Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: "Robert Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:18:47 -0000
"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jadro1lr4rdsvi7o7ojcvb0mofc6i69jah@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:49:20 -0000 someone who may be "Robert
> Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote this:-
>
>>> Mind reading again. Some of those who disagree with you have thought
>>> rather a lot about the issues and are reasonably well informed about
>>> them. IIRC such a weapon involves 20kg of plutonium, rather than
>>> 3kg
>>
>>The trouble is most of them are blinkered, have a pre-installed fear, and
>>are pointed in one direction before they even start to consider the
>>matter.
>
> Who, the criminals or those who disagree with you?
What a bloody idiot you are, David, do you actually think this is a matter
of my taking umbrage because someone has the temerity to disagree with me?
You really are a shallow, mean minded, nutter. It is a matter of truth,
reality and statistical fact.
>
> If the latter then your arguments will carry more weight when you
> learn not to make a fool of yourself by making stupid
> assumptions/assertions about anyone who disagrees with you.
So ask yourself just what a fool you have just made of yourself by those
standards you have just quoted.
These show that you regard this debate as a petty little contest between the
those who are for and those who are against nuclear power. The fact is you
have never checked my views on the overall production of electrical power.
This shows that the petty minded person making a fool of themself is you.
The fact is I am not attempting to ban any particular power source but am
showinh the risks of them all and have stated many times that all fuels
carry a risk by the very nature of being a fuel. I do though face the true
facts and place them in the correct order of safety. You don't and further
you cannot accept the truth about the one fuel sources that you wrongly
asses to be the wronguns.
>
>>If you fondly imagine we are going to get by on windmills, hydroelectric
>>and
>>photocells, with or without hydrogen fuels you are living in a fools
>>paradise.
>
> Excellent, more personal insults and assertions. Do keep it up, it
> strengthens the hand of those who disagree with you.
What rubbish! If that's the best you can do you are losing the little petty
contest you seem to think this debate is all about.
If you are insulted then that fact shows you cannot accept the facts as they
really are.
Whether you like it or not the nuclear industry kills and maims less people
per terawatt of power than any other major fuel source.
Your unreasoned fears are akin to the person who will not travel by air due
to a fear of an air crash yet who happily climbs into their motor car every
day.
The facts there too show road, rail and even walking across the street are
far more risky than flying in civilian aircraft.
>
>>Not only that your objections to the nuclear option hold as much
>>water as a busted hydro dam.
>
> Ah, proof by assertion again.
No proof by stone cold fact. You object to nuclear power yet you cannot
justify that objection as a proven fact. The fear of it is not proof of the
things you claim agains it.
Fact the figures for nuclear power deaths are most often inflated and are
wrong. The death rate per terawatts of power for every other major fuel show
they kill more people every year. The figures show that every other major
fuel causes greater environmental damage and has greater potential to do so.
Furthermore the claims of increasing the World's radioactivity are
ludicrous. You don't need a scientific education to realise any action, or
reaction, that adds particles to a substance has to take those from another
substance for things do not suddenly spontaniously come into being. Ergo,
for every enrichment there must be an exact and corresponding depletion and
the total remains the same. Believe anything else and you prove you did not
understand what you were taught by your much lauded University education.
>
> Would this be my objections to nuclear power, or your distortion of
> them which appears to be "informed" by reading my mind?
No it would be the things you have stated and your propensity to see a
debate as a contest rather than an attempt to reach the truth.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Let's try straight questions for you.
Can an action, or reaction, of any kind produce more out than it puts in?
Does more conventional fuel kill actually kill more people per terawatt of
power generated than nuclear or not?
Is there any major fuel that has no environmental impact?
Will the effects of heavy metal pollution be less of an impact on a given
area than radioactive contamination?
Will heavy metals remove themselves from an area in a few years?
Is it easier to find, and thus remove, radioactive particles or heavy metal?
Will PCBs go away by themselves and are they more or less dangerous than
radioactive particles?
It is questions like these that should decide the result of this debate and
all your petty little accusation will not change that fact. It is not a
competition of debating prowess but a quest for the real truth. Answer the
questions and stop bleating.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
.
- References:
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Prev by Date: 16 photographs by al-Farrob
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
