Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:
Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Gordon Bennet, that's right old news that.

Where have you been for the last 50 odd years

FYI, the one of the Pile chimneys is no longer in existence, and the
other is on its way down.

On 23/03/13 09:06, Bob H wrote:
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:
Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Gordon Bennet, that's right old news that.


Indeed I remember it. The first time I had heard the words 'strontium 90'

And guess what. No one died of cancer.

Of course no one runs an atomic pile in an open hearth with zero
containment and not much shielding, any more.



Where have you been for the last 50 odd years

FYI, the one of the Pile chimneys is no longer in existence, and the
other is on its way down.

leave em long enough and then you just bulldoze them.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article , Bob H
writes
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:
Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Gordon Bennet, that's right old news that.

Where have you been for the last 50 odd years

FYI, the one of the Pile chimneys is no longer in existence, and the
other is on its way down.
In 1965 I used to visit a dairy farm very close to the site. The amazing
thing was that the milk yield apparently soared during the emergency.
Under normal circumstances the Milk Marketing Board would test milk for
butterfat content to detect if the milk had been diluted with water. The
nuclear authorities who bought the milk to tip down mineshafts didn't do
that test.........
--
Chris Holford

On 23/03/2013 10:55, Chris Holford wrote:

In 1965 I used to visit a dairy farm very close to the site. The amazing
thing was that the milk yield apparently soared during the emergency.
Under normal circumstances the Milk Marketing Board would test milk for
butterfat content to detect if the milk had been diluted with water. The
nuclear authorities who bought the milk to tip down mineshafts didn't do
that test.........

Oh, that's very funny!

On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Very old news...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mar 23, 10:55*am, Chris Holford
wrote:
In article , Bob H
writesOn 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:
Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Gordon Bennet, that's right old news that.

Where have you been for the last 50 odd years

FYI, the one of the Pile chimneys is no longer in existence, and the
other is on its way down.

In 1965 I used to visit a dairy farm very close to the site. The amazing
thing was that the milk yield apparently soared during the emergency.
Under normal circumstances the Milk Marketing Board would test milk for
butterfat content to detect if the milk had been diluted with water. The
nuclear authorities who bought the milk to tip down mineshafts didn't do
that test.........

good old british farmers - do pass the subsidies this Range Rover's
nearly a year old you know.....

Jim K

"John Rumm" wrote in message
.. .
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

Because he's one of these greenarses who **** them selves every time they
think about nuclear, radiation, or anything similar,
hence why he lives in a house with no central heating, he couldn't get over
the thought of the radiators being misunderstood for things that irradiate
you,

On 23/03/2013 13:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

Something you could ask for just about anything he posts.

Colin Bignell

Well I was 7 at the time so do not remember it. However I had heard of it
since of course. I suppose in those early days its hard to be really
critical as everyone was still learning. the problems of course are that
once you have built a nuclear plant, contamination means that its really
hard to update designs, and one ends up just mothballing the old ones and
starting again. I am hopeful that with the vast strides in robotics that
have been made that this situation will now not occur. The Japanese reactors
were old for this very reason and as has been noted elsewhere, the achiles
heel of loss of cooling of the core is nearly always the problem in these
accidents.


Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harry" wrote in message
...
Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Chuckle..
Now ladies, lets stay focussed..
Hides behind lead sofa.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Gazz" wrote in message ...
"John Rumm" wrote in message
.. .
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

Because he's one of these greenarses who **** them selves every time they
think about nuclear, radiation, or anything similar,
hence why he lives in a house with no central heating, he couldn't get
over the thought of the radiators being misunderstood for things that
irradiate you,

On Mar 23, 1:01*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Very old news...

--
Well we are still having the accidents in spite of the assurances.
And they keep getting bigger and more expensive to clear up.
Interesting to read about what was did and what was hid at the
time.
Interesting too that if the filters had not been fitted the outcome
would have been far worse.. You can just imagine TurNiP saying,
"Complete load of ********, we don't need 'em"

Interesting too the risks they were prepared to take and
the ignorance.

On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Very old news...

