Solar Panels

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mary Fisher" saying something like:

And why not? Caused by the same incompetence, bad training and shoddy workmanship that dogged the nuclear industry for decades.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:43:22 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-

It was the site of the first nuclear power station in the world, which only closed recently. However, most of the electricity was used in the rest of the works.

Not quite, although they were not keen to mention the weapons part of their work.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:03:03 +0000 someone who may be Grimly Curmudgeon wrote this:-

This is no longer the case?

No, they're very distinctly in but like Holy War, because they're fashionable it doesn't mean they're ultimately beneficial. Just as bare midriffs in a Scottish winter will prevail despite the pain.

On 7 Mar 2006 15:39:02 -0600 someone who may be Mr X wrote this:-

If humans manage to switch off the Atlantic Conveyor then it will be too late for people to say to you, "I told you so." While humans only control small amounts of energy that does not mean that the climate is not on a knife edge and so our small changes could have a big effect.

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:35:50 +0000 someone who may be Mike Halmarack wrote this:-

What is interesting is the way the pro-nuclear lobby concentrates on the power stations, at least as far as nuclear is concerned. They don't do this accidentally.

However, in the case of coal the same people are happy to being the deaths of thousands of coal miners into their discussion. The double standards are amusing.

Allowing a little for artistic license, how is it a hoax? Are the facts and figures grossly misrepresented? I'm sure there's a sizeable pro-nuclear lobby who would claim so, but only as convincingly as some of the more fanciful claims of the pro-tobacco lobby.

Humans certainly have a large local effect, that is for sure.

The original reactors did not provide any power. In fact they were cooled by blowing air straight through the piles and up the chimneys. Any radioactive gas produced just vented through to the air.

The follies were added at the insistence of one man and were only effective at catching large particles. Just as well they were there when it caught fire even though they did have to around picking up bits of core for years afterwards.

They built the power station much latter after they had made the weapons.

What double standards? In the UK the number of deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted on your fingers and most of those are in weapons manufacture. The same is not true for the deaths caused by coal and oil.

But tragic.

Mary

You were there?

You'll know, in that case, that no deaths resulted.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:29:13 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-

I know that the two piles did not provide any electricity. However, they were and are not the only things there.

The nuclear weapons were not just made once and then that was that.

The "power stations" at Windscale and Chapelcross were always improved piles, which is why they were always operated by BNFL. Any electricity they generated was a bonus.

The Magnox "power stations" were actually still part bomb making devices, though the electricity was more than a bonus by then. Spent fuel rods from these "power stations" were reprocessed at Windscale alongside spent fuel rods. According to Bellona, who are seldom criticised on their facts though some disagree about their stance, "Over its lifetime, B204 produced a total of 3.6 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium, of which nearly 400 kilograms were produced from fuel from the Windscale reactors in the period 1951-1957; A further three tonnes were produced using fuel from Calder Hall and Chapelcross; and 400 kilograms were produced using fuel from other Magnox plants."

I know some people have extra fingers but that's ridiculous ...

Or are you just referring to *official* figures?

Do you have any evidence to back your conspiracy theory?

I'd say that conspiracy is the central and universal activity of the powerful. That's why it's taboo to mention it.

Surely that should start...

When Americans switch off the Atlantic Conveyor....

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:32:17 GMT someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-

The ones I outlined. The deaths of thousands of coal miners in China is often mentioned by the pro-nuclear lobby. However, they are less keen to mention the deaths of miners in uranium mines, or the thousands of dead from radioactive releases in the Soviet Union (and I suspect that when we find out what has been going on in China in this regard it will be at least as bad as the Soviet Union).

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:42:28 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher" wrote this:-

There were no deaths at Three Mile Island. It was very close to being a disaster, but wasn't. I never refer to it as a disaster, though some do.

The point is that it shows that claims that the "western" nuclear "industry" is so much better than that in the nasty former communist countries is partly, at best, wishful thinking. At worst it is partly a lie.

Examples of incompetence, bad training and shoddy workmanship include allowing radioactive material to escape from cells and falsification of records in Windscale and moving materials in buckets in Japan. The "antis" view of Windscale at the moment is