(D.P.Round) wrote in message ...
Theres a simple solution: Nuclear power. Of course thanks to witless "greens"
there won't be anymore built and we'll rely incresingly on fossil fuels now
but it would be the solution (unlike renewables with are unreliable).

You want to live down the road from Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? One
mistake leaving vast tracts of land uninhabitable for tens of thousands
of years? If you could guarantee no mistakes then nuclear is arguably

You mean unlike the burning oilfields in Iraq that have efftively poisoned an
entire dsert area? UNlike all the oiltankers that spill their contents on
beaches etc? And a nuclear accident may leave a small area uninhabitable
but the green house effect from burning fossil fuels is in danger of making
the whole damn planet uninhabitable! Which would you prefer? And as for 3
mile island and chernobyl , they both used old fashioned designs that didn't
account for people cocking things up. If you want a better example look to
france which generates the majority of its power from nuclear. When did they
last have an accident?

good. Factor humans into the equation and it won't get my vote, ever!
Humans are reliably incompetent! I really don't think people as a whole
get the possible *scale* of nuclear accidents.

You're right , they don't, because people like you make it out to be far
worse than it is and given I know someone who used to live not far from
Prypiat (the town near chernobyl) I think I have a rough idea of what I'm
talking about.

And what if Al Quada (sp) drop an airliner on a nuclear plant? That would
make 9/11 look like a minor mishap.

WHy? You think a few tons of jet fuel will make the reactor go critical?
Wow , maybe someone should have told those guys developing the first nuclear
bombs so they could have saved themselves 5 years research. They could have
just chucked some petrol over a lump of uranium and lit it! Aside from that
the reactor vessels and built bloody strong.

HOw about you find out some facts before you spout the pig-ignorant green
party line?

B2003


David

You want to live down the road from Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? One
mistake leaving vast tracts of land uninhabitable for tens of thousands
of years? If you could guarantee no mistakes then nuclear is arguably

You mean unlike the burning oilfields in Iraq that have efftively poisoned an
entire dsert area? UNlike all the oiltankers that spill their contents on
beaches etc? And a nuclear accident may leave a small area uninhabitable

A small area the size of Switzerland? Sure Oil is crap too. Coal is a bit
better in some ways, at least a spill is no big deal. Knock a windmill
down though and you have a fallen down windmill. That is where renewables
really score in my book. And to be truely nasty the poluted are is in
Iraq not here and is *desert*. NIMBY I know but the nukes are here.
Anyway that was enemy action, no doubt they would have tried to blow
up any handy nuclear power stations too. Thankfully there weren't any.

but the green house effect from burning fossil fuels is in danger of making
the whole damn planet uninhabitable! Which would you prefer? And as for 3

Neither. Use less is the only solution. Perfectly achievable.

mile island and chernobyl , they both used old fashioned designs that didn't
account for people cocking things up. If you want a better example look to
france which generates the majority of its power from nuclear. When did they
last have an accident?

Thank God. They are far closer. They only have to have one though and
probability says it *will* happen. I think the UK probability is currently
calculated at 1/1000years (maybe 10,000). 'A' level physics textbook -
can't remember the title. Given the consequences those
odds are nowhere near long enough for me. To be useful we need 10 times the
number of stations, which is 10 times the probability of a major accident.
Not good.

good. Factor humans into the equation and it won't get my vote, ever!
Humans are reliably incompetent! I really don't think people as a whole
get the possible *scale* of nuclear accidents.

You're right , they don't, because people like you make it out to be far
worse than it is and given I know someone who used to live not far from
Prypiat (the town near chernobyl) I think I have a rough idea of what I'm
talking about.

25,000 of the cleanup workers alone dead. How bad do you want?

And what if Al Quada (sp) drop an airliner on a nuclear plant? That would
make 9/11 look like a minor mishap.

WHy? You think a few tons of jet fuel will make the reactor go critical?

No. I know what makes a nuke tick. All it has to do is breach the
containment to cause a major incident. Factor in that the control systems
will not have long to shut down before they likely fail and who knows?
Bet your life? Al Quada are taking terrorism out of the box we know.
A lot of scenarios have not been evaluated.

HOw about you find out some facts before you spout the pig-ignorant green
party line?

I am not ignorant. I can't be bothered to justify that. You have
presented no facts of figures at all. Only opinion. Show me some
better *facts* and I will read them. Failing that I must ignore
you, that is science.

I am not in the green party but I am not a fool.

David

--
****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 *****
*****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)*****
***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling**************

D.P.Round wrote:

And what if Al Quada (sp) drop an airliner on a nuclear plant? That
would make 9/11 look like a minor mishap.

WHy? You think a few tons of jet fuel will make the reactor go
critical?

No. I know what makes a nuke tick. All it has to do is breach the
containment to cause a major incident. Factor in that the control
systems will not have long to shut down before they likely fail and
who knows?

I'm sure one of the world's largest economies can run to a couple of air
defence batteries and a few squaddies to stop that kind of business.

Bet your life? Al Quada are taking terrorism out of the box we know.
A lot of scenarios have not been evaluated.

