M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Satan?
Satan?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
W
Whoey Louie
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:21:47 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
That didn't come out quite right. I meant to make that comment after the George Wallace sentence and before the dictator sentence.
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:07:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:13:11 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:
John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
When Hitler wrote or spoke A, B, C, and D, and got cheers for C and
yawns from the rest, the crowd learned and so did he.
Hitler packed his audiences with fanatical nazis. He practised his speeches
and rehearsed his movements and emphasis. The audience's reaction was
completely pre-programmed. Films of the speech were pure pr and widely
distributed.
Literally millions of Germans went to war. There was a lot of
enthusiasm.
There is no evidence that he ever made different versions of his speeches to
test the audience reaction. He didn't have time for that.
There is no instance of the audience's reaction having any effect on his
plans. He owned the audience.
Or the audience owned him. We had no Hitlers in the USA or the UK or
in France.
We had some other demagogues, like George Wallace in the South.
Again,
the audience created the dictator. Popular sentiment was the energy
source, begging for someone to come along and use it.
No need to go back all the way to George Wallace, Trump works.
He certainly was a creation of a popular sentiment. But most
politicians are. But he's not a dictator, he's the constitutional
President.
Probably Stalin and Mao weren't creations of a popular sentiment, and
they were dictators.
Read about the Siberian railroad, or The Four Pests.
https://birdingbeijing.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/e16-34.jpg?w=660
That didn't come out quite right. I meant to make that comment after the George Wallace sentence and before the dictator sentence.
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 9:26:17 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
Technology had a big part in it. Radio (a single German voice could reach
millions) and a fascinated listening audience made a leader-with-speaking-skills
almost unstoppable. FDR was reelected a SCARY number of times during
the same period. The popularity of Aimee Semple McPherson was similarly
anomalous.
Television: Reagan becomes president
Internet: Obama and
... Hitler could never
have come to power without the overwhelming support of the German people.
Technology had a big part in it. Radio (a single German voice could reach
millions) and a fascinated listening audience made a leader-with-speaking-skills
almost unstoppable. FDR was reelected a SCARY number of times during
the same period. The popularity of Aimee Semple McPherson was similarly
anomalous.
Television: Reagan becomes president
Internet: Obama and
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:36:22 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
Yes, that's right, exactly!!! By another name, Trump.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:25:47 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Remind me, who is uniting the Democrats?
Satan?
Yes, that's right, exactly!!! By another name, Trump.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 12:28:31 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
What's wrong is that the enthusiasts for nuclear power have always ignored the problems of dealing with nuclear waste - after fifty years we still haven't got an acceptable scheme for keeping it safe until it isn't dangerously radioactive.
Ostensibly adequate technical solutions may exist - the Australian CSIRO's Synroc scheme looks good - but it don't actually seem to be generally acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
<snipped John Doe being even more stupid than usual>.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.
What's wrong is that the enthusiasts for nuclear power have always ignored the problems of dealing with nuclear waste - after fifty years we still haven't got an acceptable scheme for keeping it safe until it isn't dangerously radioactive.
Ostensibly adequate technical solutions may exist - the Australian CSIRO's Synroc scheme looks good - but it don't actually seem to be generally acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
<snipped John Doe being even more stupid than usual>.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:40:40 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Yes, exactly.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
And then Fukushima happened.
Yes, exactly.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
Yes, and their investment in nuclear is getting much more serious as the cost and construction time of nuclear plants is increasing astronomically. We've had the discussion already of the two most recent French designs for nukes have overrun to the point they are several multiples of the original cost estimates and the construction time has ballooned out by a factor of 5 or more. I don't recall the exact numbers but they are so bad, pretty much no one in their right mind will build similar plants until something drastic changes to make the economically feasible again.
Nearly all nukes end up being run past their design lifetimes. They have always intended that. Design to 30 or 40 years and renew the operating certificates to run another 30 or 40 years once you see how much deterioration has happened and what it takes to fix.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
France is the only country with serious investment in nuclear power now.
