"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be
too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans
only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the
climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a
big effect.

Humans certainly have a large local effect, that is for sure.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:43:22 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Windscale/Sellafield are/were not power stations.

It was the site of the first nuclear power station in the world,
which only closed recently. However, most of the electricity was
used in the rest of the works.

They are part of the nuclear weapons industry and a bit of contamination
was
deemed to be acceptable in order for us to have bombs.

Not quite, although they were not keen to mention the weapons part
of their work.

The original reactors did not provide any power.
In fact they were cooled by blowing air straight through the piles and up
the chimneys.
Any radioactive gas produced just vented through to the air.

The follies were added at the insistence of one man and were only effective
at catching large particles.
Just as well they were there when it caught fire even though they did have
to around picking up bits of core for years afterwards.

They built the power station much latter after they had made the weapons.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:35:50 +0000 someone who may be Mike Halmarack
wrote this:-

I think you're right. I think Guy is right too, if he meant that coal
fired power allows more radiation escape than nuclear, when the
nuclear power station is running as intended.

What is interesting is the way the pro-nuclear lobby concentrates on
the power stations, at least as far as nuclear is concerned. They
don't do this accidentally.

However, in the case of coal the same people are happy to being the
deaths of thousands of coal miners into their discussion. The double
standards are amusing.

What double standards?
In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted on your
fingers and most of those are in weapons manufacture.
The same is not true for the deaths caused by coal and oil.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:35:50 +0000 someone who may be Mike Halmarack
wrote this:-

I think you're right. I think Guy is right too, if he meant that coal
fired power allows more radiation escape than nuclear, when the
nuclear power station is running as intended.

What is interesting is the way the pro-nuclear lobby concentrates on
the power stations, at least as far as nuclear is concerned. They
don't do this accidentally.

However, in the case of coal the same people are happy to being the
deaths of thousands of coal miners into their discussion. The double
standards are amusing.

But tragic.

Mary

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mary Fisher"
saying something like:

Do you *really* know what happened at Chernobyl - or have you been reading
the newspaper and watching television?

And, assuming that you DO know, can you think of other incidents?

Please don't say Tthree Mile Island by the way.

And why not? Caused by the same incompetence, bad training and shoddy
workmanship that dogged the nuclear industry for decades.

You were there?

You'll know, in that case, that no deaths resulted.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:29:13 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

The original reactors did not provide any power.

I know that the two piles did not provide any electricity. However,
they were and are not the only things there.

They built the power station much latter after they had made the weapons.

The nuclear weapons were not just made once and then that was that.

The "power stations" at Windscale and Chapelcross were always
improved piles, which is why they were always operated by BNFL. Any
electricity they generated was a bonus.

The Magnox "power stations" were actually still part bomb making
devices, though the electricity was more than a bonus by then. Spent
fuel rods from these "power stations" were reprocessed at Windscale
alongside spent fuel rods. According to Bellona, who are seldom
criticised on their facts though some disagree about their stance,
"Over its lifetime, B204 produced a total of 3.6 tonnes of
weapons-grade plutonium, of which nearly 400 kilograms were produced
from fuel from the Windscale reactors in the period 1951-1957; A
further three tonnes were produced using fuel from Calder Hall and
Chapelcross; and 400 kilograms were produced using fuel from other
Magnox plants."

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nucl...001/21736.html




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted on your
fingers

I know some people have extra fingers but that's ridiculous ...

Or are you just referring to *official* figures?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

raden wrote in message

I have a neighbour with a very expensive 4x4. he justifies it saying
it
is
environmentally friendly as it only does 2,000 miles a year. I told
him
to
get a cardboard cut-out and put that next to his house.



Why does he need to justify it? If he can a) afford to run it, b) it
does the job he wants to do and c) he likes it, then that's it.

The rest is fluff.


Oh so none of this matters to you or the trendy town people with 4x4
vehicles.
http://www.itv.com/news/climate_355371.html

Every 10,000 years or so there is an ice age. We are currently in the
middle of the warm period in the middle.

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

You're a recognised expert in the field are you ?


