Haiti
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 84 GPz750 Turbo
Next: Ping: Vass
From: Mick Whittingham on 18 Jan 2010 14:16 In article <4b54ae55$0$2482$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk>, 'Hog <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes >Mick Whittingham wrote: >> In article <4b54a064$0$2537$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk>, 'Hog >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes >>> crn(a)NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote: >>>> DozynSleepy <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" >>>>> test. Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered >>>>> station at the end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate >>>>> dirtiness, nuclear because of it's long term dirtiness. >>>> >>>> Coal power stations emit more radioactive fallout than nuclear >>>> stations. Surprising but true. >>> >>> I don't tell people that any more because they don't believe it. Though >>> it is true enough. >>> >> I tried telling an anti nuclear, pro coal power station guy that in my >> old pub in Kent. He just fell about laughing in disbelief. >> >> He went very quiet when I brought in some data of the net the next >> night. > >I've never met a Pro Coal power advocate. Thank ged. > Kent had lots of coal mines producing high grade 'Steam Coal'. His was a mining family. His point was we are sitting on thousands of tons of the stuff why not use it. -- Mick Whittingham 'and I will make it a felony to drink small beer.' William Shakespeare, Henry VI part 2.
From: Andy Bonwick on 18 Jan 2010 14:54 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:13:57 +0000, DozynSleepy <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: >Leszek Karlik wrote: >snip >> >> I know, facts only stand in the way of a good emotional outcry. >> "Think of the Chernobyls, we're all gonna die, aaaeeieieie!" >> >> Sigh. >> > >Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" test. >Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered station at the >end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate dirtiness, nuclear >because of it's long term dirtiness. The trouble with nuclear power plants is that you're relying on skilled engineers operating the plant and in a lot of cases they're running minutes away from a disaster. I love nuclear power but I wouldn't live within 50 miles of it unless I really had no choice.
From: Andy Bonwick on 18 Jan 2010 14:59 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:48:24 +0000, Mick Whittingham <Mick(a)whittinghamsite.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >In article <4b54a064$0$2537$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk>, 'Hog ><sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes >>crn(a)NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote: >>> DozynSleepy <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" test. >>>> Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered station at the >>>> end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate dirtiness, nuclear >>>> because of it's long term dirtiness. >>> >>> Coal power stations emit more radioactive fallout than nuclear >>> stations. Surprising but true. >> >>I don't tell people that any more because they don't believe it. Though it >>is true enough. >> >I tried telling an anti nuclear, pro coal power station guy that in my >old pub in Kent. He just fell about laughing in disbelief. > >He went very quiet when I brought in some data of the net the next >night. Give me a nice big coal fired station in the vicinity and I'll look on it as a good earner for the future, give me a nice big nuke and I'll have the for sale signs up as quick as a flash then take the money from a distance.
From: Andy Bonwick on 18 Jan 2010 15:01 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:54:14 -0000, "'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Mick Whittingham wrote: >> In article <4b54a064$0$2537$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk>, 'Hog >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes >>> crn(a)NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote: >>>> DozynSleepy <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" >>>>> test. Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered >>>>> station at the end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate >>>>> dirtiness, nuclear because of it's long term dirtiness. >>>> >>>> Coal power stations emit more radioactive fallout than nuclear >>>> stations. Surprising but true. >>> >>> I don't tell people that any more because they don't believe it. Though >>> it is true enough. >>> >> I tried telling an anti nuclear, pro coal power station guy that in my >> old pub in Kent. He just fell about laughing in disbelief. >> >> He went very quiet when I brought in some data of the net the next >> night. > >I've never met a Pro Coal power advocate. Thank ged. <waves> Do you sleep well at night knowing you agree with Mick and crn?
From: 'Hog on 18 Jan 2010 15:34
Andy Bonwick wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:48:24 +0000, Mick Whittingham > <Mick(a)whittinghamsite.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> In article <4b54a064$0$2537$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk>, 'Hog >> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> writes >>> crn(a)NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote: >>>> DozynSleepy <DozynSleepy(a)ireallymeannospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Stuff really has to pass the "would I have it in my back yard" >>>>> test. Don't suppose I would like a coal *or* nuclear powered >>>>> station at the end of my street. Coal because of it's immediate >>>>> dirtiness, nuclear because of it's long term dirtiness. >>>> >>>> Coal power stations emit more radioactive fallout than nuclear >>>> stations. Surprising but true. >>> >>> I don't tell people that any more because they don't believe it. >>> Though it is true enough. >>> >> I tried telling an anti nuclear, pro coal power station guy that in >> my old pub in Kent. He just fell about laughing in disbelief. >> >> He went very quiet when I brought in some data of the net the next >> night. > > Give me a nice big coal fired station in the vicinity and I'll look on > it as a good earner for the future, give me a nice big nuke and I'll > have the for sale signs up as quick as a flash then take the money > from a distance. No accounting for the irrational nature of the great British public. -- Hog |