Yes, and their investment in nuclear is getting much more serious as the cost and construction time of nuclear plants is increasing astronomically. We've had the discussion already of the two most recent French designs for nukes have overrun to the point they are several multiples of the original cost estimates and the construction time has ballooned out by a factor of 5 or more. I don't recall the exact numbers but they are so bad, pretty much no one in their right mind will build similar plants until something drastic changes to make the economically feasible again.
They have nearly 75% nuclear generation and export it to other EU countries.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
The British nuclear plant is all ageing and being run past its design
lifetime with new reactors still in a very precarious part built state.
(precarious as in it isn't clear if they will ever get finished or not)
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx
Nearly all nukes end up being run past their design lifetimes. They have always intended that. Design to 30 or 40 years and renew the operating certificates to run another 30 or 40 years once you see how much deterioration has happened and what it takes to fix.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:21:47 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
More it's expert exploiter.
> But most politicians are.
Few politicians lie as much, or change their stories as often.
> But he's not a dictator, he's the constitutional President.
Which, under the American constitution, is the head of the executive branch for a fixed four year term.
Every other advanced industrial country can dump the executive as soon as they lose the confidence of the lower house of parliament.
Stalin was a revolutionary communist before the 1917 revolution. Mao lead the long march - he'd been in charge long before the Chinese Communists came to power in 1948. Popular sentiment didn't come into either case, though both Stalin and Mao exploited it when they were in power.
> Read about the Siberian railroad, or The Four Pests.
Why bother? Dictators are bad news.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:07:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:13:11 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:
John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
When Hitler wrote or spoke A, B, C, and D, and got cheers for C and
yawns from the rest, the crowd learned and so did he.
Hitler packed his audiences with fanatical nazis. He practised his speeches
and rehearsed his movements and emphasis. The audience's reaction was
completely pre-programmed. Films of the speech were pure pr and widely
distributed.
Literally millions of Germans went to war. There was a lot of
enthusiasm.
There is no evidence that he ever made different versions of his speeches to
test the audience reaction. He didn't have time for that.
There is no instance of the audience's reaction having any effect on his
plans. He owned the audience.
Or the audience owned him. We had no Hitlers in the USA or the UK or
in France.
We had some other demagogues, like George Wallace in the South.
Again,
the audience created the dictator. Popular sentiment was the energy
source, begging for someone to come along and use it.
No need to go back all the way to George Wallace, Trump works.
He certainly was a creation of a popular sentiment.
More it's expert exploiter.
> But most politicians are.
Few politicians lie as much, or change their stories as often.
> But he's not a dictator, he's the constitutional President.
Which, under the American constitution, is the head of the executive branch for a fixed four year term.
Every other advanced industrial country can dump the executive as soon as they lose the confidence of the lower house of parliament.
Probably Stalin and Mao weren't creations of a popular sentiment, and
they were dictators.
Stalin was a revolutionary communist before the 1917 revolution. Mao lead the long march - he'd been in charge long before the Chinese Communists came to power in 1948. Popular sentiment didn't come into either case, though both Stalin and Mao exploited it when they were in power.
> Read about the Siberian railroad, or The Four Pests.
Why bother? Dictators are bad news.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
bitrex
Guest
On 9/18/19 12:07 AM, bitrex wrote:
One of those times I guess some pissed-off Germans changed Goebbels'
mind about something rather than him changing theirs
On 9/17/19 7:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Again,
the audience created the dictator. Popular sentiment was the energy
source, begging for someone to come along and use it.
No need to go back all the way to George Wallace, Trump works.
He certainly was a creation of a popular sentiment. But most
politicians are. But he's not a dictator, he's the constitutional
President.
Probably Stalin and Mao weren't creations of a popular sentiment, and
they were dictators.