No he's just a Dickhead who's ancestors would have been the ones claiming
the world was Flat.



-

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted on
your
fingers

I know some people have extra fingers but that's ridiculous ...

Or are you just referring to *official* figures?

Do you have any evidence to back your conspiracy theory?

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:13:37 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be
too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans
only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the
climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a
big effect.

Surely that should start...

When Americans switch off the Atlantic Conveyor....


--

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:32:17 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

What is interesting is the way the pro-nuclear lobby concentrates on
the power stations, at least as far as nuclear is concerned. They
don't do this accidentally.

However, in the case of coal the same people are happy to being the
deaths of thousands of coal miners into their discussion. The double
standards are amusing.

What double standards?

The ones I outlined. The deaths of thousands of coal miners in China
is often mentioned by the pro-nuclear lobby. However, they are less
keen to mention the deaths of miners in uranium mines, or the
thousands of dead from radioactive releases in the Soviet Union (and
I suspect that when we find out what has been going on in China in
this regard it will be at least as bad as the Soviet Union).



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:42:28 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

You'll know, in that case, that no deaths resulted.

There were no deaths at Three Mile Island. It was very close to
being a disaster, but wasn't. I never refer to it as a disaster,
though some do.

The point is that it shows that claims that the "western" nuclear
"industry" is so much better than that in the nasty former communist
countries is partly, at best, wishful thinking. At worst it is
partly a lie.

Examples of incompetence, bad training and shoddy workmanship
include allowing radioactive material to escape from cells and
falsification of records in Windscale and moving materials in
buckets in Japan. The "antis" view of Windscale at the moment is
http://www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp...?StrNewsID=222




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:32:17 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

What is interesting is the way the pro-nuclear lobby concentrates on
the power stations, at least as far as nuclear is concerned. They
don't do this accidentally.

However, in the case of coal the same people are happy to being the
deaths of thousands of coal miners into their discussion. The double
standards are amusing.

What double standards?

The ones I outlined. The deaths of thousands of coal miners in China
is often mentioned by the pro-nuclear lobby. However, they are less
keen to mention the deaths of miners in uranium mines, or the
thousands of dead from radioactive releases in the Soviet Union (and
I suspect that when we find out what has been going on in China in
this regard it will be at least as bad as the Soviet Union).


This is simple tin hat stuff. Most nuclear supporters are not
lobbyists, lets get real. Every energy option has its problems and
deaths, and a comparison of each shows nuclear to be one of the best.

Second no-one is trying to suppress the figures, there simply is no
means to do so. Its obvious enough that all mining activities cause
deaths, no sensible person seeks to pretend otherwise. Of course the
amount of coal mining is on another scale to uranium mining.

Death data for each energy industry is no secret, and anyone can quote
whichever figures they like. You can get data for power plant deaths,
mining deaths, leukaemia deaths, emphysema deaths, whatever you like.

It'll be mind-rays next.


NT

Matt wrote:
On 7 Mar 2006 07:20:54 -0800, wrote:

Theres a fascinating account of Chernobyl by a woman that managed to
get through the security cordon and have a good look round the site,
taking lots of pictures. I didnt re-find the address though.

Possibly this ??

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

thank you. I see she has more material on the site now.

NT

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:03:03 +0000 someone who may be Grimly
Curmudgeon wrote this:-

And why not? Caused by the same incompetence, bad training and shoddy
workmanship that dogged the nuclear industry for decades.

This is no longer the case?

Nobody builds designs like Chernobyl these days. In any industry
lessons are learnt from disasters, and building a nuclear plant as
hairy as the Chernobyl design just isnt something anyone would take
seriously today.

This process of disaster, learning and improvement ocurs in all
industries.


NT

On 8 Mar 2006 06:20:36 -0800, wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:00:43 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying

Theres a fascinating account of Chernobyl by a woman that managed to
get through the security cordon and have a good look round the site,
taking lots of pictures. I didnt re-find the address though.

Helana's ride? That's a hoax.

