http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090821

Belgians keep old/unsafe reactors running.
Krauts/Dutch don't like it.

I suppose the Belgians can't afford the decommissioning cost?

Even in the 80s people on the channel islands were complaining about the
French reactor right out on the end of a bit of land miles from anywhere
which, if it had an accident the prevailing winds would cover them in
radioactive fallout. Kind of French Nimby.
As for Belgium, if they reall are in a bad way, I'd have expected their
neighbours to take them to court over it. Surely if that were the case it
would make more sense to colaborate on the costs of dealing with it safely?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090821

Belgians keep old/unsafe reactors running.
Krauts/Dutch don't like it.

I suppose the Belgians can't afford the decommissioning cost?

On 4/20/2016 4:38 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090821

Belgians keep old/unsafe reactors running.
Krauts/Dutch don't like it.

I suppose the Belgians can't afford the decommissioning cost?


Just politics. Nothing new there.

harry wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090821

Belgians keep old/unsafe reactors running.
Krauts/Dutch don't like it.

I suppose the Belgians can't afford the decommissioning cost?

Or they have enough of a clue to realise that they are perfectly safe.

Brian Gaff wrote

Even in the 80s people on the channel islands were complaining about the
French reactor right out on the end of a bit of land miles from anywhere
which, if it had an accident the prevailing winds would cover them in
radioactive fallout. Kind of French Nimby.

Nothing like French Nimby. They do in fact have the absolute vast
bulk of their nukes in major population centers with not a murmur
from the locals who are quite happy to swim in what they use for
the cooling towers water wise.

As for Belgium, if they reall are in a bad way, I'd have expected their
neighbours to take them to court over it. Surely if that were the case it
would make more sense to colaborate on the costs of dealing with it
safely?

There are no costs involved, they are perfectly safe.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36090821

Belgians keep old/unsafe reactors running.
Krauts/Dutch don't like it.

I suppose the Belgians can't afford the decommissioning cost?

On 20/04/16 19:50, Brian Gaff wrote:
which, if it had an accident the prevailing winds would cover them in
radioactive fallout.

Why do you think that massive radiation release would be the result of
any 'accident'?

TMI had a complete core meltdown and produced no significant external
radiation.




--
€œSome people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of €¨an airplane.€�

Dennis Miller

On Thursday, 21 April 2016 10:09:28 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/04/16 19:50, Brian Gaff wrote:
which, if it had an accident the prevailing winds would cover them in
radioactive fallout.

Why do you think that massive radiation release would be the result of
any 'accident'?

TMI had a complete core meltdown and produced no significant external
radiation.


It seems to have the Germans and Dutch worried.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 April 2016 10:09:28 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/04/16 19:50, Brian Gaff wrote:
which, if it had an accident the prevailing winds would cover them in
radioactive fallout.

Why do you think that massive radiation release would be the result of
any 'accident'?

TMI had a complete core meltdown and produced no significant external
radiation.


It seems to have the Germans and Dutch worried.

The krauts are terminal ****wits and the pseudo krauts arent any better.

The frogs clearly aren't wetting their pants.