On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:51:16 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:48:07 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:08:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

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 it?

That's what causes the most harm (note I'm not saying Nuclear power is bad,
it's cleaner than others).

It doesn't cause any harm: it's in sealed containers.

Which never break over 100s of years when the company is bankrupt and the government has changed and a war broke out and there was an earthquake, yeah right.

It's claimed sheep in Scotland were affected by Chernobyl.

What d'ye mean by "affected"? And claimed by whom?

I dunno, it was decades ago. Possibly some absurd food safety standards group
telling the farmers to burn all the sheep instead of eating them or something.

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.

Nothing new there, then.

It's one thing having cancer caused by cigarettes. You can choose not to
smoke. But you can't choose not to pick up **** from nuclear power stations.

Now now, you're making implications again. This time that nukes
routinely put out stuff.

There is no such "****".

I didn't say routinely, you're making assumptions again.