Allowing a little for artistic license, how is it a hoax? Are the
facts and figures grossly misrepresented? I'm sure there's a sizeable
pro-nuclear lobby who would claim so, but only as convincingly as some
of the more fanciful claims of the pro-tobacco lobby.

Really it makes no difference to the key points whether that site's
hoaxed or not. I dont think it is, but either way the arguments for and
against each power option are exactly the same.

I don't see how, in terms of devastating effect, the deaths of miners
are on a par with the deaths of nuclear power workers, firemen,
sacrificial soldiers and swathes of the local population. This
combined with the rendering of vast tracts of land uninhabitable by
humans for at least hundreds of years. Nothing "exactly the same"
there as far as I can see.



Typical antinuke camp nonsense.


NT

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:42:28 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"

There were no deaths at Three Mile Island. It was very close to
being a disaster, but wasn't. I never refer to it as a disaster,
though some do.

The point is that it shows that claims that the "western" nuclear
"industry" is so much better than that in the nasty former communist
countries is partly, at best, wishful thinking. At worst it is
partly a lie.

Why not talk of the genuine downsides of nuke, since it does have some.

Why is there so much nonsense talked about nuclear.


NT

In article , dennis@home
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
wrote:
In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted on
your fingers

I know some people have extra fingers but that's ridiculous ...

Or are you just referring to *official* figures?

Do you have any evidence to back your conspiracy theory?

I'm propounding no conspiracy here - though we know there were attempted
cover-ups. I know that deaths that may have been caused by radioactive leaks
were never reported let alone investigated. But I have absolutely no proof
that any such deaths were caused in that way - just as you have no proof that
such deaths didn't have that cause.

The *official* figures are necessarily restricted to those with a clear causal
link - but radioactivity doesn't work in such clearly defined ways.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
...

I don't see how, in terms of devastating effect, the deaths of miners
are on a par with the deaths of nuclear power workers, firemen,
sacrificial soldiers and swathes of the local population. This
combined with the rendering of vast tracts of land uninhabitable by
humans for at least hundreds of years. Nothing "exactly the same"
there as far as I can see.

Atomic bombs didn't make bits of Japan uninhabitable.
The effects depend on what answers you want IMO.

wrote in message
ups.com...
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:03:03 +0000 someone who may be Grimly
Curmudgeon wrote this:-

And why not? Caused by the same incompetence, bad training and shoddy
workmanship that dogged the nuclear industry for decades.

This is no longer the case?

Nobody builds designs like Chernobyl these days. In any industry
lessons are learnt from disasters, and building a nuclear plant as
hairy as the Chernobyl design just isnt something anyone would take
seriously today.

This process of disaster, learning and improvement ocurs in all
industries.

Its a shame we decided to build PWRs then.
It takes moments for a PWR to go bad while it takes days for an AGR.
I think I know which one is safer.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:59:33 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
.. .

I don't see how, in terms of devastating effect, the deaths of miners
are on a par with the deaths of nuclear power workers, firemen,
sacrificial soldiers and swathes of the local population. This
combined with the rendering of vast tracts of land uninhabitable by
humans for at least hundreds of years. Nothing "exactly the same"
there as far as I can see.

Atomic bombs didn't make bits of Japan uninhabitable.

That appears to be true.

The effects depend on what answers you want IMO.

That also. :-)


--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes


"David Hansen" wrote in message
.. .
On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be
too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans
only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the
climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a
big effect.

Humans certainly have a large local effect, that is for sure.

Only on themselves; not in the grand scheme of things they don't.
--
Mr X

In article , David Hansen
writes

On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be
too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans
only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the
climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a
big effect.

All irrelevant as another ice age is inevitable; purely a matter of
time.

Just like it is inevitable that there will be a major volcanic explosion
or two at some time in the near future spewing millions upon millions of
tons of volcanic ash into the atmosphere more than cancelling out any
effects of global warming; and also spewing millions upon millions of
tons of volcanic gases into the atmosphere. You should be able to work
out the effect of that.

Just like it is inevitable that sometime in the future the side of one
of the Canary Islands will slide into the sea and create a tsunami which
will devastate the east coast of the USA

Just like it is inevitable that at some time in the future a large
object from space will strike the earth causing widespread devastation
and destruction.

