On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:
How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

c) Neither of the above. There would be an awful lot of nasty stuff
floating around in the water from all the destroyed industry, and at the
least they'll have to deal with the mud. And assuming they rebuild the
dam demand for property might be a bit low.

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.

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'?

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.

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.

We have seen such promises before ...

My point is not that nuclear is 100% safe. It's just that it doesn't
destroy the climate, stop at night or when the weather is wrong, nor
have the risks that the Chinese demonstrated so nicely.

IMHO It's the least bad alternative. Fusion would be better, especially
H-H fusion, not least because the waste is short life and there's no
fuel problem. But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

Show me a viable safe alternative and I'll be campaigning outside Sizewell.

Andy