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.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (51544)	5/15/2014 12:43:55 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 86355

You have trouble reading things LS. Hawk was thinking it would be the end of the world. I'm pointing out that it would not. In 20 years, there'd be nothing much to show for it. Just as at Hiroshima. The next generation born knows nothing of the past directly, so it's theoretical knowledge to them rather than a life experience. World War II was before my time, so I know it really happened, and not long before I was born, but it's imaginary in my experience, not real. Maybe you are getting confused by the effects of Chernobyl? Even there, 30 years after the event, there's abundant life and it's quite a happy place for wildlife. Humans are staying clear, so the natural world is doing well. Look how good it is at Chernobyl: sites.google.com Since then, there have been another 8 years so it must be getting really good. Greenies might even start to think duplicating that everywhere would be a good idea. Keep in mind that atomic bombs going off a kilometre or higher to maximize destruction will not cause much radioactive dust and other debris. Hiroshima is happily repopulated and has been for many decades. Mqurice