On 01/06/13 18:28, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 17:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:

Looks like I was wrong. harry and Farmer Giles are thicker than
even I
thought possible.

Right, so those who are not happy to see this toxic legacy passed on
to future generations are 'thick'? If that is the true definition,
then I happily plead guilty.

What toxic legacy is that then?

1) Waste from power reactors. I've already pointed out a number of times
how that is being handled TODAY and has been so for the last 20 years.

The result of that process can safely be stored underground without
leakage. I fail to see how you can describe it as "toxic". Unless you're
in the habit of eating glass, perhaps.

What frightening complacency. Even if I accept what you say above -
which I don't - what about earthquakes (which can happen anywhere,
however unlikely it may appear from past history), terrorist attacks,
etc?

These products will need to be stored for hundreds, if not thousands,
of years. They will be added to and added to, because no-one knows how
to detoxify them. Why are you so happy to see this problem handed down
to your children and grandchildren?


shows how very little you understand about radioactivity.

What about - lets say - the mercury used in eco lightbulbs.

That will have to be stored forever. It never decays.




2) Waste from the bomb program of, presumably, the 50s and 60s or so.
This is a more serious problem which can probably only be handled by
spending money. The spending of this money will happen WHETHER OR NOT we
build new power reactors.

However, I think the quick resort to personal insults - as
demonstrated by you here - gives a much better indication of the
inability to reason logically and sensibly.

You'll get what you deserve.

As in disagreeing with you.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.