Just like it is inevitable that the super-magma lava chamber under USA's
Yellowstone Park will explode, devastating everything within 1000kM just
like it has done 6 times in the last 600,000 years and since it was
140,000 years ago since the last blast, this event could happen at any
time.

Just like it is inevitable that at some time in the future the earth's
magnetic poles will revert causing unimaginable changes.

The reality is that in the grand scheme of things, whatever humans do is
of no consequence whatsoever.

But if it makes you feel better, please delude yourself otherwise.
--
Mr X

On 8 Mar 2006 06:09:55 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

This is simple tin hat stuff.

Is this the start of the personal abuse? if so that is always a good
sign.

Most nuclear supporters are not lobbyists,

I spoke of, "the pro-nuclear lobby." That includes people paid to
lobby, as well as people not paid to lobby.

lets get real.

Yes, it looks like the start of the personal abuse.

Every energy option has its problems and
deaths, and a comparison of each shows nuclear to be one of the best.

Provided one looks only at nuclear power stations in the UK then the
number of deaths is presumably similar to the number of deaths in
large coal fired power stations in the UK.

Second no-one is trying to suppress the figures,

Perhaps you could point to the posting in which I claimed that
anyone was?

It'll be mind-rays next.

Definitely the start of the personal abuse. Something generally
resorted to by those with no better arguments.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:59:33 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

Atomic bombs didn't make bits of Japan uninhabitable.
The effects depend on what answers you want IMO.

We have learnt rather a lot about the effects of radiation since
then.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:02:11 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

wrote in message

This process of disaster, learning and improvement ocurs in all
industries.

Windscale doesn't seem to have learnt much over the decades. They
don't even know precisely what is in some of the ponds, even after
using a submersible (which then became radioactive waste). The
vitrification plants are still not working properly. Add in a bit of
sabotage and falsification of records and it would seem that
incompetence, bad training and shoddy workmanship is still common in
the nuclear "industry".

Its a shame we decided to build PWRs then.
It takes moments for a PWR to go bad while it takes days for an AGR.
I think I know which one is safer.

Indeed, a gas cooled reactor is intrinsically safer, though more
expensive. The only real downside with gas cooled reactors is that
they emit carbon dioxide, though not much.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 8 Mar 2006 10:24:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

All irrelevant as another ice age is inevitable; purely a matter of
time. [snip]

The reality is that in the grand scheme of things, whatever humans do is
of no consequence whatsoever.

That sort of reasoning can be used to "justify" doing anything or
nothing. We are too unimportant to bother doing anything. I disagree
with that approach.

But if it makes you feel better, please delude yourself otherwise.

Excellent, personal abuse.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:32:17 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted on your
fingers and most of those are in weapons manufacture.
The same is not true for the deaths caused by coal and oil.

In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted
on your fingers.....of all three hands.


--

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

I'm propounding no conspiracy here - though we know there were attempted
cover-ups. I know that deaths that may have been caused by radioactive
leaks
were never reported let alone investigated. But I have absolutely no proof
that any such deaths were caused in that way - just as you have no proof
that
such deaths didn't have that cause.

I'm not the one suggesting they did die from radiation or that it was
covered up.


The *official* figures are necessarily restricted to those with a clear
causal
link - but radioactivity doesn't work in such clearly defined ways.

The figures show that nuclear workers have less cancers, etc. than most
other sectors.
(Its probably due to them not smoking at work but we don't want to include
the worst killer in Britain in this argument.)

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:35:54 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

I'm not the one suggesting they did die from radiation or that it was
covered up.

Who do you claim is suggesting this?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:35:54 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home"
wrote this:-

I'm not the one suggesting they did die from radiation or that it was
covered up.

Who do you claim is suggesting this?


From the post you half read


"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...


I know that deaths that may have been caused by radioactive
leaks
were never reported let alone investigated. But I have absolutely no proof
that any such deaths were caused in that way - just as you have no proof
that
such deaths didn't have that cause.

