http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held
accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been
well & truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be
"investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to
fork out the cash to clean up the mess.

HN

On 27/05/2012 06:46, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held
accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been
well& truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be
"investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to
fork out the cash to clean up the mess.

The City of London works that way... tax payer bailouts for bankers.

Heads we win tails you lose is the merchant bankers primary maxim.
Win or lose they still get their fat bonuses and golden parachutes.

At least the nuclear industry is asking for indemnity against future
costs of handling the waste caused by real manufacturing, operating
power stations and producing of electricity to keep the lights on.

Merchant ******s want bailing out every time their double or quits bets
on complex derivatives go pearshaped. Dealing only in worthless numbers
on a screen they produce nothing of value. They are all parasites.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 27/05/2012 14:28, Martin Brown wrote:
On 27/05/2012 06:46, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html


Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held
accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been
well& truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be
"investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to
fork out the cash to clean up the mess.

The City of London works that way... tax payer bailouts for bankers.

Heads we win tails you lose is the merchant bankers primary maxim.
Win or lose they still get their fat bonuses and golden parachutes.

At least the nuclear industry is asking for indemnity against future
costs of handling the waste caused by real manufacturing, operating
power stations and producing of electricity to keep the lights on.

I suspect they are more keen on indemnity from costs that arise as a
result of additional unforeseen costs arising from misguided future
legislation that requires them to reprocess spent fuel to levels of
radioactivity below normal background. As is currently seen in Japan,
where they have an exclusion zone around an area less radiative than
most of the SW of England.

Merchant ******s want bailing out every time their double or quits bets
on complex derivatives go pearshaped. Dealing only in worthless numbers
on a screen they produce nothing of value. They are all parasites.

So you would suggest we would be better off without 10% (£50bn) of total
tax take that comes from the financial services sector, the ~1 million
jobs, and the £40bn trade surplus as well? Not to mention the £50+bn GDP
contribution from the London area alone.

(a bigger slice of UK GDP comes from this sector than in any other nation).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

So you would suggest we would be better off without 10% (£50bn) of
total tax take that comes from the financial services sector, the ~1
million jobs, and the £40bn trade surplus as well? Not to mention
the £50+bn GDP contribution from the London area alone.
(a bigger slice of UK GDP comes from this sector than in any other nation).


If the City of London were a country, it would be (just) in the top 25
worldwide, if you're talking about Greater London, it's between Turkey
an Switzerland, so still in the top 20.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:49:12 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

I suspect they are more keen on indemnity from costs that arise as a
result of additional unforeseen costs arising from misguided future
legislation ...

Or simply a government that decides that it doesn't want nuclear
anymore and tells the comapnies to shutdown them all down almost
overnight.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On May 27, 6:46*am, H. Neary nearyh @clara.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax...

Yes I have seen the date. *And we know the outcome.

I cannot see what the problem is. Private industry will not be held
accountable when everything goes belly up. After the trough has been
well & truly drained, those that creamed off the profits will be
"investing" elsewhere, while the long suffering UK taxpayer is left to
fork out the cash to clean up the mess.

HN

Exactly what I think.

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

Brian Gaff wrote

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation.

Not when its designed to be cheaply decommissioned by
just pouring concrete into whats left when its defueled it isnt.

However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about radiation,
probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old mystery
about it that scares folk.

And they mostly don’t realise that nukes put much less
radiation into the atmosphere than coal power stations do.

Two headed sheep that glow in the dark etc.

Its only the terminally stupid that are that bad.


harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation.

It iosnt - if the plant is designed to BE rdecommissioned in te first
place. When the original Magnox reactors were built they never
considered it would be a problem. Leave em a few years and carve em up
and bury em.

After all Hiroshima was absolutely saturated with radiation, and after a
few years people moved back.

Fear Of Radiation was cold war propaganda designed to get democracies to
exert political pressure on governments to de-nuclearise. KGB black op,
essentially, using the CND.

