[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Hash: SHA1

On 02/25/07 23:53, Wulfy wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> 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

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...

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: