Hackers 'expose global warming con'

[Ardemax]

The wind might not even have a factor, it would spread across the country.

[Accipiter]

and many others.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If they had knowledge of a nuclear power plant, which wouldn't be too hard if they learnt about it.
If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster.
At the top bit, ye? If it did go off lots of people would die? That's what I've been saying

If they had the blueprint of the damned thing, they still wouldn't be able to launch a meltdown of the reactor. A nuclear power plant is not just 15 workers sitting in a room with 1 or 2 guys controlling the rods/safety measures. It would require offices across the country in which it could be shut down safetly, near the site would also be a manual shutdown site - its such a massive and extensive network of safety nets that by you saying it would be that easy for a terrorist to blow one up shows just how George W Bush and Tony Blair have fooled you and many others into believing the west is facing a world war III against islamic terrorism.

"If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster." - YES, nobody is saying it wouldn't be a disaster. What I am saying is that to reach a meltdown in a western nuclear reactor it would be a very, very, very, very, very freakish event with almost nil chance of anything happening.

Cats on rollerblades I say!

no but really, the effects caused by a failure at a nuclear power plant can be dangerous.

radiation isn't like playing in a sandbox, ykno.

Nobody is saying a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be dangerous.

I can expect them to be safe, but with more being built, there is more possibilities than "just that one"

and if one did go off anywhere we could even be effected, like the radiation that blew to scotland and poisoned the grass. even if one was to go off and the wind was in a bad direction for us the radiation could travel the whole country.

Did you know that all across the world there is something called background radiation? - the doses in Wales from the Kiev plant were probably smaller than the radiation which is naturally present in southern England and Europe itself from the rocks.

If you are against nuclear, tell me what your solution is. You have 10 years from now to avert the energy crisis that the United Kingdom is facing - what are you going to do about it?

The wind might not even have a factor, it would spread across the country.

Nobody said it wouldn't. The fact I am disputing is that scare-mongering over the nuclear issue has no backbone or evidence behind it.

[Accipiter]

i know what background radiation is, its basically as powerful as the radiation of the sun that hits us on a rainy day

And telling me myself to find a new way to find an energy source was a bit pathetic i may know about science but i don't pop ideas in my head.

Nobody here is "scare-mongering" over it. Tbf i would give a **** what the country done, aslong as we do well. But the effects of radiation poisoning itself is totally disgusting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i know what background radiation is, its basically as powerful as the radiation of the sun that hits us on a rainy day

And telling me myself to find a new way to find an energy source was a bit pathetic i may know about science but i don't pop ideas in my head.

Nobody here is "scare-mongering" over it. Tbf i would give a **** what the country done, aslong as we do well. But the effects of radiation poisoning itself is totally disgusting.

I can say that, because if you don't agree with nuclear then what is the solution?. Ardemax and yourself are scare-mongering, i'd understand if we had a meltdown every few years then maybe the argument that its dangerous would have some substance, but it doesnt.

[Accipiter]

possibility 50/50 were both arguing pointless done and dusted.

[Ardemax]

If they had the blueprint of the damned thing, they still wouldn't be able to launch a meltdown of the reactor. A nuclear power plant is not just 15 workers sitting in a room with 1 or 2 guys controlling the rods/safety measures. It would require offices across the country in which it could be shut down safetly, near the site would also be a manual shutdown site - its such a massive and extensive network of safety nets that by you saying it would be that easy for a terrorist to blow one up shows just how George W Bush and Tony Blair have fooled you and many others into believing the west is facing a world war III against islamic terrorism.

"If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster." - YES, nobody is saying it wouldn't be a disaster. What I am saying is that to reach a meltdown in a western nuclear reactor it would be a very, very, very, very, very freakish event with almost nil chance of anything happening.



Nobody is saying a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be dangerous.



Did you know that all across the world there is something called background radiation? - the doses in Wales from the Kiev plant were probably smaller than the radiation which is naturally present in southern England and Europe itself from the rocks.

If you are against nuclear, tell me what your solution is. You have 10 years from now to avert the energy crisis that the United Kingdom is facing - what are you going to do about it?



Nobody said it wouldn't. The fact I am disputing is that scare-mongering over the nuclear issue has no backbone or evidence behind it.

What's that got to do with it?

Yeah, i'm saying it will be dangerous because it will, and if we were to debate nuclear energy then it's only fair the point is looked upon

[-:Undertaker:-]

What's that got to do with it?

Yeah, i'm saying it will be dangerous because it will, and if we were to debate nuclear energy then it's only fair the point is looked upon

It has something to do with it because you seem to think that we have terrorists walking around in our streets just waiting for us to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, yet I have explained that it would a) be impossible for a terrorist to cause a meltdown and b) there have been no terrorist attacks on the existing power plants which are due to be decommissioned within years.

On the last point, there isn't a point;- Chernobyl has been explained and we have not had a meltdown in the west, nuclear is safe.

[Ardemax]

It has something to do with it because you seem to think that we have terrorists walking around in our streets just waiting for us to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, yet I have explained that it would a) be impossible for a terrorist to cause a meltdown and b) there have been no terrorist attacks on the existing power plants which are due to be decommissioned within years.

On the last point, there isn't a point;- Chernobyl has been explained and we have not had a meltdown in the west, nuclear is safe.

nuclear is not safe.

just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

if you'd like exampls, i'd be happy to give.

[-:Undertaker:-]

nuclear is not safe.

just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

if you'd like exampls, i'd be happy to give.

Nothing is safe, but to say its a imminent disaster waiting to happen is scare-mongering. We haven't got asteroid defences.. yet an asteroid could hit at any time. Our children go on swings.. but could easily break their neck if they fell off.

The only 'big' examples are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl being the only ever meltdown in history.