"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil
fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around
the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly
idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a
moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock.

My God, he is the only with insight now.

The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier
to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant.

But is isn't!! It is dumped at the bottom of the ocean in casks that might
last 100 years, then they will slowly leak their toxic contents into the
ocean and into the food chain. This is a very sill idea. As people in the
20th century cursed the Victorian legacy of piled up dangerous slag heaps
and other filth, future generations will think the same of us.

The waste can be dumped down deep disused mines and then the seams concreted
up. In 1000 years time some one will probably tunnel into it. Of course
they will make a record, which will be lost. There are 4, 5 or 6 (no one
quite knows) underground store of TNT under Belgium fields. No one quite
knows where they are. These were the largest non-nuclear bombs ever made.
The British would tunnel under the German trenches, fill with TNT and
detonate, killing 10,000 men in one explosion from one bomb. The disused
bombs were not used because the British trenches had moved forwards over
them. One of these bombs went off by accident in 1955. Luckily no one was
killed. It is a matter of time before the others explode. Records of
where the bombs are? Some, but not all.

If every powerstatio in the world was nuclear, where would all the waste go?
Privately owned stations would cheaply dump the waste (illegal dumping of
chemicals in all countries is common), insead of down expensive deep mines
and sealing up with concrete. It is the human error aspect that is the
flaw. When it goes wrong the effects last for 100s of years after.

Also, cases of leukaemia are far greater around nuclear facilities. Just
co-incidence the nuclear people say. ********!!!

The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead
the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the
issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

They have a lot of common sense, that is clear. Dependency on fossil fuel
power can be vastly reduced by use of insulation, passive solar, superior
town planning eliminating cars, CHP, more efficient engines, etc, etc.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004