From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:34:08 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
<dyls(a)> wrote:

>Chernobyl is a huge red herring

certainly huge. The various Sellafield leaks and cancer clusters were
much milder but the two together do not remain the only contamination
issues there have been. Not to mention waste. I think we will continue
nuclear as a least worst option.
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Ian Smith on
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, ash <ash.filmer(a)> wrote:

> Nuclear is not a viable solution because those countries who have
> it don't want those who don't have it to acquire it due to the
> potential to build weapons with the fuel.

Not really. Weapons grade material is rather different to civil fuel
(assuming that you're not talking about depleted uranium as a
penetrator / sabot).

> There is also the problem the only way that nuclear is a viable
> proposition financially is that the electricity generation plants
> are subsidised by the weapons industry.

Not really. Civil power plants and military production facilities are
increasingly easy to tell apart. _Development_ of nuclear power _was_
only viable with the military spend behind it, but an efficient civil
plant is now not much use to someone wanting to build a nuclear bomb.

> There is also the issue of safety - are you old enough to remember the
> events surrounding the meltdown of Chernobyl as I remember it well.
> There is no such thing as a 'safe' dose of radioactive contamination.

Presumably you sleep in a lead-lined coffin all day and only come out
at night, in order to avoid the radiation falling from the sky?

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
From: boltar2003 on
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:19:35 +0100
ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:58:11 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)
>>And we probably would have done if
>>it hadn't been for loud mouthed but tiny brained right-on dole scroungers
>>and out of work students looking for a cause protesting about anything with
>>"nuclear" in the title.
>more to the point, uranium is finite and we do not have any. Theres a

Sure , but with nuclear reprocessing you can make even what we do have in
the country now last for decades since fuel rods arn't expired because of
lack of uranium but because of reaction poisons. But , thanks to hippy fuckwits
reprocessing is frowned on too.


From: Nick Finnigan on
ash wrote:
> BNF went bankrupt twice in the last 5 years and had to be bailed out
> for about �1/2 billion last time before being given away to the
> French.

Do you mean British Energy?
From: Jim A on
On 04/27/2010 09:24 AM, ash wrote:

> If the cyclist is a Vegan and buys any food from supermarkets in the
> UK, then I'd say that they are responsible for a substantial amount of
> fossil fuel being burnt to grow and transport their foodstuffs -
> especially greenhouse grown tomato's/peppers etc

I'm growing my own tomatoes this year :-)

-- - enjoy the ride