On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:47 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Given that is very unlikely with western safety procedures and methods,
you're more likely to have a number of Manchesters or even a few Banqiao
Dam failures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

It's going to take a lot of radioactive contamination to match the man
years lost in that disaster. Or do you think life lost in this type of
disaster trivial in comparison to the few that might be lost in a
nuclear accident?

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis, *anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

If you looked hard you would check on the contaminated site in the UK
from various oil and other spills.

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

There is no viable alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

That'll be good, the same as soon as we have a viable alternative to
fossil fuels there will be an eventual switch, or the green manufacture
of these fuels.

We have seen such promises before ...

I haven't? If so, only by fools where only fools are taken in.