Read about the Siberian railroad, or The Four Pests.
https://birdingbeijing.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/e16-34.jpg?w=660
Nazis were pro-communism, before they were against it:
"Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the
difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight."
As quoted in The New York Times, âHitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses
Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,â November 28, 1925 (Goebbels'
speech November 27, 1925)
One of those times I guess some pissed-off Germans changed Goebbels'
mind about something rather than him changing theirs
B
bitrex
Guest
On 9/17/19 7:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Nazis were pro-communism, before they were against it:
"Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the
difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight."
As quoted in The New York Times, âHitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses
Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,â November 28, 1925 (Goebbels'
speech November 27, 1925)
Again,
the audience created the dictator. Popular sentiment was the energy
source, begging for someone to come along and use it.
No need to go back all the way to George Wallace, Trump works.
He certainly was a creation of a popular sentiment. But most
politicians are. But he's not a dictator, he's the constitutional
President.
Probably Stalin and Mao weren't creations of a popular sentiment, and
they were dictators.
Read about the Siberian railroad, or The Four Pests.
https://birdingbeijing.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/e16-34.jpg?w=660
Nazis were pro-communism, before they were against it:
"Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the
difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight."
As quoted in The New York Times, âHitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses
Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,â November 28, 1925 (Goebbels'
speech November 27, 1925)
P
Phil Allison
Guest
bitrex wrote:
-------------
** You are totally nuts.
Please fuck off.
-------------
Yes, the Nazis marketed themselves as socialists in say 1925 until they
figured out the German people didn't want mushy-socialism they wanted a
Hitler to execute all the motherfuckers they didn't like and invade
their neighbors and fuck them up.
** You are totally nuts.
Please fuck off.
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:28:31 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
It's an example of what happens when a poorly educated mob of rabble is allowed to vote policy into office. They're so damned dumb they have no clue that air pollution, mostly due to coal burning, has killed more people than any nuclear accident, short of a global nuclear conflict, could possibly do..
https://qz.com/1577756/air-pollution-reduces-european-lives-by-an-average-of-2-years/
And the heavy metal pollution from coal burning lasts forever, which is much longer than any half-life associated with nuclear waste.
As I recall the press coverage of Fukushima stated the plant was Russian design. Where the hell are they getting that? It was GE all the way (EBASCO is GE), which explains everything. The plant foundation plot was originally 30m above sea level, but the geniuses leveled it down to 10m to facilitate getting equipment to the site. Had they not done that, no conceivable tsunami could have ever flooded the place.
Most of the big nuclear accidents have been caused by morons. The Ukraine accident was double trouble because they were drunk morons.
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.
Of course Albert Einstein was brilliant. Germany has produced lots of
great classical music. But... What the hell is wrong with them? They
allowed themselves to be misled by Adolf Hitler to their near total
annihilation. I'm not a historian, but it's obvious they are not
actually stupid, or at least those who apply themselves. So what's the
deal, in your opinion? I wonder what the German women to German men
voting ratio is on the subject.
It's an example of what happens when a poorly educated mob of rabble is allowed to vote policy into office. They're so damned dumb they have no clue that air pollution, mostly due to coal burning, has killed more people than any nuclear accident, short of a global nuclear conflict, could possibly do..
https://qz.com/1577756/air-pollution-reduces-european-lives-by-an-average-of-2-years/
And the heavy metal pollution from coal burning lasts forever, which is much longer than any half-life associated with nuclear waste.
As I recall the press coverage of Fukushima stated the plant was Russian design. Where the hell are they getting that? It was GE all the way (EBASCO is GE), which explains everything. The plant foundation plot was originally 30m above sea level, but the geniuses leveled it down to 10m to facilitate getting equipment to the site. Had they not done that, no conceivable tsunami could have ever flooded the place.
Most of the big nuclear accidents have been caused by morons. The Ukraine accident was double trouble because they were drunk morons.
