Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bazzer

  1. ...hah..hah...we are a democracy ...the Queen cannot veto it ...nor can the Government .....it was a referendum in a democracy ......NF will have a role at least for two years after 'A50' has been invoked....it's the other remain MEPs who will have to be dragged out of the trough by the heels, when the day arrives.... :rolleyes:

    It's an advisory referendum. The government can say "thanks for your opinion", and then ignore it if they want.

  2. oh really!? show us proof. on the other hand we know for sure, because they told us, the UK has sent troops and the US is sending a combat battalion to Ukraine. These people desperately want war because the west is bankrupt.


    Quoting ZH which quotes an article from Sputnik news that doesn't seem to exist anywhere else. Though I am aware the UK are sending 75 troops to Kiev to train people I can't find anything about America troops being sent there. I don't see a problem with it either to be honest.

    Regarding Russian troops in Ukraine - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-soldiers-idUSKBN0GS0N120140828

    Also the seperatists seem to have a lot of equipment that Ukraine has never owned, for example the T72-B3. Not only that, but Grads are being fired from Russia into Ukraine - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/17/russia-shelled-ukrainians-from-within-its-own-territory-says-study

    This Minsk agreement will end when the separatists move to take Mariupol in the near future.

  3. supermarket tax

    Some interesting points - I think it could be a vote winner. How far do you go though?

    Perhaps the councils should lower business rates in town centres and provide ample cheap parking. Also, if the local shops stayed open later that would help. It's not much use that they are open when I'm in the office. Shopping on a Saturday is low down on my list of things to do...

  4. Big innovation? Isn't 22nm just putting the transitors closer together therefore for the same area you can cram in more transitors thus per cm3 you get more transitors thus its a bit faster than before? Its not exactly a killer edge tbh.... if you can get similar number crunching speed with a slightly bigger chip. AMD have been playing the bigger chip game for years.

    Your right about the size, however it's a totally new "3d" transistor. That's the interesting part.

  5. Do I think 10,000 people will die from the reactor? My guess (it's all anyone can offer today considering current scientific literature) is that it is more likely to be in the 100s of thousands, over the next 20 years.

    Perhaps your 'guess' is just scaremongering, and perhaps we employ people that know what they are talking about, rather than Daily Mail employees. You've stated 20 years as your "hundreds of thousands of deaths". You realise Chernobyl was 1986. It's 2011 now. I'm sure you can work out the difference. I'm unsure why you want a nuclear disaster. Will you be happy at being right if we have one?

  6. Well, let's keep our fingers crossed that you're right and it doesn't turn into another Chernobyl. I tend to agree that it looks unlikely. At the moment it seems like it is only short lived stuff that is getting out into the environment. But if longer lived stuff gets out it could be more nasty.

    Cleaning it up is going to be awfully messy. I can see that they are going to have to do something about the spent rods before they can encase the reactors in concrete, but I don't see how. Maybe they will cut away the debris with robots or pick as much up as possible with magnets from helicopters, then build some sort of huge crane (a bit like the reactor ones but much bigger) that can go in and grab the rods and transfer them into another pond. That is if the rods aren't partially melted already.

    Cleaning it will be horrible. I did a charity project in Belarus to help with the after effects of Chernobyl incidentally - repairing schools etc. Not an expert on radiation, but I was there at the Ukraine border and I'm still alive ;)

    We all want the same thing. I think we just disagree about how we get there.

  7. You can't look at disasters in the same way as they all have different effects.

    As another poster has pointed out, a nuclear disaster has different impacts to a Tsunami. Is it worth the risk of turning a country into a highly contaminated radioactive zone for 10000 years in order to find out that it is worth spending some money on nuclear safety ?

    To me the problem of the spent fuel rods is exactly the equivalent of the national debt. Extend and pretend. Don't worry about what to do with them in the short term. Keep the profits up so we can get our bonuses. Let our kids deal with the consequences. Someone elses problem.

