On Mar 24, 11:20*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 24/03/2013 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 24/03/13 09:18, harry wrote:

The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,
covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

No, its been a history of years of safe reliable cheap power generation,
with remarkably few accidents and even less loss of life.

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

All other things being equal, which of course they are not.

Newer power stations are much better designed than older ones. The more
you have the more well understood they are and the better are the staff
that run them.

And as Fuku and Chernobyl show, even when they do have accidents, te
results are not the end of the world. They are in fact not even teh
worst that can happen compared to other industries.

Look at Bhopal for instance. Or the Horizon explosion. More peole died
there than Fukushima, and the environmental pollution was on a scale
that totally eclipses Fukushima.

Look at Aberfan. Look at road accidents. every day more people die on
British roads than the total that died or will ever die of radiation
issues at Fukushima.

If sticking with electricity generation, look at Banqiao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Really harry, your propaganda is not very effective when confronted with
actual facts, is it?

The way forward is to use less.
I use less than zero energy, so everyone could do the same and should
be.

But no, you'd rather sit on your arse and whine.