W
Whoey Louie
Guest
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
Depends on how you define 'serious investment". Sure, France has nuclear
contributing the highest percentage, but I would not call that the only
metric. China currently has the most nukes under development and while
France gets 70% of their power from nukes, there are other countries that
generate 40 to 50%. And the US generates more than twice the output of
France. There are over 50 new nukes under construction around the world.
On 17/09/2019 15:40, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
John Doe wrote:
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.
[...]
At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.
And then Fukushima happened.
Although tsunamis and powerful earthquakes are very much less common in
Germany they do have quite a hefty and influential green movement.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx
Ironically because of nuclear shutdowns they are now burning vast
quantities of dirty lignite in inefficient former East German power
plants to make the bulk of their electricity and despoiling the
countryside with ugly open cast lignite/brown coal mines.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/rich-seams-the-fight-over-east-germany-s-brown-coal-reserves-a-472816.html
France is the only country with serious investment in nuclear power now.
They have nearly 75% nuclear generation and export it to other EU countries.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Depends on how you define 'serious investment". Sure, France has nuclear
contributing the highest percentage, but I would not call that the only
metric. China currently has the most nukes under development and while
France gets 70% of their power from nukes, there are other countries that
generate 40 to 50%. And the US generates more than twice the output of
France. There are over 50 new nukes under construction around the world.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 9/17/19 7:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
How does the nuclear industry pay off all the climate scientists who
manufacture "global warming propaganda" for them and ensure their
silence forever, though?
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
-----------------------
At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.
And then Fukushima happened.
** Does anyone here not realise that "global warming" is merely a conspiracy theory promoted by the Nuclear Power industry in order to deal themselves back in the game ?
Always consider the principle behind " cui bono ".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
Nuclear engineers well know they hold the *trump card* when it come to supplying the human race with copious amounts of CO2 free energy way into the future.
... Phil
How does the nuclear industry pay off all the climate scientists who
manufacture "global warming propaganda" for them and ensure their
silence forever, though?
B
bitrex
Guest
On 9/18/19 11:33 AM, Whoey Louie wrote:
Where you get the water to cool reactors from is a problem in many areas
of the world. 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cooling their
reactors before anyone else gets it.
A problem with fission power and why you can't build 'em fast among
other reasons is every plant is different and has to be engineered to
its particular location and environmental circumstances because of the
coolant constraints. Fossil fuel plants are more "modular" and solar
even more so.
You can build fossil fuel-fired power plants and wind farms and solar
farms in all sorts of sizes from small to huge depending on
environmental constraints. Water-cooled fission plants are only
financially viable to build in one size, huge, so they have to be
hand-crafted each time with respect to where they are.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/09/2019 15:40, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
John Doe wrote:
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.
[...]
At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.
And then Fukushima happened.
Although tsunamis and powerful earthquakes are very much less common in
Germany they do have quite a hefty and influential green movement.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx
Ironically because of nuclear shutdowns they are now burning vast
quantities of dirty lignite in inefficient former East German power
plants to make the bulk of their electricity and despoiling the
countryside with ugly open cast lignite/brown coal mines.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/rich-seams-the-fight-over-east-germany-s-brown-coal-reserves-a-472816.html
France is the only country with serious investment in nuclear power now.
They have nearly 75% nuclear generation and export it to other EU countries.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Depends on how you define 'serious investment". Sure, France has nuclear
contributing the highest percentage, but I would not call that the only
metric. China currently has the most nukes under development and while
France gets 70% of their power from nukes, there are other countries that
generate 40 to 50%. And the US generates more than twice the output of
France. There are over 50 new nukes under construction around the world.
Where you get the water to cool reactors from is a problem in many areas
of the world. 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cooling their
reactors before anyone else gets it.
A problem with fission power and why you can't build 'em fast among
other reasons is every plant is different and has to be engineered to
its particular location and environmental circumstances because of the
coolant constraints. Fossil fuel plants are more "modular" and solar
even more so.
