Mxsmanic wrote:
    > [email protected] writes:
    > > How? You're the guy who "never asks for proof", remember?
    > I'm not asking for proof of anything, but merely clarification.

The facts as stated in your posting were incorrect, as a minute's
Googling would show. Clear enough?

G;

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] writes:
    >> Wrong.
    > Show the error.

Stop the forced teaming.

On 18 Sep 2005 07:00:28 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> [email protected] writes:
    >> > How? You're the guy who "never asks for proof", remember?
    >> I'm not asking for proof of anything, but merely clarification.
    >The facts as stated in your posting were incorrect, as a minute's
    >Googling would show. Clear enough?

another promising bit of research goes in the bin?
--
Martin

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:12:56 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> Time to do a bit of research? The Calder Hall power plant is located
    >> on the Sellafield site, formerly known as Windscale.
    >I have done research. The Windscale accident occurred in a reactor
    >(Pile 1) used to synthesize plutonium for weapons use. It was not a
    >reactor used to generate electricity. The design of the reactor was
    >dramatically different from designs used for nuclear power-plant
    >reactors. There was no containment building. The reactor was not
    >designed to produce heat. It was just a graphite pile essentially
    >unprotected with fans on one side and a big filter on the other that
    >led to an exhaust stack. Nothing at all to do with power-plant
    >reactors. About the only thing the two types of reactors had in
    >common was that both depended on nuclear reactions to fulfill their
    >respective purposes.

Calder Hall has been dribbling radioactive stuff into the Irish Sea
since day one
--
Martin

Martin writes:

    > Calder Hall has been dribbling radioactive stuff into the Irish Sea
    > since day one

The Windscale accident did not involve Calder Hall.

Most fossil-fuel plants pump radioactivity into the air continuously.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[email protected] writes:

    > The facts as stated in your posting were incorrect, as a minute's
    > Googling would show.

Which facts?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:00:02 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Martin writes:
    >> Calder Hall has been dribbling radioactive stuff into the Irish Sea
    >> since day one
    >The Windscale accident did not involve Calder Hall.

Nobody except you has mentioned the Windscale accident.

You claimed that
a) Nuclear power was clean
b) Somebody gave Windscale as an example of lack of clean.
c) Calder Hall was part of Windscale and never has been clean
d) Do a bit of real research in future.

    >Most fossil-fuel plants pump radioactivity into the air continuously.

and when you burn fossil fuel to produce electricity to power eco
friendly trains, radioactivity is released along with all the other
nasty substances. How much CO2 has been released in making the
concrete for the eco friendly HSL?


--
Martin

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:00:22 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> The facts as stated in your posting were incorrect, as a minute's
    >> Googling would show.
    >Which facts?

If you can't remember anything, seek medical treatment or a place in
sheltered accommodation.
--
Martin

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > [email protected] writes:
    > > The facts as stated in your posting were incorrect, as a minute's
    > > Googling would show.
    >
    > Which facts?

The ones you stated.

G;

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Martin writes:
    > > Calder Hall has been dribbling radioactive stuff into the Irish Sea
    > > since day one
    >
    > The Windscale accident did not involve Calder Hall.

So?

G;

On 18 Sep 2005 11:36:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> [email protected] writes:
    >> > The facts as stated in your posting were incorrect, as a minute's
    >> > Googling would show.
    >>
    >> Which facts?
    >The ones you stated.

You could a have better discussion with a baboon.
--
Martin

On 18 Sep 2005 11:37:35 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >Mxsmanic wrote:
    >> Martin writes:
    >> > Calder Hall has been dribbling radioactive stuff into the Irish Sea
    >> > since day one
    >>
    >> The Windscale accident did not involve Calder Hall.
    >So?

Is he smoking exotic substances?
--
Martin

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:21:12 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:00:02 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >>Martin writes:
    >>> Calder Hall has been dribbling radioactive stuff into the Irish Sea
    >>> since day one
    >>The Windscale accident did not involve Calder Hall.
    >Nobody except you has mentioned the Windscale accident.
    >You claimed that
    >a) Nuclear power was clean
    >b) Somebody gave Windscale as an example of lack of clean.
    >c) Calder Hall was part of Windscale and never has been clean
    >d) Do a bit of real research in future.
    >>Most fossil-fuel plants pump radioactivity into the air continuously.
[----]
Been looking at my Pollution Over Central Paris meter .......an
alarming amount of hot air and a serious build-up of static
electricity.

The Bovine Excrementometer keeps dipping into the red.



Keith, Bristol, UK

DE-MUNG for email replies

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:30:55 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:52:18 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
    >wrote:
    >>Martin writes:
    >>> and the occasional disastrous train crash as has been proved.
    >>Most crashes are the result of human error, not a lack of maintenance
    >>or other mechanical failure.
    >The human error was not to do maintenance in UK.

In the case of Hatfield and Potters Bar, where a backlog of
*infrastructure* maintenance was allowed to accumulate. A massive
programme of maintenance was embarked apon following the Hatfield
crash.

Most other crashes were due to human error.

    >>> What about all the non-green energy used?
    >>What about it? The energy can come from anywhere. And if it were not
    >>used to power trains, a lot more would be required to power other
    >>forms of transportation.
    >The claim was that it was ecologically friendly.

They at least have the potential to be, as electricity can be
generated in a variety of ways. Additionally, they take the pollution
away from the point of use, usually where people don't have to breathe
in the fumes.

Martin writes:

    > Nobody except you has mentioned the Windscale accident.

Windscale was mentioned in
<[email protected]. com>.

I responded to that.

    > You claimed that
    > a) Nuclear power was clean

Nuclear power is indeed clean, compared to generation methods that use
fossil fuels.

    > b) Somebody gave Windscale as an example of lack of clean.

Somebody cited Chernobyl, Windscale, and TMI in the same sentence.
All are known for their accidents. But only TMI was operating as a
power-generation facility at the time of its accident, as I recall.
Chernobyl generated power but the accident occurred during an
ill-advised test. Windscale was a plutonium-production pile and had
nothing to do with power generation.

    > c) Calder Hall was part of Windscale and never has been clean

If Calder Hall was the facility in question, why name Windscale?

    > and when you burn fossil fuel to produce electricity to power eco
    > friendly trains, radioactivity is released along with all the other
    > nasty substances.

Yes. When you generate electricity with nuclear plants, nothing is
released, except heat.

    > How much CO2 has been released in making the
    > concrete for the eco friendly HSL?

I don't know anything about the eco-friendly HSL.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.