Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Slagle who wrote (63709)	5/10/2005 12:20:44 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

The uranium in Afghanistan issue is odd. Was there some experimental use by the Russians, or possibly Pakistan ? Pakistan's nukes are uranium based. I think - Most of the US DU weapons are 1) tank rounds or fired from A10s. Those were not heavily used in Afghanistan. Unless I am missing some new weapon.

To: Slagle who wrote (63709)	5/10/2005 12:23:46 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Re nuclear power. First I wanted to debunk the idea that the anti nuke movement has it's origins with the communists. The primary cause of anti nuclear movement is concerned citizens about the use of nuclear energy and the risk it poses to people and the environment. Second, my post was about a reprocessing plant not a nuclear power station. guardian.co.uk A reprocessing plant is a very different kettle of fish then a nuclear power station. The one in question as a long long history of accidents and spewing out nuclear waste into the environment both deliberately and accidently. Let me assess the safety risk for you. Absolutely NO WAY would I live within a hundred miles of it. It is an utter shambles of an organization that runs it. Thats just the safety assessment. It has such a bad reputation it has had to be renamed several times as the general public were so sick of hearing bad news about it. It's losing money. The tax payer has had to bail out that shambles of an organization time and time again. /snippet The leak is not a danger to the public but is likely to be a financial disaster for the taxpayer since income from the Thorp plant, calculated to be more than £1m a day, is supposed to pay for the cleanup of redundant nuclear facilities. /snippet The managing director of British Nuclear Group, Sellafield, Barry Snelson, who ordered the plant to be closed down, said: "Let me reassure people that the plant is in a safe and stable state." How do you leak an olympic swimming size pool worth of nitric acid laced with plutonium and uranium before "shutting it down"? I don't feel remotely safe with an idiot telling me things are "safe". I suspect at least several levels of safety have been deliberately compromised to try and keep the plant running. The plant should be shut down permanently. It's employees should all be fired (especially the management) and banned from working within the nuclear industry again. Actually, I think management of BNG should all be shot by firing squad. If you wish to plug the pro nuclear cause, I believe you have no alternative except to agree with the points I have made here. Well, maybe the BNG managent should be given a fair trial first before being shot.-g-