Re: yet another major disaster in the fossil fuel industry....13....

On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:10:19 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:04:59 +0100, Maria
<theoldwomanwholivedinashoe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:05:45 +0200, abelard <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:00:39 +0100, "Arden" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9nra531rod5be197869cqvke919g3h1vbg@xxxxxxxxxx


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/24/russia.mine/
"At least 35 miners were dead and three missing after a methane gas

Accidents like this happen all the time, but it will not make any impact
upon the industry.

just so..
imagine the fuss if it had been in the nuclear industry....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_disasters.php


From that page....

!Note carefully that the fuel for nuclear reactors is totally
unsuitable and irrelevant to weapon production.!


If that's true, why the fuss about Iran?

the process is as follows...
enrichment means increasing the percentage of u235 from
the 'natural' level of ~0.7% to sommat like 3-5%.....
bombs need upwards of 90%...but that just means continuing
the enrichment process for longer....
no greater technology is required and monitoring is not

Ok..I get it.

Also, there are some wildly conflicting reports regarding deaths due
to Chernobyl - how do you decide which report to believe?
How can 4000 children with thyroid cancer be dismissed, when it's such
a rare condition?
.

Relevant Pages
Loading