In message <mcjsci-reo12.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
writes
>Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <j60bkdF4o8iU2@mid.individual.net>,
>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> > On 02/02/2022 21:15, charles wrote:
>>
>> > > WHISKY
>>
>>
>> > He was so pissed he thought he was in Dublin.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I'm not the worlds best at spelling quite correct.
>>
>It's not a mis-spelling, whiskey is Irish whiskey, whisky is Scotch
>whisky (though pedants might say it should be just Scotch).
>

So, depending on the context, "whisky" can be a misspelling of "whiskey"
and vice versa.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uaano9BGc6+hFwqF@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk...
> In message <mcjsci-reo12.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> writes
>>Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <j60bkdF4o8iU2@mid.individual.net>,
>>> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>> > On 02/02/2022 21:15, charles wrote:
>>>
>>> > > WHISKY
>>>
>>>
>>> > He was so pissed he thought he was in Dublin.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> I'm not the worlds best at spelling quite correct.
>>>
>>It's not a mis-spelling, whiskey is Irish whiskey, whisky is Scotch
>>whisky (though pedants might say it should be just Scotch).
>>
>
> So, depending on the context, "whisky" can be a misspelling of "whiskey"
> and vice versa.

Correct: it is just as wrong to spell the Irish version "whisky" as it is to
spell the Scottish version "whiskey".

And then we get onto the side-issue of the use of the adjective "Scotch" in
constructions other than whisky, pancakes and mist, when in almost all other
contexts it should be Scottish or Scots. Try teaching that rule to Americans
for whom everything relating to Scotland is "Scotch" ;-)

On 03/02/2022 10:05, NY wrote:
> Correct: it is just as wrong to spell the Irish version "whisky" as it is to
> spell the Scottish version "whiskey".
>
> And then we get onto the side-issue of the use of the adjective "Scotch" in
> constructions other than whisky, pancakes and mist, when in almost all other
> contexts it should be Scottish or Scots. Try teaching that rule to Americans
> for whom everything relating to Scotland is "Scotch"

"Scotch" is a perfectly acceptable *ENGLISH* word for the inhabitants of
North Britain.

We don't try to correct them when they use Scotch dialect words so why
should they try to correct people speaking English?

In article <stg921$iia$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:stf3n2$kni$2@dont-email.me...
> > On 02/02/2022 20:13, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >> The barman with a completely straight face said "I suggest you choose
> >> the cheapest, because after what you have had so far this evening,
> >> they will all taste the same".
> >
> > Very true but get a room full of people who think they are experts and
> > they will probably buy the most expensive that they can afford.

> That brings back memories of going to Dublin with a few work colleagues
> for a meeting the following day. It was a Sunday and the pubs were open,
> something of a novelty because in the UK they'd have been closed at that
> time (this was about 30 years ago). So we "had" to go for a drink, and
> we "had" to compare the three stouts that they had on draught: Guinness,
> Mackeson and Beamish. The first pint was Guinness: very nice, very very
> nice. Mackesons - yes, that was good too, as was the Beamish. But how did
> they compare with the Guinness? Better try that again. By then we'd
> forgotten the Mackeson, so we had to have a comparison point of that, and
> likewise for Beamish. By then we were at the stage of "they're all very
> good - what the hell, how can you ever say one was better than the
> others". It was after that, one our walk back from the pub to the hotel,
> that we saw angels and leprechauns - makes a change from pink elephants.
> Actually, this wasn't alcohol-fuelled hallucinations: the angel was a
> little girl on her way from confirmation class, in a white
> "mini-wedding-dress", and the leprechaun was a lad going (presumably) to
> a fancy-dress party. I have to report now that a stout hangover is just
> as bad as one from any other beer, with the added effect of causing
> black poo.

> As regards "they will all taste the same" for whisk(e)y and wine, that
> reminds me of a Dick Francis novel in which a restaurant was passing off
> cheap blended wine and cheap blended whisky (I think it was Scotch rather
> than Irish whiskey) as the expensive brands by re-bottling it and adding
> suitable labels. The scam worked because most people would have the wine
> with a meal (and maybe they would be smoking, since it was allowed at
> that time) and they'd have the whisky afterwards, and it takes a brave
> person to complain to the manager that the Glenfiddich that they've seen
> the barman dispense from a Glenfiddich bottle didn't taste quite right.

