On 26/02/2021 10:54, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/02/2021 21:17, 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?

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever
power generation loss of life ever? - no one would bat an eyelid.
It's *green* you see.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl.
That's why we have never heard of it.

I looked - nothing to do with 'green' - it was due to the thoughts of
Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution, long before 'green' had been
invented.

Well you are not correct about timing. Germans have been naturists for a
100 years or more.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/env...ental-movement

And its as true to say that Chernobyl was all about Communism and its
attitudes to authority, self reliance and human safety.

But today it would be classed as 'renewable energy' and its today that
we see the silence...

Greens don't want reminding that the only large scale *reliable*
'renewable' energy has the worst safety record of any form of energy



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"