-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/25/07 23:53, Wulfy wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>> but then again, storing it in underground bunkers for >>> thousands of years doesn't appear to be a much better solution. >>> >> >> Sure it does. >> > Oh, yeah. Leave it for later generation to clean up... very much better.
Except, when it's sealed in a mountain, later generation won't see it... >>> The >>> point is that TMI and Chernobyl were accidents. Sellafield isn't. >>> Nuclear policy overrides safety when it's "convenient" - >>> >> >> *Any* policy *always* overrides safety when it's "convenient". If >> you don't know that, you aren't very old. >> > Which is precisely my point. It's always "convenient"... so how can it > be "clean"? Industrial policy and the ability for nuclear power generation to be "safe" are two different topics. One is human, the other is engineering. You are mixing the two. >>> <quote> >>> The Sellafield nuclear installation in north-west England produces vital >>> energy to the people of the United Kingdom. It also produces weapons >>> grade material needed for the production of nuclear weapons. For these >>> reasons, Sellafield is an important facility for the U.K. in terms of >>> domestic and security needs. Although Sellafield provides important >>> services for the people and government of the United Kingdom, it has had >>> a detrimental effect on the environment. >>> </quote> >>> >>> Because it's "important" it's allowed to pollute. And while it "produces >>> vital energy for the UK", it hurts Ireland which has none of the >>> benefits of this facility. >>> >> >> And if this were some industrial plant dumping PCBs or DDT or any >> other weird organic chemical the ocean, how would it be any >> different than a nuke plant? >> > It wouldn't. except perhaps if the toxins didn't last as long as the > nuclear material. I dunno. Some of these chemicals are pretty persistent. But then again, so what if they "only" persist for (picking a random number) 200 years? That's still 200 years of nasty pollution. >>>>> a "Christian" country... >>>>> >>>> Britain is Christian?? Not since 1960, I wager. >>>> >>> We have a State Church... something that you don't have... yet. Though, >>> if your president has his way... >>> >> >> Snarky, baseless, brainless angry-at-W comments don't help your >> credibility. > You mean he isn't trying make your country a theocracy? woohoo! Such a > lot of baseless rumours going about. > > <http://www.theocracywatch.org/> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/books/review/19brink.html?ex=1300424400&en=b418049d5787048d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss> > > <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290373> Oh, like these sites aren't biased out the wazoo... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF4oEgS9HxQb37XmcRArYTAJ4/wGp5GMFh7J3BsRKA7FNxuy5VQwCdEMt0 TeKOixVs0Vknk61Bp4nN/mc= =9Pa5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