The Chief Steward at the Club bar in BBC TV Centre was sacked for e
watering the beer. Somebody must have noticed.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 03/02/2022 09:15, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
>>
>> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
>
> [snip some preamble]

So let's put it back ...

Fukushima Daiichi Accident

Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power
supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a
nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely
melted in the first three days.

The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and
Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4
to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).

All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage
in the accident – 2719 MWe net.

After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with
water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water
from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was
announced in mid-December.

Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release
of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from
the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.

There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the
nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their
homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the
return of many.

Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths
are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake
or tsunami.

> Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said.

No, you were trying to gloss over it

> No deaths,

"2313"

> and the
> radioactive leakage was contained.

"[...] high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of
some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)."

> ... and the authoritoes (with
> hindsight) overreacted somewhat by evacuating 100000 people.

Possibly, but the incident was far more serious than you were trying to
imply, and I note that you snipped some of the evidence of that in your
reply.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 03/02/2022 08:12, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2022 05:31, williamwright wrote:
>>
>> Presumably I won't be expected to drive when it's my turn to go to the
>> crem. It'll make a pleasant change.
>
> How about this, Bill:
> <https://www.electrive.com/2021/12/01/tesla-hearse-conversion-enters-real-life-operations-in-the-uk/>
>
> You might be a able to leave a recorded message telling it which route
> to take. ;-)

That really would be the ultimate in unwanted back-seat drivers!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/02/2022 09:15, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
> >>
> >> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
>
> >
> > [snip some preamble]
>
> So let's put it back ...
>
> Fukushima Daiichi Accident
>
> Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power
> supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a
> nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely
> melted in the first three days.
>
> The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and
> Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4
> to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
>
> All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage
> in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
>
> After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with
> water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water
> from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was
> announced in mid-December.
>
> Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release
> of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from
> the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
>
> There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the
> nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their
> homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the
> return of many.
>
> Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
> deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths
> are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake
> or tsunami.
>
> > Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said.
>
> No, you were trying to gloss over it
>
There's nothing to gloss over for heavens sake.
` > > No deaths,
>
> "2313"
>
They were **NOT** due to radiation, re-read the above carefully.

> > and the
> > radioactive leakage was contained.
>
> "[...] high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of
> some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)."
>
Which were low enough not to affect anyone, at all.

> > ... and the authoritoes (with
> > hindsight) overreacted somewhat by evacuating 100000 people.
>
> Possibly, but the incident was far more serious than you were trying to
> imply, and I note that you snipped some of the evidence of that in your
> reply.
>
I did mark the snip (or at least I meant to, sorry if I didn't).

--
Chris Green
·

On 03/02/2022 16:04, Chris Green wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/02/2022 09:15, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The World Nuclear Association say rather different:
>>>>
>>>> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
>>>
>>> [snip some preamble]
>>
>> So let's put it back ...
>>
>> Fukushima Daiichi Accident
>>
>> Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power
>> supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a
>> nuclear accident beginning on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely
>> melted in the first three days.
>>
>> The accident was rated level 7 on the International Nuclear and
>> Radiological Event Scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4
>> to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).
>>
>> All four Fukushima Daiichi reactors were written off due to damage
>> in the accident – 2719 MWe net.
>>
>> After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with
>> water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water
>> from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was
>> announced in mid-December.
>>
>> Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release
>> of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from
>> the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.
>>
>> There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the
>> nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their
>> homes as a preventative measure. Government nervousness has delayed the
>> return of many.
>>
>> Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
>> deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths
>> are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake
>> or tsunami.
>>
>>> Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said.
>>
>> No, you were trying to gloss over it
>
> There's nothing to gloss over for heavens sake.
>
>>> No deaths,
>>
>> "2313"
>
> They were **NOT** due to radiation, re-read the above carefully.

They were related to the disaster in the Fukushima area, we are not told
whether or not radiation was directly involved.

>>> and the
>>> radioactive leakage was contained.
>>
>> "[...] high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of
>> some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)."
>
> Which were low enough not to affect anyone, at all.
>
>>> ... and the authoritoes (with
>>> hindsight) overreacted somewhat by evacuating 100000 people.
>>
>> Possibly, but the incident was far more serious than you were trying to
>> imply, and I note that you snipped some of the evidence of that in your
>> reply.
>
> I did mark the snip (or at least I meant to, sorry if I didn't).