CND became the Green Movement, and as Delingpole has identified in his
'Watermelons' book, green outside, red inside is the color scheme..




However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.


COLD WAR propaganda - that's all.

Very successful though.

Brian



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:23:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Fear Of Radiation was cold war propaganda designed to get democracies to
exert political pressure on governments to de-nuclearise.

Nonsense.
"Fear of being blown up", would have been more accurate.



KGB black op, essentially, using the CND.

That, however, is true. The West was riddled with commie sympths and
moles.


CND became the Green Movement, and as Delingpole has identified in his
'Watermelons' book, green outside, red inside is the color scheme..

And this is news?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:23:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Fear Of Radiation was cold war propaganda designed to get democracies to
exert political pressure on governments to de-nuclearise.

Nonsense.
"Fear of being blown up", would have been more accurate.



well yes BUT that didn't stop nuclear power of course. Nuclear power
stations cant become atomic bombs. And neither are atomic bombs
actually that scary, blast wise. The earthquake that smashed Japan was a
hell of a lot bigger in energy than the average atomic bomb.

So 'radiation' that nice unseen invisible Killer Of Babies was developed
as a monstrous entity to make the whole thing Ghastly Beyond Belief,
Worser Than The Worsest Thing There Ever Was.

And that as neat, because since it was silent and invisible and mostly
non-existent, it was the perfect bogey-man for an emotional narrative
designed to stop Europe's nuclear weapons in their tracks. Since the
power stations were where the plutonium was being cooked up.

A greenish friend of mine built his won Geiger counter hoping to
identify the deep cover up by the Government about all the radiation
being released by nuclear power stations, US airbases and Sellafield.

He didn't find any at all. A little bit around Sellafield beach I think.

Nothing like Dartmoor tho.


KGB black op, essentially, using the CND.

That, however, is true. The West was riddled with commie sympths and
moles.


CND became the Green Movement, and as Delingpole has identified in his
'Watermelons' book, green outside, red inside is the color scheme..

And this is news?

To some, it seems to be.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8

well yes BUT that didn't stop nuclear power of course. Nuclear power
stations cant become atomic bombs. And neither are atomic bombs actually
that scary, blast wise. The earthquake that smashed Japan was a hell of a
lot bigger in energy than the average atomic bomb.

Well when we start to get air burst earthquakes above UK cities I will start
to worry.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A greenish friend of mine built his won Geiger counter hoping to
identify the deep cover up by the Government about all the radiation
being released by nuclear power stations, US airbases and Sellafield.

He didn't find any at all. A little bit around Sellafield beach I think.

Nothing like Dartmoor tho.

How did he rationalise that away?

i cant remember.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On May 28, 2:24*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A greenish friend of mine built his won Geiger counter hoping to
identify the deep cover up by the Government about all the radiation
being released by nuclear power stations, US airbases and Sellafield.

He didn't find any at all. A little bit around Sellafield beach I think..

Nothing like Dartmoor tho.

How did he rationalise that away?

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

They are picking up flakes of plutonium from the beaches around
Dounreay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ority#Dounreay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafi...ds_discrepancy

On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.

It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell

On May 28, 10:20*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.

It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell


You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am,
wrote:
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.

It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell


You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

Not quite in the same league as watching water glowing blue around a
source and knowing that, if that water were not there, you would very
quickly receive a lethal dose of radiation.

Colin Bignell

On 28.05.2012 19:02, Nightjar wrote:
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
....
You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

Not quite in the same league as watching water glowing blue around a
source and knowing that, if that water were not there, you would
very quickly receive a lethal dose of radiation.

The problem with harry is that he is not interested in science.
Today we have Wikipedia and harry could study science at home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
When the project ended in 1993, detailed information of 2,403 cases
had been collected. No symptoms were observed in those dial painter
cases with less than 1,000 times the natural 226Ra levels found in
unexposed individuals, suggesting a threshold for radium-induced
malignancies.[citation needed]
--
jo
"When you measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers, you know something about it, but when you
cannot express it in numbers your knowledge about is of
a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
--William Thomson (Lord Kelvin).

