No, not a typo, but the sound made by a pressure group
shooting itself in the foot over the Fukushima incident:
Professor Andy Blowers, chairman of Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (Banng), said the incident was proof nuclear power was too dangerous.
Opportunistic little shit.
But Miriam Lewis, a Maldon district councillor, said: “However Banng tries to dress up its pseudo-intellectual scaremongering intentions, making political gain out of such a tragedy as has occurred in Japan is disgusting. Any interest I may have had in understanding the Banng point of view has just disintegrated.”
Heh! Nice one!
I give you iDave's Big Society bot/troll, commenting at the bottom:
AndyP335, Dedham says...
10:52am Fri 18 Mar 11
A thoughtful post 6079 Smith W. As to your comment, Wormshero, while it seems impossible, a reduction in everyone's power and resource usage is devoutly to be wished. It is clear as day that a major tax on packaging and a weaning off oil dependence are decades overdue - thanks in part to the vested interests of oil and other lobbies. A propos, one happy consequence of the current recession/oil price spike appears to be a slight reduction in unnecessary car journeys, demonstrating what it might be possible to achieve with appropriate "nudges" and incentives. Other than that of course we must invest far more in genuine clean power technologies and other areas with potential. Ultimately, who knows, perhaps fusion power may yet prove possible. What is clear beyond a doubt is that we are as a civilisation unable to manage fission safely.
I don't get how Fukushima shows Nuke Power to be too dangerous.
Magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by a 10m tsunami sweeping the surface clear still = no deaths to radiation [yet clearly, number likely to be <50!]. To be honest, that seems like a pretty damn good example of engineering to me.
There is no security. What if a massive meteorite were to smash into earth? What damage would that do to all our nuclear power stations? They are as safe as they can be.
The 'younger reader' may have to look up this quote re nuclear hazards, from way-back-when;
“More people were killed at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island”.
Round where I cycle, there is a large anti-wind farm campaign. I for one, quite like them. People complain about the efficiency of the wind farms, which reminds me of the early days of motoring where tens of horse power were extracted from 4 or 5 litre engines. Development and competition made them efficient and made them work. I quite like comments such as how they have sucked cows up and in to the blades in some windfarms, looking at the RSBP website far from the scathing anti-wind farm propaganda I was expecting they have a well balanced section discussing them.
I would like to add I am not a mad hippy type!
"...while it seems impossible, a reduction in everyone's power and resource usage is devoutly to be wished."
And if we wish hard enough, we can MAKE it come true!
"Magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by a 10m tsunami sweeping the surface clear still = no deaths to radiation [yet clearly, number likely to be <50!]. To be honest, that seems like a pretty damn good example of engineering to me."
Me too. And Germany's checking of all its power stations seems less like prudence than like hysteria.
"The 'younger reader' may have to look up this quote re nuclear hazards, from way-back-when"
"Development and competition made them efficient and made them work."
They are still dependent on the whims of the weather, though.
Post a Comment