and these guys run nuclear power stations....
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: TOG on 7 Dec 2009 07:11 On 7 Dec, 11:46, "Leszek Karlik" <les...(a)hell.pl> wrote: <Snip> > > However, the voters don't care about hard data, they make their > decisions based on emotions. > A truer word was never said.
From: Champ on 7 Dec 2009 07:14 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:46:11 +0100, "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> wrote: >> So cheap it won't be worth metering energy carries with it a legacy of >> death that simply cannot be ignored, even for short term financial gain. > >EVERY form of energy, even the expensive ones, carries with it a legacy >of death that is routinely ignored. Coal energy has much more deaths per >one TWh than nuclear energy. Heck, rooftop solar has more deaths per >TWh than nuclear energy (working at heights is dangerous). Even >wind power has more deaths per TWh than nuclear energy. >However, the voters don't care about hard data, they make their >decisions based on emotions. <applause> -- Champ We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. ZX10R | Hayabusa | GPz750turbo neal at champ dot org dot uk
From: 'Hog on 7 Dec 2009 07:48 Ace wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 23:05:04 -0000, "'Hog" > <sm911SPAM(a)hotmailCHIPS.co.uk> wrote: > >> Wicked Uncle Nigel <wun(a)wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> wrote: > >>> I do love it when Americans call California "Stalinist". >>> >>> It makes me laugh. > > Me too. Especially as it betrays such a woeful ignorance of the > difference between Stalinism and Communism/Socialism, which they think > are all the same thing. Hmm well I wouldn't be splitting hairs between Stalinism and Communism TBF but I guess what the USA really doesn't like is Socialism. Or certain aspects of it. Like us however they have a 2 party system with 2 parties whose agenda is largely internalised. >> I've not heard it before! >> I'm not at all sure what it meant. > > California has one or two laws which are slightly less right-wing and > veering towards what the yanks would call 'liberal' attitudes. It's > one of the reasons that it's the only part of the US I can actually > stand to be in. Eh... I like Washington State, Seattle, Atlanta, Boston and so on > > Sadly, our Palo Alto office has closed down and all functions moved to > South San Francisco. Shame, as PA's a really nice little student town, > and hardly American at all. But SF is a great place to visit? -- 'Hog '06 ST4-S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400 '81 R65 Outfit CO2-A load of hot air
From: 'Hog on 7 Dec 2009 07:49 ogden wrote: > M J Carley wrote: >> In the referenced article, ogden <ogden(a)pre.org> writes: >>> M J Carley wrote: >> >>>> In fairness, Obama is also being called a `socialist' because the >>>> Bush administration did bail out the banks. >>> >>> Post corrected. >> >> Obama supported the bail-out when he was a candidate and he has >> extended it in office. > > Sure, but I was pointing out the hypocrisy. But, and it's a biggie, they let one rather large organisation fall on the sword -- 'Hog '06 ST4-S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400 '81 R65 Outfit CO2-A load of hot air
From: Andy Bonwick on 7 Dec 2009 08:16
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:14:33 -0000, "Doki" <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >"'Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)hotmailCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message >news:hfheam$nqr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Stephen Cowell <stephenleeNOSPAMcowell(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "In the 1990s, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy >>> Authority started to implement plans to >>> decommission, disassemble and clean up both >>> piles; the decommissioning is now partially >>> complete. However, Pile 1 still contains about 15 >>> tonnes (14.76 L/T) of highly unstable uranium >>> fuel, and final completion of the decommissioning >>> is not expected until at least 2037." >>> >>> Out of sight, out of mind, eh? >> >> It keeps people in jobs for life FFS and I'm all for that > >Broken window fallacy. Their jobs for life cost us all. Would you sooner it was just left where it is? I don't really understand your bit about the jobs for life costing us all unless you mean the tax payer is standing the bill. Windscale was built to give us (the UK) nuclear weapons so who else is going to pay fot it? The reality is that we should have nuked Russia when we had a technological lead over them and then we'd have had access to all those natural resources they're now selling us at an inflated price. I suppose it's still an option but the UN might put sanctions on us if we took out Moscow so it's really only useable as a final solution. |