On 25/02/2021 14:41, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:58:35 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:

Except of course that nuclear power plants have the normal,
programmable (and therefore fallible and hackable - despite being
locked down) control systems backed up (for the critical safety
systems) by multiple,
dedicated, hard-wired safety systems, which in turn are backed up by
fail-safe mechanical systems. And the designs, calculations and
permutations are pored over by the Nuclear, Process, Mechanical and
Control Engineers that do the designs, the Safety Engineers that
oversee the documenting of the safety systems, their equivalents in
multiple companies working on the project and finally the Office for
Nuclear Regulation.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

snip Spuke puke

Do you find it difficult to justify your opposition to nuclear power
when being reminded of the risks you were willing to take in your biking
years?

More people are killed on our roads in any one year than have died from
whatever illegal drugs you care to include in the "war on drugs" since
the 1960s.

And?

Best not to try and introduce facts to arguments sometimes. You always
come off worse ....

Oh the irony (or maybe this is the best I should expect when trying to
discuss things with trolls, left brainers or people who obviously have
a vested interest / bias). ;-(

Is that your way of saying you have nothing substantive to say?

WTF has the number of people who have died in other ways got to do
with anything?

If we are talking about energy production, it is useful to consider the
risks and deaths with the alternatives to nuclear energy.

The 'issue' wasn't the number of deaths, it was the *total risk(s)* of
nuclear versus (and only generally in comparisons with) other forms of
electricity generation that I was talking about here.

Quite, then lets look at these risks. This is starting point:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

But hey, I guess if you don't have any argument / defence for that
they *of course* you would try all sorts of distractions ... ;-(

There are loads of things out in the big wide world that are *very
dangerous* and have to be handled very carefully. Only a complete
idiot would deny their mere existence *could* post a large risk to us
/ the environment, a greater risk than if they didn't exist in the
first place. This would still be the case, *even if* they were
typically used for good reasons.

Only a complete idiot would dismiss nuclear power out of hand whilst not
considering all the risks, plus I would like to leave reserves of
minerals and oil for my children, and my children's children.

You seem to advocate the mining of the rare element lithium so there is
none left for future generations.


I know you won't reply be3cause you hate facts that don't further your
myopic views.