Considering all this discussion re:Nuclear - I found it interesting that this article should appear in my Inbox today from ZD Net:
http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=760484817-307d8f4320a123b1f9ac52e010e3590c- bf&brand=ZDNET&s=5 -K- -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul McNett Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:50 PM On 3/29/11 8:17 AM, Alan Bourke wrote: > Chernobyl was a bad reactor design, poorly maintained in a crumbling > regime. Just to point it out: > Chernobyl was a bad reactor design, Hindsight is always 20/20. Our best-of-breed reactors today will probably be shown to have serious deficiencies in 40 years, too. > poorly maintained Who's to guarantee that we will or have maintained our reactors as well as we should? > in a crumbling > regime. We could be crumbling, or could crumble, too. What happens to the reactors when that happens? Will they get shut down properly and radioactivity properly contained for long-term storage? Will they be protected from terrorists? Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/289ea162f5642645b5cf64d624c66a1409df2...@us-ny-mail-002.waitex.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
