OT: Favourite OT Subject - (US) 6 underground nuclear tanks leaking

[Man at B&Q]

Please list the failings of the nuclear *power* industry then compare against other forms of power generation. Which comes out worst?

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

Three mile island was then, this is now. Chernobyl was then, this is now.

QED

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

No one can fail to notice the bias towards intelligent rational viewpoints.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

So, nothing to do with nuclear *power*, or the "nuclear indusrty". We're getting there, gradually.

How do you Sputnik was launched? Why do you think the Russians and American were so keen to develop that launch technology?

MBQ

[Java Jive]

As I've already pointed out, it may or may not be anything to do with nuclear power, as we don't know whether or not the material stored there includes waste from power-production.

It sure as hell is something to do with the nuclear industry.

Well, some of us are.

Rail all you like, it remains a fact that Sputnik was not an ICBM.

As Andy has already correctly pointed out, the launch of Sputnik did create a sort of panic in the west. You failed to notice that I didn't disagree with that.

[Java Jive]

Intelligent rational viewpoints like:

"Its all part of the communist propaganda methodology, first used by the cold war CND.

Think of the scariest thing. Nuclear radiation, climate change, Dead squirrels, paedophiles raping you 2 year old...whatever."

Etc. I do not >

[Java Jive]

Yes.

Chernobyl is still now. AFAIAA it's still a no-go zone to the general public and the local population have not been fully allowed back.

And Fukushima is still now. That's the whole point about nuclear accidents - the potential length of time that the problem might persist afterwards.

But opposite to how you thought.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

The biases have all the hallmarks of plain, old-fashioned bigotry, such as:

:-( Use of derogatory stereotypes

:-( Biased selection of stories, facts, and quoting, especially omission of pertinent facts.

:-( Unscientific reasoning such as non-sequiturs

:-( Frequent resort to ad hominem attacks, particularly when rational argument is defeated.

:-( Attempts to deflect argument away from important issues by concentration on incidental trivia such as posting style, meaning of words, the qualifications of the poster.

Etc.

That is usually achieved by killfiles.

[dennis]

But it only persists because of people like you panicking. Is Hiroshima deserted? Did millions die due to radiation exposure not received in the first month or two like you appear to think will happen?

[Man at B&Q]

So why do you keep harping on about it. No one else said it was an ICBM. If you want to introduce straw men, expect them to be shot down.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

So why did you bring it up?

MBQ

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

I didn't introduce a straw man. What happened is simply that you engaged your typing fingers without either reading the previous thread closely enough, or without thinking, or both.

[Java Jive]

I'm not panicking, but some others are being complacent.

This had been raised before by The Natural Pillock, and was as invalid then as it is now. If you want links and/or more precise facts, search for the previous discussion.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not a valid comparison with a nuclear accident, because both the bombs dropped on Japan were designed so that the radio-activity would tend to dissipate quickly high in the atmosphere, and was sufficiently short-lived to be of little danger by the time it came back down to earth. The destruction and death of the bombs was mostly achieved by the blast, not radio-activity. However, some radio-activity did fall back to earth sooner than expected, due to local rain.

By contrast, by the very nature of they're being accidents, the emissions of nuclear accidents can not be entirely designed, predicted, or controlled away. Chernobyl spewed several tons of long-lived radioactivity over the surrounding countryside, and AFAIAA both Chernobyl and Fukushima are pretty much no-go for the general population, and for some time yet.

[Andy Champ]

Wasn't a straw man. As I said up thread, Sputnik demonstrated ICBM technology. You'll perhaps recall that the USA sent Alan Sheppard up on a Mercury-Redstone system a few years later? And if you dig you'll find that Redstone was a ballistic missile...

Andy

[dennis]

The radioactive products were the same as a reactor produces and the short lived stuff decays just as fast or slow depending on what you want to believe.

Well there's a surprise and to think that very few did from the radioactivity in the years that followed. It doesn't really fit in with the "radiation is really dangerous" theory does it?

Virtually all the long term radioactivity fell back. The persistent heavy stuff fell closer.

Yes Chernobyl spewed several tons of not very radioactive stuff over the local area, remember you can't have a lot of decay and a long life. Along with a lot of short lived highly radioactive stuff.

>

[Man at B&Q]

I think you are confused.

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

Which only confirms that no one said Sputnik was an ICBM. If you can't work out that "demonstrated ICBM technology" referred to the technology of the launch vehicle, then it's you who has the problem, not me.

MBQ

[Java Jive]