I don't think really I have anything to add, the nuclear industry's own
trade body doesn't agree with you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>> No deaths,
> >>
> >> "2313"
> >
> > They were **NOT** due to radiation, re-read the above carefully.
>
> They were related to the disaster in the Fukushima area, we are not told
> whether or not radiation was directly involved.
>
They were, as far as I can understand it, accidents that happened in
the tsunami damaged area in the next few days. I.e. they were car
crashes, accidents with rescue equipment, falling in holes, etc.

Other reports, e.g. this one:-

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/5-years-after-fukushima-by-the-numbers-1.3480914

say there were "0: Deaths or cases of radiation sickness as a result
of radiation exposure at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. "
and I can't really think of any other deaths you could blame on the
power station damage. I suppose there *might* be some deaths
attributable to lack of power.

--
Chris Green
·

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:59:18 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in
<stg921$iia$1@dont-email.me>:

>As regards "they will all taste the same" for whisk(e)y and wine, that
>reminds me of a Dick Francis novel in which a restaurant was passing off
>cheap blended wine and cheap blended whisky (I think it was Scotch rather
>than Irish whiskey) as the expensive brands by re-bottling it and adding
>suitable labels. The scam worked because most people would have the wine
>with a meal (and maybe they would be smoking, since it was allowed at that
>time) and they'd have the whisky afterwards, and it takes a brave person to
>complain to the manager that the Glenfiddich that they've seen the barman
>dispense from a Glenfiddich bottle didn't taste quite right.

Proof.

It was Laphroaig that had been replaced by something else and in the
book he makes the point that anyone who has tasted Laphroaig would know
that what they had been given was not Laphroaig.

As for not complaining, you are probably right about that. Those who
notice and care are more likely to just not go there again.

On 03/02/2022 20:58, Owen Rees wrote:
> It was Laphroaig that had been replaced by something else and in the
> book he makes the point that anyone who has tasted Laphroaig would know
> that what they had been given was not Laphroaig.

One time on Islay the barman gave the boss something like a 25 year old
Laphroaig, I gather it was nothing like the usual stuff so the barman
washed out a miniature bottle and put some in that for him to give to a
friend who was a big fan of Laphroaig. He took some convincing that is
what it was!

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 21:49:07 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote in
<sthikl$qh1$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 03/02/2022 20:58, Owen Rees wrote:
>> It was Laphroaig that had been replaced by something else and in the
>> book he makes the point that anyone who has tasted Laphroaig would know
>> that what they had been given was not Laphroaig.
>
>One time on Islay the barman gave the boss something like a 25 year old
>Laphroaig, I gather it was nothing like the usual stuff so the barman
>washed out a miniature bottle and put some in that for him to give to a
>friend who was a big fan of Laphroaig. He took some convincing that is
>what it was!

I had a bottle of 15 year old Laphroaig once and it was very different
from the usual 10 year old. They stopped producing 15 year old some
years ago and I think they did 18 year old for a while but now there is
a 25 year old as well as various other expressions.

If you were expecting any of the Islay malts but were given something
from some other part of Scotland it would be fairly easy to tell.
Depending on whether or not you like a range of different tastes it
might not matter to get a Springbank instead.

On 03/02/2022 22:43, Owen Rees wrote:
> I had a bottle of 15 year old Laphroaig once and it was very different
> from the usual 10 year old. They stopped producing 15 year old some
> years ago and I think they did 18 year old for a while but now there is
> a 25 year old as well as various other expressions.

I don't think it was available to the public, there are usually specials
made available only to directors etc and this was one.

In article <sthlus$s60$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 03/02/2022 22:43, Owen Rees wrote:
> > I had a bottle of 15 year old Laphroaig once and it was very different
> > from the usual 10 year old. They stopped producing 15 year old some
> > years ago and I think they did 18 year old for a while but now there is
> > a 25 year old as well as various other expressions.

> I don't think it was available to the public, there are usually specials
> made available only to directors etc and this was one.

First distillery I visited. My father knew the owner.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

MB wrote:

> get a room full of people who think they are experts and they will
> probably buy the most expensive that they can afford.

A whisky side-line for Russ andrews?

Java Jive wrote:

>
>     Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths
> among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in
> addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami.