    I see what you're saying. You're right. I don't want my kids to have to deal with radioactive crap from me. And you're right that we keep passing things down a generation. The problem I have is that there is no problem. There is a tiny amount of radiation, it is not Chernobyl - and even that wasn't that bad. No, I'm not saying we should have a Chernobyl every day, before I have words put in my mouth. I want the fewest casualties possible from any event.

  8. Where have I said there won't be another tsunami? The worst possible case now is that there is another major quake further down the fault line which triggers another tsunami. Imagine what would happen now if this plant gets hit again.

    I was referring to planning for the future, with regards to "tsunami proofing" buildings. Yes, clearly another quake would be bad. I'm sure the plant might suffer consequences. I'm sure that more would die in events unrelated to the plant.

  9. What is '0 people have died today' supposed to mean? We are talking about an ailment that takes years to manifest itself so what exactly are you trying to say?

    Or are you being completely disingenuous?

    No. But you've managed to quote me one something I didn't say. So I ask you the same question. Not wishing to turn this into a numbers argument, but do you think 10,000 will die from the reactor?

  10. People took the risk, Naples is built right next to an active volcano that will erupt again at some point and destroy the City. It's the most densely packed City in Italy and at some point will be wiped out, over a 1m people live here. Are the houses here Volcano proof and able to withstand a pyroclastic flow? Or have people taken a reasonable risk?

    As I stated before you have a problem with stats, at this moment in time 10,000 - 30,000 will die from the Tsunami and that's it, once the final total is in there will be no more deaths credited to the event. Currently with have 0 deaths from radiation from Fukushima if the reactors and spent fuel pools are not contained I don't think this figure will remain a 0. And the problem of the plant is going to remain for thousands of years.

    And as I said before, you're assuming there wont be another tsunami. But you know there will...

  11. I am not sure that is necessarily true. The chances of no-one receiving a fatal dose of radiation might not be that great unless this disaster really is much less dangerous than Chernobyl. Thankfully, the situation is less likely to head for the worst-case scenario with every week that passes, but it clearly is still possible that a substantial amount of radioactive pollution might be released into the sea and maybe also the atmosphere.

    The estimates of fatalities caused by the Chernobyl fallout differ by orders of magnitude, so it would not be easy to convincingly show where is the correct place to spend additional money so as to save the most lives. With the benefit of hindsight we know that a relatively small amount of money spent on off-site storage of spent fuel and on better backup generator redundancy would have helped a lot. I really don't know how that would compare to the benefit obtained by better building regulations or additional sea-walls.

    I suppose the acid test is to ask if the Japanese would prefer just the Fukushima disaster or just the tsunami. I don't know what the answer would be, but doubt the decision is anywhere as obvious as you imply. Even if it is, I am pretty sure you cannot deduce there is no need to make nuclear power any safer.

    You're right of course. The spent fuel issue is a problem. Indeed, it is *the* problem for nuclear plants. Certainly storing it on site seems stupid. It certainly seems like it was ignored in any safety planning. Hopefully fast reactors will solve the problem with spent fuel...

  12. So you're saying that because more people die in Tsunamis we shouldn't be concerned about safety practices at nuclear power stations ?

    I can hear the chat in the nuclear regulators office on Monday morning.

    "You know plant X has got far too many fuel rods stored in the vicinity of the reactor".

    "Who gives a shit ? A guy got run over by a car this morning."

    I am pro nuclear. I think in general people in the nuclear industry do a good job. But nuclear has its dangers and needs to be handled properly. The only way to do this is through constant scrutiny of procedures and diligence. Not by an attitude of "it hasn't killed anyone yet so who cares".

    I don't see anything I have written is hyperbole (maybe you weren't refering to me). But if you think it is please point it out so I can explain.

    I'm simply asking that disasters are looked at the same from both sides. People keep saying that the tsunami was entirely predictable and that the reactors shouldn't be there etc etc. However it's perfectly fine to build houses in the same location without complaint. My comparison was simply that many more people have died from houses being build in a "disaster zone" compared to the power plant. Obviously every life is precious, but to sound slightly callous, there is clearly a cost to saving each live in an area such as this and we should surely be trying to save the most amount of people for the least cost.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.