|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Sep 19, 2008 02:43
> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
> obviously hazardous to human life
Really? How many people have died as a result of the storage of
radioactive material in the UK? Or indeed how many have been injured by
such storage?
Come on Duhg, show us your research skills.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 19, 2008 02:43
"nightjar" wrote:
> The number of people who have died due to a nuclear generation accident in
> the UK in the same period - nil.
html>
Duhg, foot, perforated.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: francisfrancis Date: Sep 19, 2008 05:03
On 19 Sep, 10:43, %%ste...@ malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Doug riseup.net> wrote:>> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
>> obviously hazardous to human life
>
> Really? How many people have died as a result of the storage of
> radioactive material in the UK? Or indeed how many have been injured by
> such storage?
>
> Come on Duhg, show us your research skills.
Obvious init
Francis
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
Author: IanIan Date: Sep 19, 2008 23:46
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Sep 20, 2008 10:56
"Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Z5SdnRBj2Kgx-E7VnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@bt.com...>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message....
>> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for
>> anything to be. However, there are many well-proven methods for
>> assessing risk and it is possible to reduce risk to levels so low
>> that they become insignificant. Do you worry about being struck by
>> lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average of five people every year
>> died due to being struck by lighting, which implies the number struck
>> would have been 50-100. The number of people who have died due to a
>> nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same period - nil.
>>
> In which case, shouldn't lightning be made illegal?
ITYMS Frightful! Why can't something be done about all these potential
killers?
Colin Bignell
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Sep 21, 2008 00:32
On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything to
> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it is
> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. Do
> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average
> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people who
> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
> period - nil.
>
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tony DragonTony Dragon Date: Sep 21, 2008 00:58
Doug wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 09:10, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing is absolutely safe, nor is it theoretically possible for anything to
>> be. However, there are many well-proven methods for assessing risk and it is
>> possible to reduce risk to levels so low that they become insignificant. Do
>> you worry about being struck by lightning? Between 1950 and 1999 an average
>> of five people every year died due to being struck by lighting, which
>> implies the number struck would have been 50-100. The number of people who
>> have died due to a nuclear generation accident in the UK in the same
>> period - nil.
>>
|
| Show full article (2.62Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John WrightJohn Wright Date: Sep 21, 2008 01:16
Doug wrote:
> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for new power
>> stations.
>>
> Nope because carbon capture is unproven
Bollocks.
--
John Wright
"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?
You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John WrightJohn Wright Date: Sep 21, 2008 01:18
Boltar wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:09 am, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>> the capital cost of nuclear plants is high, the generating costs are very
>> low and it is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The only
>> reason we don't have a lot more of it is the similarly ill-informed
>> protesters of an earlier era.
>
> French politicians had the balls to ignore the CND mob and just went
> ahead and built a load of nuclear power stations anyway. Unfortunately
> our ruling classes have yet to grow a pair as they just cave in when
> faced with a bunch of unwashed hippies with placards.
The ultimate result is that the government panics and says "we need new
power stations fast - the only way to do this is for a French company to
do it."
--
John Wright
"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DerekDerek Date: Sep 21, 2008 04:23
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Doug riseup.net>
wrote:
in 1958. *FIFTY* years ago Duhg>
>How can you tell if low level radiation has not caused cancers and if
>radiation is as safe as you try to make out why are such stringent
>precautions taken with it?
I get it, damned if we do ... damned if we don't.
Firstly let me tell you the AEA nuclear weapons plant at Preston was
built on the site of the old ICI Mustard gas factory and in the '50s
was probably contaminated to hell and back with very nasty chemicals.
And incidentally, I worked on the highly effective health safety
monitoring systems there in 1988. .
>Also, the accidental release of large
>amounts of radiation over a very long historical period
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
