"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:51:58 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:39:29 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:57:01 -0000, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:27:52 +1100, "Tim J" wrote:



"Clare Snyder" wrote in message
...
As far as Chernobyl and Fukishama, the effects of the leaked
radiation
may never be fully known - but the FACT there will be detrimental
effects is known and accepted by anyone with hal;f a functioning
brain
cell.

Radiation - man made or man influenced or not - is KNOWN to have
health issues - as basic as increased skin cancer from extreme
exposure to sun-light.

Anything that increased our exposure to harmfull radiation SHOULD
be
of concern, but risks and benefits need to be assessed and
balanced.

And many don't realise that coal fired power stations put
a lot more radiation into the atmosphere than nukes do
even than 3 mile island did.
Like I said - NUKES are as safe as, or safer than, most
"conventional" alternatives

The thorium content of fly-ash constitutes an "atomic waste" with
thorium and uranium levels in crops around coal plants up to 200
times
higher than around nuke stations

Until the nuke station goes wrong.

Even when it does, 3 mile island didn't do anything special when it did
go
wrong.

What happened with Chernobyl and Fukushima is trivially
avoidable. Ensure that the stand by generators are well above
where any tsunami can get to in the case of Fukushima and
don't play silly buggers with the reactor in the case of Chernobyl.

All very well if everyone is a robot or sensible. But humans will ****
up.

Trivial to avoid them ****ing up as badly as they did at Fukushima.
Not much harder with Chernobyl.

Many things are trivial and still get done wrongly. To err is human.

And trivial to ensure that they don't err with something as important as a
nuke.