--
Well we are still having the accidents in spite of the assurances...

There is no such thing as a completely safe system of generation, but,
even assuming that Chernobyl has shortened 4,000 lives (which is far
from certain) nuclear is still several times safer than anything else.

Colin Bignell

In message , Chris Holford
writes
In article , Bob H
writes
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:
Note that things have just got worse since this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Gordon Bennet, that's right old news that.

Where have you been for the last 50 odd years

FYI, the one of the Pile chimneys is no longer in existence, and the
other is on its way down.
In 1965 I used to visit a dairy farm very close to the site. The amazing
thing was that the milk yield apparently soared during the emergency.
Under normal circumstances the Milk Marketing Board would test milk for
butterfat content to detect if the milk had been diluted with water. The
nuclear authorities who bought the milk to tip down mineshafts didn't do
that test.........

I vaguely thought they tested the freezing point?

--
Tim Lamb

On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Very old news...

--

Well we are still having the accidents in spite of the assurances.

How many harry? Is it a big number? How do they compare to accident
rates in other generation technologies?

And they keep getting bigger and more expensive to clear up.

Are you sure you are not imagining that? Was Chernobyl not "bigger" than
Fukishima?

Interesting to read about what was did and what was hid at the
time.

There are skeletons in every industry closet...

Radioactive ones are much harder to hide!

Interesting too that if the filters had not been fitted the outcome
would have been far worse.. You can just imagine TurNiP saying,
"Complete load of ********, we don't need 'em"

Interesting too the risks they were prepared to take and
the ignorance.

Its called learning, its part of doing *anything*.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mar 24, 4:03*am, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:

On Mar 23, 1:01 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 08:31, harry wrote:

Note that things have just got worse since this one.

How do you come to that conclusion harry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Very old news...

--
Well we are still having the accidents in spite of the assurances.

How many harry? Is it a big number? How do they compare to accident
rates in other generation technologies?

And they keep getting bigger and more expensive to clear up.

Are you sure you are not imagining that? Was Chernobyl not "bigger" than
Fukishima?

Interesting to read about what was did and what was hid at the
time.

There are skeletons in every industry closet...

Radioactive ones are much harder to hide!

Interesting too that if the filters had not been fitted the outcome
would have been far worse.. You can just imagine TurNiP saying,
"Complete load of ********, we don't need 'em"

Interesting too the risks they were prepared to take and
the ignorance.

Its called learning, its part of doing *anything*.


The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,
covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

On 24/03/13 09:18, harry wrote:

The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,
covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.


No, its been a history of years of safe reliable cheap power generation,
with remarkably few accidents and even less loss of life.

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

All other things being equal, which of course they are not.

Newer power stations are much better designed than older ones. The more
you have the more well understood they are and the better are the staff
that run them.

And as Fuku and Chernobyl show, even when they do have accidents, te
results are not the end of the world. They are in fact not even teh
worst that can happen compared to other industries.

Look at Bhopal for instance. Or the Horizon explosion. More peole died
there than Fukushima, and the environmental pollution was on a scale
that totally eclipses Fukushima.

Look at Aberfan. Look at road accidents. every day more people die on
British roads than the total that died or will ever die of radiation
issues at Fukushima.

Really harry, your propaganda is not very effective when confronted with
actual facts, is it?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 24/03/2013 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/03/13 09:18, harry wrote:

The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,
covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.


No, its been a history of years of safe reliable cheap power generation,
with remarkably few accidents and even less loss of life.

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

All other things being equal, which of course they are not.

Newer power stations are much better designed than older ones. The more
you have the more well understood they are and the better are the staff
that run them.

And as Fuku and Chernobyl show, even when they do have accidents, te
results are not the end of the world. They are in fact not even teh
worst that can happen compared to other industries.

Look at Bhopal for instance. Or the Horizon explosion. More peole died
there than Fukushima, and the environmental pollution was on a scale
that totally eclipses Fukushima.

Look at Aberfan. Look at road accidents. every day more people die on
British roads than the total that died or will ever die of radiation
issues at Fukushima.

