Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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...
>>> 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
You are mixing the two.
>>> 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.
>>> 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
> You mean he isn't trying make your country a theocracy? woohoo! Such a
> lot of baseless rumours going about.
Oh, like these sites aren't biased out the wazoo...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----