On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am,
wrote:
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.

It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell


You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of
fluorescent paint!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am,
wrote:
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard
due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid
about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got
that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the
dark
etc.

It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell


You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

There is a difference between Cherenkov radiation, and a bit of
fluorescent paint!

No those were radium paint!"

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
On May 28, 10:20 am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.
It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell


You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

I never believed they did any harm until you said that.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Den 28.05.2012 20:43, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
harry wrote:
....
You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

I never believed they did any harm until you said that.

He did not say that.
A luminous watch do no harm to the user.
If you and harry were interested in science,
you would now have bought the book I told you about:
http://www.radiationandreason.com/
--
jo
"With climate change, those who know the most are
the most frightened. With nuclear power, those who
know the most are the least frightened." -- Jo Stein

On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

Mine was only phosphorescent. Went out after a bit. The physics master,
on the other hand, had a real radium dial job he used for testing counters.

Andy

On 28/05/2012 20:45, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/05/2012 17:38, harry wrote:
You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

Mine was only phosphorescent. Went out after a bit. The physics master,
on the other hand, had a real radium dial job he used for testing counters.

With some imagination, its surprising what you can get from one of those:

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message
,
harry writes
On May 28, 10:20*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 27/05/2012 07:53, Brian Gaff wrote:

The problem with nuclear is that to decommission old plant is hard due to
the radiation. However, I do think that people do get a bit paranoid about
radiation, probably just cos they cannot see it and its still got that old
mystery about it that scares folk. Two headed sheep that glow in the dark
etc.

It feels a bit odd the first time you look at a nuclear source glowing
under water, even when the counter is showing that, because of the
shielding around you, you are actually receiving a lower dose of
radiation than when standing outside in the car park.

Colin Bignell


You never owned a luminous watch in the past? I had one as a
schoolboy.

Harry, you really should keep your head down when it comes to science
.... or go away and learn some


--
geoff

harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Just another pig ignorant lie.

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the
'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel.

So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills'

On May 27, 8:13*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax...

Just another pig ignorant lie.

Yes I have seen the date. *And we know the outcome.

Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the
'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel.

So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills'

You are a bloody halfwit. Even after reprocessing there is radioactive
waste.

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax...

Just another pig ignorant lie.

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.

Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the
'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel.

So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills'

You are a bloody halfwit.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart.

Even after reprocessing there is radioactive waste.

Not enough to produce anything like 'unlimited nuclear waste bills'

They are in fact quite limited instead.

And paid for by those who buy the new nuke fuel.

harry wrote:
On May 27, 8:13 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
harry wrote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...8187222/UK-tax...
Just another pig ignorant lie.

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.
Nope. You're so stupid you don't even realise that the
'waste' that matters is reprocessed into more nuke fuel.

So there is no 'unlimited nuclear waste bills'

You are a bloody halfwit. Even after reprocessing there is radioactive
waste.

Harry. Your poo is radioactive and it sure is waste.

How much is that costing te taxpayer to reprocess?

Spiv.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

harry wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ts-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.


Its Rowena Mason. By definition anything she writes is an ill understood
press release from the renewables lobby.

She can usually safely be ignored.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message
,
harry writes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...7222/UK-taxpay
ers-face-unlimited-nuclear-waste-bills-if-costs-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. And we know the outcome.


Its called a headline harry

Scary word ... "unlimited" and "if costs spiral"

Don't worry, all you'll be powering by then will be earthworms

--
geoff

On May 28, 12:43*am, geoff wrote:
In message
,
harry writes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...7222/UK-taxpay
ers-face-unlimited-nuclear-waste-bills-if-costs-spiral.html

Yes I have seen the date. *And we know the outcome.

Its called a headline harry

Scary word ... "unlimited" *and "if costs spiral"

Don't worry, all you'll be powering by then will be earthworms

--
geoff

Ah. Kick the can down the road syndrome eh?