On 01/06/2013 4:59 PM, Farmer Giles wrote:
On 01/06/2013 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On May 31, 11:40 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:

On 31/05/2013 23:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...tweigh_Fukushi...


iat

ion_risk_3105131.html

And in the 1600s it was witches. I imagine harry would have ben
there
with the best of them, lighting the logs under the "witch"
because she
floated when they dunked her.

One thing we can always rely on with the nuclear lobby is their
ability
to tell lies, and I bet the next one will be to tell us you've
solved
the problem of what to do with the increasing amount of nuclear
waste.

Unless, that is, you try the even bigger lie that there is no
problem.

You're nodding off worse than harry. As was discussed on "The Life
Scientific" on R4 back on January sometime, waste from today's
reactors
(and future ones) is a *solved * issue, and the small amount of high
level waste is converted to glass blocks and the like. This solution
has
been in place and in use for 20 years.

The waste from *bomb* production is another matter and is a problem.
But
it will be a problem WHETHER OR NOT we build new reactors.

What I write here should be understandable even by you dimwits.

If it was a solution, why hasn't it been done?

What part of "This solution has been in place and in use for 20 years"
is hard for you to understand?

Obviously, it is not a solution. The truth is they still haven't a
clue what to do with all this waste.

As I have pointed out any solution is going to cost billions and may
fail and all the work undone and another solution attempted.

What part of "The waste from bomb production is another matter" is hard
for you to understand?

As someone else pointed out, there have been so many lies and coverups
in the past, no-one trusts the *******s any more.

No there haven't.

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.

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.



+1

Agreed, I stopped name calling a long while back.


--
One click voting to change the world.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/
Biting the hand that feeds IT