If sticking with electricity generation, look at Banqiao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Really harry, your propaganda is not very effective when confronted with
actual facts, is it?

Not that that will stop him repeating it.

Colin Bignell

On Sunday 24 March 2013 10:34 The Natural Philosopher wrote in uk.d-i-y:


Look at Aberfan. Look at road accidents. every day more people die on
British roads than the total that died or will ever die of radiation
issues at Fukushima.

Really harry, your propaganda is not very effective when confronted with
actual facts, is it?



I'd forgotten Aberfan:

Deaths 28 adults, 116 children


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 24/03/2013 09:18, harry wrote:

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

Which must be a good thing... since it will be reducing the amount of
other generation technologies needed instead which have worse and more
frequent accidents.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mar 24, 11:20*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 24/03/2013 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 24/03/13 09:18, harry wrote:

The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,
covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

No, its been a history of years of safe reliable cheap power generation,
with remarkably few accidents and even less loss of life.

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

All other things being equal, which of course they are not.

Newer power stations are much better designed than older ones. The more
you have the more well understood they are and the better are the staff
that run them.

And as Fuku and Chernobyl show, even when they do have accidents, te
results are not the end of the world. They are in fact not even teh
worst that can happen compared to other industries.

Look at Bhopal for instance. Or the Horizon explosion. More peole died
there than Fukushima, and the environmental pollution was on a scale
that totally eclipses Fukushima.

Look at Aberfan. Look at road accidents. every day more people die on
British roads than the total that died or will ever die of radiation
issues at Fukushima.

If sticking with electricity generation, look at Banqiao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam



And these are the people whose reactors we may end up having?

On Mar 24, 1:53*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:03*am, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:
Its called learning, its part of doing *anything*.
The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,

Not promises made by the nuclear power industry.

covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

If the japanese choose to spend unnecessary amounts of dosh why is that
anyone's fault but their own. It's another example of a *political*
solution to a non-problem being adopted, and then the nuclear industry
being blamed for the consequences of the "solution".

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

Where no one will die, and no one will be injured. So your point is
*what* precisely?


We are a small crowded island. A Fukushima here would be a calamity.
These are supposed to be one in a thousand year disasters.
So that means once we have a thousand reactors we have a disaster
every year?
I suppose if we had ten in this country, that would be on a century. I
suppose it only takes fifty years to clean up.
And who pays?

The Japs will fix up the tsunami damage in ten years or less. Even
they reckon on forty/fifty years to clear up the radio activity.

Maybe not many died as a direct result but plenty died/had their lives
ruined as indirect consequenses.

How would you feel if you had to move out of your home and loose
everything? You think your insurance would cover it all.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb74d6ec-0...#axzz2OT8lWJEI

Have a look at your own insurance.

And if you want to talk about money.
http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...alexis-rowell/

On 24/03/13 14:35, harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:20 am, Nightjar

If sticking with electricity generation, look at Banqiao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam



And these are the people whose reactors we may end up having?

No harry. No one is suggesting we buy reactors from China.

In fact they are buying them from the USA and Japan IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

So more lies. That's only a lie every post you have made today. At least
one lie per post that is.

one expects nothing less from a SPIV.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mar 24, 11:20*am, Nightjar
wrote:
On 24/03/2013 10:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:









On 24/03/13 09:18, harry wrote:

The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,
covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

No, its been a history of years of safe reliable cheap power generation,
with remarkably few accidents and even less loss of life.

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

All other things being equal, which of course they are not.

Newer power stations are much better designed than older ones. The more
you have the more well understood they are and the better are the staff
that run them.

And as Fuku and Chernobyl show, even when they do have accidents, te
results are not the end of the world. They are in fact not even teh
worst that can happen compared to other industries.

Look at Bhopal for instance. Or the Horizon explosion. More peole died
there than Fukushima, and the environmental pollution was on a scale
that totally eclipses Fukushima.

Look at Aberfan. Look at road accidents. every day more people die on
British roads than the total that died or will ever die of radiation
issues at Fukushima.

