On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:25:54 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:20:58 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 23:28:59 -0000, danny burstein wrote:

In "Bruce Farquhar"
writes:

Why are these not used on earth?

Do you really, really, want chunks of plutonium
or strontium 90i sitting around?

We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....

Wrong.

Are you an ostrich or something?

No, I'm just someone who, unlike you, knows his arse from a hole in the
ground.

Yet you think a nuclear station has never gone wrong.

I don't read the news much,

That much is too apparent.

Not in this case.

but even I know many nuclear power stations have ****ed up.

Three is not "many".

You said never.

Lemme see, 3 mile island

Where no one died or was injured. No external damage.

Chernobyl,

Where less than 100 died from the disaster.

So the radiation left won't hurt anyone or cause any costs or problems? You really are an ignorant fool.

that one in Japan....

Yeah, that one in Japan - for your information that was at Fukushima.
Where no one died and no one was injured.

Tell the Japanese it wasn't a problem. Why do you think it's ok if no injuries or deaths occur? What about future cancers to those nearby? What about the cost of rebuilding everything? What about the damage to wildlife? You really are a stupid ignorant ****.

And, for your information, you should look up "deaths from ordinary
industrial accidents", you'll find the numbers to be much larger.

Only if you take the numbers too literally like you do.

And if your point is to say that nuclear power stations are a good idea, then I agree with you. But they are not completely safe.