https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw

On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 03/05/2014 19:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

I would be more worried about his solar panels...

Solar generated electricity is responsible for 10x the death rate of
nuclear per TWh


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2014 19:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

I would be more worried about his solar panels...

Solar generated electricity is responsible for 10x the death rate of
nuclear per TWh



I expect you have a source to back that up?
Or just something elese you made up?

I know it's a lie because no-one knows the final death toll for nuclear
incidents.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2014 19:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

I would be more worried about his solar panels...

Solar generated electricity is responsible for 10x the death rate of
nuclear per TWh



I expect you have a source to back that up?
Or just something elese you made up?

I know it's a lie because no-one knows the final death toll for nuclear
incidents.

We do actually, because we can see if the death rate
changed in any area that did have a nuclear incident.

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.


A closet nuke fan our Harry?, well I never did!....

Actuality having grown up with the threat of these devices in the
sixties I'd still like to see one go off...

I bet if it wasn't for the fallout someone would be doing that somewhere
as a tourist attraction in the middle of elsewhere;!...

--
Tony Sayer

On 05/05/14 10:44, tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.


A closet nuke fan our Harry?, well I never did!....

Actuality having grown up with the threat of these devices in the
sixties I'd still like to see one go off...

I bet if it wasn't for the fallout someone would be doing that somewhere
as a tourist attraction in the middle of elsewhere;!...

The thing that always strikes me with long hindsight, is actually how
little lingering radiation had any effect at all, and how small the area
of destruction was compared with e.g. Dresden.,

The chief effect of atomic weapons, which was played up to make them
strategically far more effective deterrents than they actually were, was
fear.

Everyone who had them had a vested interest in making them as scary as
possible.

With unfortunate results 70 years on

--
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 05/05/2014 07:30, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2014 19:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

I would be more worried about his solar panels...

Solar generated electricity is responsible for 10x the death rate of
nuclear per TWh



I expect you have a source to back that up?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html

I know it's a lie because no-one knows the final death toll for nuclear
incidents.

Indeed, so to get those figures, they have taken the absolutely worst
case, based upon the linear no threshold model, which is generally
accepted to heavily overestimate the casualty rate. If you take known
and provable deaths, rooftop solar kills 100 x as many per TWh.

Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2014 07:30, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2014 19:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

I would be more worried about his solar panels...

Solar generated electricity is responsible for 10x the death rate of
nuclear per TWh



I expect you have a source to back that up?

Of course - Colin has linked to the source data, but there are other
interesting analysis of them:

http://theenergycollective.com/wille...d-other-causes

http://www.edouardstenger.com/2011/0...energy-source/


Or just something elese you made up?

I know it's a lie because no-one knows the final death toll for nuclear
incidents.

All you can do it make assumptions and take the worst case predictions
based on a methodology (LNT) that we know is wrong and over pessimistic.
If you do that, then nuclear is still far safer than other options.

If you make a more realistic assessment, then its even safer still.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 06/05/2014 01:44, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/05/2014 07:30, harryagain wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 03/05/2014 19:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 03/05/2014 19:41, harryagain wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_o65B1JTiw


Dodgy video of nuclear weapons tests. Waste of bandwidth.

Unless, like harry, you're facinated by nuclear energy, but afraid to
admit it.

I would be more worried about his solar panels...

Solar generated electricity is responsible for 10x the death rate of
nuclear per TWh



I expect you have a source to back that up?

Of course - Colin has linked to the source data, but there are other
interesting analysis of them:

http://theenergycollective.com/wille...d-other-causes


http://www.edouardstenger.com/2011/0...energy-source/



Or just something elese you made up?

I know it's a lie because no-one knows the final death toll for nuclear
incidents.

All you can do it make assumptions and take the worst case predictions
based on a methodology (LNT) that we know is wrong and over pessimistic.
If you do that, then nuclear is still far safer than other options.

If you make a more realistic assessment, then its even safer still.


How about making the same worst case assesment for solar and wind..

a hurrican rips all the UK panels off the roofs and kills 3 million
passers by..

the windturbines all get ripped of their bearings and crash into the
grid lines causing massive fires and country wide blackouts, killing
loads of people in RTCs and those on life support.

Maybe 'arry prefers worst case?

On 06/05/2014 11:37, dennis@home wrote:
....
How about making the same worst case assesment for solar and wind..

a hurrican rips all the UK panels off the roofs and kills 3 million
passers by..

the windturbines all get ripped of their bearings and crash into the
grid lines causing massive fires and country wide blackouts, killing
loads of people in RTCs and those on life support.

Maybe 'arry prefers worst case?

A catastrophic chemical reaction inside the 37 feet of insulation Harry
has fitted, resulting in it expanding to fill the entire house?

Colin Bignell

On 06/05/2014 13:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/05/2014 11:37, dennis@home wrote:
...
How about making the same worst case assesment for solar and wind..

a hurrican rips all the UK panels off the roofs and kills 3 million
passers by..

the windturbines all get ripped of their bearings and crash into the
grid lines causing massive fires and country wide blackouts, killing
loads of people in RTCs and those on life support.

Maybe 'arry prefers worst case?

A catastrophic chemical reaction inside the 37 feet of insulation Harry
has fitted, resulting in it expanding to fill the entire house?

Colin Bignell



Its probably stuff made from wool.. the pesticides in it could make it a
sick building making it unfit for human habitation so only 'arry could
live there.