On 17 Feb 2021 14:19:59 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

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.

Only one (Chernobyl) can be said to have "blown up", and the operators had to
work quite hard to get it to a state where it was unstable enough for that to
happen (as can be seen by reading about it).

*Once again* your limited Goblin left brain restricts you to only
consider the facts to date (massaged to suit your biases) and miss the
bigger picture (that I thought I'd signposted clearly enough for even
a Goblin to pick up on).;-)

You're just employing the usual
scare-mongering techniques, saying "So a plant blows up ..." as if this is a
common occurrence.

No, it was a very realistic *risk* and one we could have witnessed a
couple of times already, had it not been for luck / circumstances.

'Of course' we would all hope that a mini-nuke-plant designed and
built in the UK by RR would be pretty indestructible, but the problem
is, if it isn't, the consequences are going to be suffered for many
many years to come.

I'm not saying that because I'm against NP, because I'm not, I was
just saying most people wouldn't want one in their back yard and you
don't need a complete meltdown (or it to 'Blow up' as such), for it to
be a massive problem.

Until that happens, the chances are it's 'greener' than many
alternatives, possibly including solar and wind (even if they were
supported by storage).

Cheers, T i m