On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:18:12 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

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.

Under those circs the status of the underground repository is the least
of your worries.

Rubbish. The war might not directly affect me, but the nuclear fallout would.

Why d'ye think I suggest the Marianna Trench? Cos down there 37,000
feet below sea level, it ain't gonna matter.

Yeah, bugger the sea life. Bugger all those who eat the radioactive fish.