On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:08:51 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:33:33 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:
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 have never said this.
I said "We do have nuclear power stations which can and do explode....."
You said "Wrong."
Only Fukushima exploded.
Ok not an explosion then, but a ****ing big release of nasty ****.
but even I know many nuclear power stations have ****ed up.
Three is not "many".
You said never.
When?
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's a different issue.
But still very significant.
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?
Because it already tells us a lot.
So if my car crashed due to a fault and didn't hurt me, that would be ok
for me to have to pay out £1000s for repairs?
What about future cancers to those nearby?
Who says there will be any?
Everyone.
Wrong again, only some ignorant fools.
Nukes in fact put far less radiation into the
atmosphere than coal fired power stations.
But what about the spent fuel that cannot be disposed of without a 300 year sealed container?
What about the cost of rebuilding everything?
Rebuilding what? As it happens, the Fukushima plant was due to be
closed within 6 months of the incident anyway - end of life.
And no damage was caused by the reactors. All the damage was from the
tsunami, which caused some 25,000 deaths. Perhaps you should be
concerned about that.
What about the damage to wildlife?
What damage to wildlife?
Radiation will do that.
It didn't with Chernobyl or 3 mile island or Fukushima.
It's claimed sheep in Scotland were affected by Chernobyl.
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.
Why shouldn't I take them literally?
Because you're not taking into account other significant problems.
There are no other significant problems.
Cancer is a damn big problem.
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.
Much, *much* safer than other forms of energy generation.
Agreed, all I'm saying is they do go wrong.
Everything does, even roads and buildings.
Agreed. What makes me laugh is greenies who say we must use wind power, then the very same idiots say they don't want them scarring the landscape and making a really really loud noise.