If sticking with electricity generation, look at Banqiao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Really harry, your propaganda is not very effective when confronted with
actual facts, is it?

The way forward is to use less.
I use less than zero energy, so everyone could do the same and should
be.

But no, you'd rather sit on your arse and whine.

On 24/03/13 14:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 1:53 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:03 am, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:
Its called learning, its part of doing *anything*.
The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,

Not promises made by the nuclear power industry.

covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

If the japanese choose to spend unnecessary amounts of dosh why is that
anyone's fault but their own. It's another example of a *political*
solution to a non-problem being adopted, and then the nuclear industry
being blamed for the consequences of the "solution".

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

Where no one will die, and no one will be injured. So your point is
*what* precisely?


We are a small crowded island. A Fukushima here would be a calamity.

No it wouldn't. Lie 1.

These are supposed to be one in a thousand year disasters.
Says who? and it wasnt a disater.

Lie 2.

So that means once we have a thousand reactors we have a disaster
every year?

If we had a thoousand reactors we coud power the whole of Europe..good
export business.

I suppose if we had ten in this country, that would be on a century. I
suppose it only takes fifty years to clean up.

No, about tow years.

And who pays?

The operating company by and large.

The Japs will fix up the tsunami damage in ten years or less. Even
they reckon on forty/fifty years to clear up the radio activity.


No they don't. it will be done this year.

Lie 3.

Maybe not many died as a direct result but plenty died/had their lives
ruined as indirect consequenses.


No they haven't lie 4.

How would you feel if you had to move out of your home and loose
everything?

A lot happier for a one in ten thiusand chance of minor radiation
temporarily than altogether because someone put 10,000 windmills up
around it.

Or because I could no longer afford to heat it because a bunch of SPIVS
had trebled my energy costs.


You think your insurance would cover it all.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb74d6ec-0...#axzz2OT8lWJEI

Have a look at your own insurance.

And if you want to talk about money.
http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...alexis-rowell/



keep looking for more unfounded and fact free opinion.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

A bit here on the progress/costs of reactors similar to what we are
allegedly getting at Hinkley Point.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...e-/blog/43190/

On 24/03/13 15:25, harry wrote:


A bit here on the progress/costs of reactors similar to what we are
allegedly getting at Hinkley Point.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...e-/blog/43190/

GREENPEACE?

Oh dear harry. They make it all up!


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 24/03/2013 14:54, harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 1:53 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:03 am, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:
Its called learning, its part of doing *anything*.
The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,

Not promises made by the nuclear power industry.

covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

If the japanese choose to spend unnecessary amounts of dosh why is that
anyone's fault but their own. It's another example of a *political*
solution to a non-problem being adopted, and then the nuclear industry
being blamed for the consequences of the "solution".

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

Where no one will die, and no one will be injured. So your point is
*what* precisely?


We are a small crowded island. A Fukushima here would be a calamity.

The nuclear aspect was virtually the same as Three Mile Island, which is
a far better model of what might happen in the UK.

These are supposed to be one in a thousand year disasters.
So that means once we have a thousand reactors we have a disaster
every year?

I see that probability theory is something else you don't understand.
Having 1000 units means that you have 1000 units, each with a 0.001
probability of an event in any one year, not a certainty of one event
every year. A one in 1000 year event does not even mean you will see the
event exactly once in 1000 consecutive years in one unit - the
probability of that is only just over one in three.

....
The Japs will fix up the tsunami damage in ten years or less. Even
they reckon on forty/fifty years to clear up the radio activity.

Three Mile Island took 14 years to clean up. If Fukushima takes
significantly longer, it will be due to the fear of radiation, rather
than for any demonstrable reason.

Maybe not many died as a direct result but plenty died/had their lives
ruined as indirect consequenses.

Compared to the other consequences of the tsunami, Fukushima was fairly
insignificant. The surprise there was not that there were problems, but,
given how far the design criteria were exceeded, just how little damage
was done to the plant.

How would you feel if you had to move out of your home and loose
everything?

I would expect the British government to act in a similar way to the
Americans. At Three Mile Island, fewer than half the people left the
area, all voluntarily, and, within three weeks, 98% had returned home.