I'll believe that only when there's a bloke with a shemagh on his head
waving an AK47 through my letterbox. The IRA, on the other hand, have almost
certainly got semtex and blokes in the country.

PS: Could you please learn to attribute the quoted text in your replies? You
are supposed to be some kind of Unix beard after all.

In article , "Doki" writes:

D.P.Round wrote:

And what if Al Quada (sp) drop an airliner on a nuclear plant? That
would make 9/11 look like a minor mishap.

WHy? You think a few tons of jet fuel will make the reactor go
critical?

No. I know what makes a nuke tick. All it has to do is breach the
containment to cause a major incident. Factor in that the control
systems will not have long to shut down before they likely fail and
who knows?

I'm sure one of the world's largest economies can run to a couple of air
defence batteries and a few squaddies to stop that kind of business.

It could be done but the whole of the 9/11 disaster was allowed to happen
because nobody had considered the possible implications of doing something
so alien to a westerner. Has anybody done it now? I'd like to think so.

It shocked me that they didn't know where the aircraft were on 9/11. I'd
expected the military to track everything. Perhaps they pay more attention
now?


Bet your life? Al Quada are taking terrorism out of the box we know.
A lot of scenarios have not been evaluated.

I'll believe that only when there's a bloke with a shemagh on his head
waving an AK47 through my letterbox. The IRA, on the other hand, have almost
certainly got semtex and blokes in the country.


The American's had the same problem. No doubt the IRA's skills and resources
have a price.

PS: Could you please learn to attribute the quoted text in your replies? You
are supposed to be some kind of Unix beard after all.

Especially for you

I really should stop using this ancient news reader. Still it has served
me well for 15 or so years - old dog new tricks and all that.

David

--
****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 *****
*****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)*****
***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling**************

I'll believe that only when there's a bloke with a shemagh on his head
waving an AK47 through my letterbox. The IRA, on the other hand, have
almost
certainly got semtex and blokes in the country.

NO Irish terrorist would touch a nuclear power station because it would also
hurt Ireland

Apparently on date Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:04:43 +0000 (UTC),
(D.P.Round) said:

You want to live down the road from Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? One
mistake leaving vast tracts of land uninhabitable for tens of thousands
of years? If you could guarantee no mistakes then nuclear is arguably

You mean unlike the burning oilfields in Iraq that have efftively poisoned an
entire dsert area? UNlike all the oiltankers that spill their contents on
beaches etc? And a nuclear accident may leave a small area uninhabitable

A small area the size of Switzerland?

More like the size of Slough, which, arguably...

Here's a website from someone who regularly motors past the reactor at
Chernobyl: http://pixelito.reference.be

And what if Al Quada (sp) drop an airliner on a nuclear plant? That
would
make 9/11 look like a minor mishap.

WHy? You think a few tons of jet fuel will make the reactor go critical?
Wow , maybe someone should have told those guys developing the first
nuclear
bombs so they could have saved themselves 5 years research. They could
have
just chucked some petrol over a lump of uranium and lit it! Aside from
that
the reactor vessels and built bloody strong.


Not only that but Nuclear reactors (in the West anyway) have always been
constructed so as to withstand an "airliner drop" on them.

In article , "JB" writes:



And what if Al Quada (sp) drop an airliner on a nuclear plant? That
would
make 9/11 look like a minor mishap.

WHy? You think a few tons of jet fuel will make the reactor go critical?
Wow , maybe someone should have told those guys developing the first
nuclear
bombs so they could have saved themselves 5 years research. They could
have
just chucked some petrol over a lump of uranium and lit it! Aside from
that
the reactor vessels and built bloody strong.


Not only that but Nuclear reactors (in the West anyway) have always been
constructed so as to withstand an "airliner drop" on them.


Hopefully they have been more thorough than the designers of the twin
towers that were also supposed to withstand an airliner IIRC. The heat
of the fuel fire weakened the steelwork leading to their collapse
despite withstanding the initial impact as designed. A similar
problem may occur with Nuclear reactors.

David

--
****** David Round - EMail Tel (01248) 382416 *****
*****These are my own views, I represent nobody (Well maybe myself)*****
***********I guarantee nothing - Particularly the spelling**************

D.P.Round wrote:

Hopefully they have been more thorough than the designers of the twin
towers that were also supposed to withstand an airliner IIRC. The heat
of the fuel fire weakened the steelwork leading to their collapse
despite withstanding the initial impact as designed. A similar
problem may occur with Nuclear reactors.

Twin towers were designed to *easily* take the impact of a loaded 707 - the
most widely used airliner at the time they were built.

In message , D.P.Round
writes

Hopefully they have been more thorough than the designers of the twin
towers that were also supposed to withstand an airliner IIRC. The heat
of the fuel fire weakened the steelwork leading to their collapse
despite withstanding the initial impact as designed. A similar problem
may occur with Nuclear reactors.
But the twin towers did survive the initial impact, there was a program
on the collapse some time ago. It showed the cause to be the internal
layout which caused the building to act as funnels increasing the
intensity of the flames at critical parts, and as the internals started
to collapse the rest of the building was pulled down. It was also
stated that because of the design it couldn't have happened to the
Empire State building.
--
Clive