waste problem at all.

Low level waste could be dumped in landfills with no real problem.

Not necessarily true. See above.

High level waste could be reprocessed and the materials used in
processing kept for a few years and dumped likewise.

[snip]

But until nuclear power design, cost and management and everything else
is openly discussed, the only way to maintain good safety specs is that
everyone responsible for building them should be forced to live the
rest of their lives near them until the reactor is long closed -when
their kin will be responsible for their oversight until the waste
denatures to safe levels..

Suits me. You can shove one in my back garden.

You must have a very large garden ;-)

I can't see Tory BLiar pushing that one through under those
circumstances. But this is a democracy so who is going to stand for
that sort of protection?


The real effects of long term exposure to low level radiation are really
an unknown.

Definitely. It takes more than one "science" program to make me be
willing to be exposed to low level radiation.

[snip]

The biggest problem is that rational debate is hampered by emotional
response that compare nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Which is a
sane as comparing a domestic oil boiler with a fuel-air bomb..and would
see every bag of flour taken off the shelves as a 'dangerous explosive'
(ever made a flour bomb? Try it!)

Most debates are hampered by irrational arguments IMHO.

Mark