"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The radioactive contamination by a nuclear station is negligible,
despite
the protestations of the anti-nuclear lobby.

If every power staionin the world was nuclear we would be in big trouble
getting rid of the waste.

Might cost less than trying to get rid of all the CO2 tho.

And even that contamination is
largely caused by irresponsible practices.

The human element. When it breaks down, big, big problems. Best forgot
nuclear as cleaner, lower tech alternatives are around right now.

The biggest single disaters have been caused by other things.

Warped logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. What you are saying is that
the odd nuclear disaster affecting millions of people is acceptable ......
because other disasters have been worse.

Earthquake in Iran, 30,000 dead. Smilar erahquake in San francisco with
modern building regs, 3 dead.

Lets make a nuclear disaster and all join in. The earthquake was a human
failure. They knew it was am earthquake zone.

How many die when monsoons fail, or bangladesh gets flooded (again)
Strong evidnce to link with fossil fuel burning.

Fossil fuel burning can be drastically reduced by simple low tech means.

In short, the Nuclear power scenario stacks up to one or two accidents -
five mile island and chernobyl.

And Windscale in 1958...and others around the world.

Chernobyl was probably no more expensive
than an oil tanker sinking in terms of clean up.

100,000s are suffering long term effects from the fall out.

Fve mile island - I
forget, but it hasn't ruined the country.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004