<https://12ft.io/https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b189ea>

"it is becoming increasingly clear, say experts,
that the evacuation, not the nuclear accident itself,
was the most devastating part of the disaster"

p.s. 12ft.io is for paywall avoidance

In article <b7qqci-4q8u1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green
> > <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> > > If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
> > > wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
> >
> > IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
> >
> If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
> is way down in the statistacal 'noise' alongside wind.

However a wind farm may not leave a residual risk for many years after it
has ceased being used. Nor is it likely to be so potentially attractive to
a future terrorist or rogue state as a way to inflict mass harm on others.

Perhaps 9/11 should have been a wake-up call on that. Particularly given
that more than one plane was hijacked at the same time.

One of the worries about fission is that it remains a source of risk long
after the power generation has ceased.

Basically fission is an idea that turned out sour, but now has vested
interests pushing it. Now jumping on climate change as a new 'reason' for
it.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <j604hqF3etvU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:

> > certainly, as with all new technology, there will be problems, but
> > usually there will in time be solutions also.

> I accept that someone has to do some pushing of the envelope, to see
> where the problems are and what the solutions might be ... but what we
> seem to be doing with energy policy is gathering up a bundle of
> material, jumping off a cliff and hoping we can figure out how to make
> a parachute on the way down ...

To a large extent that is a product of the way big fossil has used the
"Tobacco Playbook" to get politicians to keep delaying the changes that are
needed. Many people desperately want to believe there isn't a problem
because facing up to it means action and effort and change.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <steekc$cpk$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part of
> the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.

Snag there is that people have tended to build a "major residential area"
near to estuaries for various reasons.

> Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
> who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.

Alas, people also often fail to understand complexity. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <stem69$1lb$3@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 02/02/2022 17:22, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >
> > On 02/02/2022 12:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>
> >> Hence the demands for dredging, etc, actually can make things worse,
> >> not better.
> >
> > The dredging that hasn't been done but needed to be done is the part
> > of the river from the estuary to the first major residential area.
> >
> > Dredging upstream of the major residential areas is a sign of someone
> > who doesn't understand Queueing Theory.

> That's not my recollection of the Somerset flooding, which I recall as
> being mostly fairly up river. I may still have a programme about it
> somewhere, I'll see if I can find it, and if so, watch it again.

Yes, there has been at least one TV prog about this which showed that the
people who study rivier flows showed that the 'dredge' approach just shifts
the problem unless you rebuild the entire river and its surroundings.
Simply doing what IJJ says doesn't fix the problems further upstream. They
have been enlarged by poor planning which allows houses on flood plains and
changed uses of land that drain the rain more swiftly into the streams and
riviers rather than absorb it and release it more slowly.

Hence the change of tack prompted by the science, but which clashes with
the political drive to wave 'dredging' as a magic bullet as being a process
where the powers-that-be can be seen to be "doing something".

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <f23rci-ivqu1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> Hydro-electric power also has the potential for huge catastrphic
> failures but no one seems to think that hydro-electric is a bad idea.
> Good design is what's needed for all types of power. And, apart from
> Chernobyl, what nuclear power 'disaasters' have had 'widespread
> long-lasting damage'?

Perhaps you could put that question to some who used to live around a
certain ex-reactor complex in Japan.

And the problem is that a lot of the radioactive material tends to have a
very long life. Have a look at the ponds at Sellafield as well, and the
site's poor record in terms of the escape of radioactive material. Now
extrapolate that by a hundreds of years and having many more reactors
around the globe.

Note also that the new build in the UK is already running into problems,
hiking the price and delaying it finishing (if ever!).

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 04/02/2022 09:15, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>      Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related
>> deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related
>> deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the
>> earthquake or tsunami.
>
> <https://12ft.io/https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b189ea>
>
>
>     "it is becoming increasingly clear, say experts,
>     that the evacuation, not the nuclear accident itself,
>     was the most devastating part of the disaster"
>
> p.s. 12ft.io is for paywall avoidance

That's an interesting report, and it's fairly even handed. For example,
while highlighting the deaths caused by the evacuation itself, it also
makes the point that the authorities couldn't really have done anything
else - when you're confronted with the possibility of a major disaster
yet facts are unclear, you have to apply the precautionary principle.
Perhaps, as the article suggests, once the dust had settled and things
became clearer people could have been allowed back sooner.

