geoff wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Andy Burns wrote:
On 24/02/2008 14:44, ARWadworth wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

Why did it collapse?
It would usually be shutdown in such high winds ...

Until the feathering mechanism goes wrong.

Fortinately nuclear power stations are built to much higher standards
of safety.;-)

Maybe the webbed footed one might check out the editorial from last
months NS - expediency over safety

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-editorial-don
t-mess-with-nuclear-safety.html

unless of course he thinks it's left wing propaganda

ah what's this ?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...70b1f37-7efe-4
6c1-a165-8b0efd4dfcaa&k=22708

same story ...

Basically, the head of the Cabadian Nuclear Safety commission, Linda
Keen, closed down a plant where two safety critical back up cooling
pumps were missing in a "clear breach of safety".

Instead of prioritising installing these pumps, the reactor was reopened
regardless and fired Keen

Higher standards of safety ?

Yup. At least there WAS a clear directive to have a backup system in
place, and somebody policing it. Something that seems entirely absent
from windmills.

Of course you wont ever get a clear unbiased story from the New
Scientist/guardian type rags...

The fact remains, the windmill blew up, the nuclear power station did not.

Why? because nuclear power stations these days have to be built to
standards that no other industry has to. If stringent safety systems
were applied to windmills, they would be *totally* uneconomic, instead
of merely 6-10 times as expensive as a nuclear power stations, and no
one could claim their greeny points (like brownie points, but more vomit
colored) for being involved with them..