I'm not the one suggesting they did die from radiation or that it was
covered up.

In article , dennis@home
wrote:
The *official* figures are necessarily restricted to those with a clear
causal link - but radioactivity doesn't work in such clearly defined ways.

The figures show that nuclear workers have less cancers, etc. than most
other sectors.

Non-workers?
We have had a nuclear 'accident' or more in this country.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
wrote:
The *official* figures are necessarily restricted to those with a clear
causal link - but radioactivity doesn't work in such clearly defined
ways.

The figures show that nuclear workers have less cancers, etc. than most
other sectors.

Non-workers?
We have had a nuclear 'accident' or more in this country.

We have road accidents.
--

In message , Mr X
writes
In article , raden
writes

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

You're a recognised expert in the field are you ?

Why would that be necessary?

Because you're going against the general consensus of informed
scientific opinion


--
geoff

In message , Mr X
writes
In article , David Hansen
writes

On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be
too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans
only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the
climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a
big effect.

All irrelevant as another ice age is inevitable; purely a matter of
time.

Just like it is inevitable that there will be a major volcanic explosion
or two at some time in the near future spewing millions upon millions of
tons of volcanic ash into the atmosphere more than cancelling out any
effects of global warming; and also spewing millions upon millions of
tons of volcanic gases into the atmosphere. You should be able to work
out the effect of that.

Just like it is inevitable that sometime in the future the side of one
of the Canary Islands will slide into the sea and create a tsunami which
will devastate the east coast of the USA

Just like it is inevitable that at some time in the future a large
object from space will strike the earth causing widespread devastation
and destruction.

Just like it is inevitable that the super-magma lava chamber under USA's
Yellowstone Park will explode, devastating everything within 1000kM just
like it has done 6 times in the last 600,000 years and since it was
140,000 years ago since the last blast, this event could happen at any
time.

Just like it is inevitable that at some time in the future the earth's
magnetic poles will revert causing unimaginable changes.

The reality is that in the grand scheme of things, whatever humans do is
of no consequence whatsoever.

But if it makes you feel better, please delude yourself otherwise.

I presume you spend your life watching re-runs of Horizon

.... but fail to take in the message

You are, of course, totally wrong

--
geoff

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mary Fisher"
saying something like:

Please don't say Tthree Mile Island by the way.

And why not? Caused by the same incompetence, bad training and shoddy
workmanship that dogged the nuclear industry for decades.

You were there?

I read plenty of the reports at the time and subsequently.

You'll know, in that case, that no deaths resulted.

Not directly, no.

The problem with nuclear accidents of a small nature is the effects very
often aren't seen for years as people move away and their premature
death is simply lost in the geneal morbidity clutter.
--

Dave

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Mike Halmarack
saying something like:

Theres a fascinating account of Chernobyl by a woman that managed to
get through the security cordon and have a good look round the site,
taking lots of pictures. I didnt re-find the address though.

Helana's ride? That's a hoax.

Allowing a little for artistic license, how is it a hoax?

She didn't go into the bits she claimed she did. Sure, she was in some
of the lesser-contaminated areas, but nowhere near the areas of real
contamination.

It's just mostly made-up. It certainly got her some publicity, which
might have been the purpose all along.
--

Dave

In article , raden
writes

You are, of course, totally wrong

Oh, so none of the things I listed are ever going to happen.

You really are deluding yourself.
--
Mr X

When I started this tread off I didn't realise the conversations I would
cause. Thanks for all the information on solar panels, I am still not
sure what to do but the information was very useful.

Top post / bottom post.... now I am confused :-)

Brian

"Mr X" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes


"David Hansen" wrote in message
. ..
On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X
wrote this:-

There is nothing the human race can do to change anything. Apart from
anything else the orders of energy we have control over are minute in
comparison with the orders of energy involved in the natural processes.

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be
too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans
only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the
climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a
big effect.

Humans certainly have a large local effect, that is for sure.

Only on themselves; not in the grand scheme of things they don't.

Yet, all the leading experts all around the world thing exactly the opposite
of you.