But also note the resident who said: "There’s absolutely no need for
nuclear power, with just one mistake, terrible things happen." And
those terrible things don't have to be directly caused by radiation,
tragedies indirectly caused by radiation or the fear of it are no less
tragic, and are a legitimate part of the death toll of the event.

Note also that the article is undated, but must be post 2018, this is a
particular gripe of mine about a great deal of online news reporting.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <59b4ed50f3noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <j604hqF3etvU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> > Java Jive wrote:

> > > certainly, as with all new technology, there will be problems,
> > > but usually there will in time be solutions also.

> > I accept that someone has to do some pushing of the envelope, to
> > see where the problems are and what the solutions might be ...
> > but what we seem to be doing with energy policy is gathering up a
> > bundle of material, jumping off a cliff and hoping we can figure
> > out how to make a parachute on the way down ...

> To a large extent that is a product of the way big fossil has used
> the "Tobacco Playbook" to get politicians to keep delaying the
> changes that are needed.

No, there is no problem, it warmed a bit which is a very good thing
in terms of saving human lives. There has been no overall warming for
7 years.

There is no proof at all that CO2 is the cause because it isn't.
Indeed, burning fossil fuels only returns CO2 to where it came from
originally. We are repairing the damage caused by life so that plants
have the food they should have.

0.01% increase in CO2 in the atmos and only 6% of that burning FF has
not changed the climate. In the history of life on earth, CO2 levels
are near the lowest they've ever been.

Even if it were true that CO2 was the cause, even the action barking
mad extremists are insisting we take would only delay CO2 levels by
around 5 years and will do nothing to the weather. Just make us poor
and cold.

We tried netzero in the middle ages, it wasn't good.

> Many people desperately want to believe there isn't a problem

Propaganda and nonsense. A fantasy and religion of the spoilt,
privileged, middle classes who want to ease their guilt.

> because facing up to it means action and effort and change.

There is nothing you can do about it whatever the cause.

Bob.

On 03/02/2022 10:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article<b7qqci-4q8u1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green<cl@isbd.net>
> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article<a9hnci-lf7n1.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green
>>> <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>>> If we had invested in (very clean and very safe) nuclear power we
>>>> wouldn't have such deep gaps to fill.
>>>
>>> IF it had been "very clean and very safe" returns in reality as FALSE.
>>>
>> If you look at the 'deaths per output power' rate for nuclear power it
>> is way down in the statistical 'noise' alongside wind.
>
> However a wind farm may not leave a residual risk for many years after it
> has ceased being used. Nor is it likely to be so potentially attractive to
> a future terrorist or rogue state as a way to inflict mass harm on others.
>
> Perhaps 9/11 should have been a wake-up call on that. Particularly given
> that more than one plane was hijacked at the same time.
>
> One of the worries about fission is that it remains a source of risk long
> after the power generation has ceased.
>
> Basically fission is an idea that turned out sour, but now has vested
> interests pushing it. Now jumping on climate change as a new 'reason' for
> it.
>
> Jim
>
It hasn't turned completely sour, it just needs to be re-thought. As
newly mined stocks run low, reprocessing will become more financially
viable[1]:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

That, coupled with the rising cost of gas and oil, will make it cost
effective over a longer term than is currently assumed.

[1] In that linked item it says that some of the nuclear fuel used in
Russia comes from Ukraine. Yet another reason why Russia might want to
take over their neighbour!

Jim

On 03/02/2022 11:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Hence the change of tack prompted by the science, but which clashes with
> the political drive to wave 'dredging' as a magic bullet as being a process
> where the powers-that-be can be seen to be "doing something".
>
> Jim
>
Dredging isn't a political drive. The agreement to dredge the most
silted up waterways on the Somerset levels was begrudgingly accepted as
a last resort because of the media publicity and the threat by the
residents to vote for "anybody except the sitting MP" unless something
was done. Even so, they didn't dredge for depth, they widened the
watercourse, which was better than nothing but not the best solution.

The best solution would be a barrier like that on the Thames, to block
the inflow of the highest tides. Much of the Somerset Levels is below
the height of a Spring Tide with an onshore wind, and keeping that water
out not only reduces the land that will flood, it will prevent that land
from being poisoned by salt. That type of barrier doesn't come cheap
though.

Jim