Colin Bignell

On 24/03/2013 15:25, harry wrote:


A bit here on the progress/costs of reactors similar to what we are
allegedly getting at Hinkley Point.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...e-/blog/43190/


An organisation of which one of its founders (the only one with a
scientific background) now says 'Greenpeace has evolved into an
organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas'.

Colin Bignell

On Sunday 24 March 2013 15:05 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

The way forward is to use less.
I use less than zero energy, so everyone could do the same and should
be.

There's "less" and "practically none".

It might have been cheaper to offer free insulation and triple glazing to
everyone that build those bloody windmills and subsidised FIT schemes.


But no, you'd rather sit on your arse and whine.

Well, yeah. It's not my job to run the bloody country. Unless I could just
walk into Westmeinster and say "Hello, I'm your new minister for long term
energy planning", there's **** all a lone voice like me, or anyone can do
about it.

The only thing I can do to try to point people I know to data like TNP's
excellent Gridwatch (that got a mention, well, 2 mentions, on ARRSE earlier
BTW, so people are noticing) - and alert people to the fact that the
country's energy supply is in a dangerous mess.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

harry wrote:

I use less than zero energy

But you depend on the energy infrastructure to even out your peaks and
troughs.

On 24/03/13 16:08, Nightjar wrote:
On 24/03/2013 15:25, harry wrote:


A bit here on the progress/costs of reactors similar to what we are
allegedly getting at Hinkley Point.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...e-/blog/43190/



An organisation of which one of its founders (the only one with a
scientific background) now says 'Greenpeace has evolved into an
organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas'.


and now recommends a nuclear policy too IIRC.

Colin Bignell


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 24/03/13 18:22, Tim Watts wrote:
On Sunday 24 March 2013 15:05 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

The way forward is to use less.
I use less than zero energy, so everyone could do the same and should
be.

There's "less" and "practically none".

It might have been cheaper to offer free insulation and triple glazing to
everyone that build those bloody windmills and subsidised FIT schemes.


But no, you'd rather sit on your arse and whine.

Well, yeah. It's not my job to run the bloody country. Unless I could just
walk into Westmeinster and say "Hello, I'm your new minister for long term
energy planning", there's **** all a lone voice like me, or anyone can do
about it.

the one thing you can do is vote UKIP inm the upcoming local elections
and tell your local MP (as I did) that I will never ever vote for anyone
who 'believes in renewable energy' again.


The only thing I can do to try to point people I know to data like TNP's
excellent Gridwatch (that got a mention, well, 2 mentions, on ARRSE earlier
BTW, so people are noticing) - and alert people to the fact that the
country's energy supply is in a dangerous mess.


And the coalition are playing pushmepullyou with it for totally selfish
political reasons, and the mess was in fact down to Miliband.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 24/03/13 18:26, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

I use less than zero energy

But you depend on the energy infrastructure to even out your peaks and
troughs.

as in all renewables 'your problem, to pay for, my profit, to make when
I can'



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sunday 24 March 2013 18:48 The Natural Philosopher wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 24/03/13 18:22, Tim Watts wrote:
On Sunday 24 March 2013 15:05 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

The way forward is to use less.
I use less than zero energy, so everyone could do the same and should
be.

There's "less" and "practically none".

It might have been cheaper to offer free insulation and triple glazing to
everyone that build those bloody windmills and subsidised FIT schemes.


But no, you'd rather sit on your arse and whine.

Well, yeah. It's not my job to run the bloody country. Unless I could
just walk into Westmeinster and say "Hello, I'm your new minister for
long term energy planning", there's **** all a lone voice like me, or
anyone can do about it.

the one thing you can do is vote UKIP inm the upcoming local elections

I plan to...

and tell your local MP (as I did) that I will never ever vote for anyone
who 'believes in renewable energy' again.

Good move. I will do tha...


The only thing I can do to try to point people I know to data like TNP's
excellent Gridwatch (that got a mention, well, 2 mentions, on ARRSE
earlier BTW, so people are noticing) - and alert people to the fact that
the country's energy supply is in a dangerous mess.


