On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:30:01 +0000, T i m wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 19:31:54 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2021 at 12:25:38 GMT, Andrew
wrote:

On 15/02/2021 21:47, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Even then if you check the stats the death toll from radiation from
Fukushima was...

One.

Yes, a single person. And he's only a probable.

Quite a lot of people died running away from it though.

Andy

Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

What has this to do with anything?

Oh dear ... these left brainers ... ;-(

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?