And the coalition are playing pushmepullyou with it for totally selfish
political reasons, and the mess was in fact down to Miliband.


--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Mar 24, 6:26*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
I use less than zero energy

But you depend on the energy infrastructure to even out your peaks and
troughs.

Of course. I help with the peaks.
So what?

On Mar 24, 4:08*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 24/03/2013 15:25, harry wrote:



A bit here on the progress/costs of reactors similar to what *we are
allegedly getting at Hinkley Point.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...uclear-reactio...

An organisation of which one of its founders (the only one with a
scientific background) now says 'Greenpeace has evolved into an
organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas'.

Colin Bignell
Most organisations are political to a greater or lesser extent.
I see you never even read the the link.
So you want us to get involved in a technology that has run massively
over time and budget in every reactor they are building?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7LC4J420111012

On Mar 24, 6:46*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/03/13 16:08, Nightjar wrote:

On 24/03/2013 15:25, harry wrote:

A bit here on the progress/costs of reactors similar to what *we are
allegedly getting at Hinkley Point.

http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...uclear-reactio....

An organisation of which one of its founders (the only one with a
scientific background) now says 'Greenpeace has evolved into an
organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas'.

and now recommends a nuclear policy too IIRC.

I see your dementia is troubling you again.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/problems

On 24/03/2013 14:54, harry wrote:

The Japs will fix up the tsunami damage in ten years or less. Even
they reckon on forty/fifty years to clear up the radio activity.

Which is a failure of policy and nothing else. Their "exclusion zone" is
already less radioactive than most of Dartmoor.

Maybe not many died as a direct result but plenty died/had their lives
ruined as indirect consequenses.

Compared to the scale of those killed every day by coal fired power
stations, its insignificant. Compared to those killed by the tsunami
itself it does not even register on the scale.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mar 24, 3:52*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 24/03/2013 14:54, harry wrote:









On Mar 24, 1:53 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

* harry wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:03 am, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/03/2013 17:08, harry wrote:
Its called learning, its part of doing *anything*.
The problem is the consequenses of that learning process.
Nuclear power has been a succession of broken promises,

Not promises made by the nuclear power industry.

covered up failures and increasingly expensive accidents.

If the japanese choose to spend unnecessary amounts of dosh why is that
anyone's fault but their own. It's another example of a *political*
solution to a non-problem being adopted, and then the nuclear industry
being blamed for the consequences of the "solution".

The more nuclear power station we have, the greater chance
of another accident.

Where no one will die, and no one will be injured. So your point is
*what* precisely?

We are a small crowded island. A Fukushima here would be a calamity.

The nuclear aspect was virtually the same as Three Mile Island, which is
a far better model of what might happen in the UK.

These are supposed to be one in a thousand year disasters.
So that means once we have a thousand reactors we have a disaster
every year?

I see that probability theory is something else you don't understand.
Having 1000 units means that you have 1000 units, each with a 0.001
probability of an event in any one year, not a certainty of one event
every year. A one in 1000 year event does not even mean you will see the
event exactly once in 1000 consecutive years in one unit - the
probability of that is only just over one in three.

...

The Japs will fix up the tsunami damage in ten years or less. *Even
they reckon on forty/fifty years to clear up the radio activity.

Three Mile Island took 14 years to clean up. If Fukushima takes
significantly longer, it will be due to the fear of radiation, rather
than for any demonstrable reason.

Maybe not many died as a direct result but plenty died/had their lives
ruined as indirect consequenses.

Compared to the other consequences of the tsunami, Fukushima was fairly
insignificant. The surprise there was not that there were problems, but,
given how far the design criteria were exceeded, just how little damage
was done to the plant.

How would you feel if you had to move out of your home and loose
everything?

I would expect the British government to act in a similar way to the
Americans. At Three Mile Island, fewer than half the people left the
area, all voluntarily, and, within three weeks, 98% had returned home.

Colin Bignell

Not what has happened at Fukushima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushi...ation_measures