You can build fossil fuel-fired power plants and wind farms and solar
farms in all sorts of sizes from small to huge depending on
environmental constraints. Water-cooled fission plants are only
financially viable to build in one size, huge, so they have to be
hand-crafted each time with respect to where they are.
Guest
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:02:37 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
Build the rectors on the cost, so there is plenty of cooling water.
The reason for constantly increasing reactor sizes is mainly
political. It is very hard to get a license to build a new reactor, so
for a specific amount of red tape, build as big as possible.
The other is the NIMBY effect, so it is very hard to start a new
nuclear site. In practice, you can only build new reactors on old
nuclear sites, in which a large part of the population work with the
old reactors.
There has been a lot of plans building small modular reactors.
However, the only standardized built I know of is the two KLT-40S
nuclear icebreaker reactors built on the Akademik Lomonosov barge.
The barge was just recently towed to Pevek in Northern Siberia and
should start to generate power and district heat for the local
community at the end of this year.
On 9/18/19 11:33 AM, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/09/2019 15:40, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
John Doe wrote:
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.
[...]
At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.
And then Fukushima happened.
Although tsunamis and powerful earthquakes are very much less common in
Germany they do have quite a hefty and influential green movement.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx
Ironically because of nuclear shutdowns they are now burning vast
quantities of dirty lignite in inefficient former East German power
plants to make the bulk of their electricity and despoiling the
countryside with ugly open cast lignite/brown coal mines.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/rich-seams-the-fight-over-east-germany-s-brown-coal-reserves-a-472816.html
France is the only country with serious investment in nuclear power now.
They have nearly 75% nuclear generation and export it to other EU countries.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Depends on how you define 'serious investment". Sure, France has nuclear
contributing the highest percentage, but I would not call that the only
metric. China currently has the most nukes under development and while
France gets 70% of their power from nukes, there are other countries that
generate 40 to 50%. And the US generates more than twice the output of
France. There are over 50 new nukes under construction around the world.
Where you get the water to cool reactors from is a problem in many areas
of the world. 40% of France's fresh water reserves go to cooling their
reactors before anyone else gets it.
Build the rectors on the cost, so there is plenty of cooling water.
A problem with fission power and why you can't build 'em fast among
other reasons is every plant is different and has to be engineered to
its particular location and environmental circumstances because of the
coolant constraints. Fossil fuel plants are more "modular" and solar
even more so.
You can build fossil fuel-fired power plants and wind farms and solar
farms in all sorts of sizes from small to huge depending on
environmental constraints. Water-cooled fission plants are only
financially viable to build in one size, huge, so they have to be
hand-crafted each time with respect to where they are.
The reason for constantly increasing reactor sizes is mainly
political. It is very hard to get a license to build a new reactor, so
for a specific amount of red tape, build as big as possible.
The other is the NIMBY effect, so it is very hard to start a new
nuclear site. In practice, you can only build new reactors on old
nuclear sites, in which a large part of the population work with the
old reactors.
There has been a lot of plans building small modular reactors.
However, the only standardized built I know of is the two KLT-40S
nuclear icebreaker reactors built on the Akademik Lomonosov barge.
The barge was just recently towed to Pevek in Northern Siberia and
should start to generate power and district heat for the local
community at the end of this year.
B
bitrex
Guest
On 9/18/19 6:17 PM, bitrex wrote:
like at a basic level the public might expect the nuclear power industry
to not have a long history of repeated safety standard violations and
maintenance problems and pretty good track record of hiring a fair
number of drunks and morons to run the plants day-to-day.
The nuclear industry hasn't met the basic competence tests yet
The other is the NIMBY effect, so it is very hard to start a new
nuclear site. In practice, you can only build new reactors on old
nuclear sites, in which a large part of the population work with the
old reactors.
One can see it as that the public are all scardey-pants terrified of
things they don't understand, or that the public has a more accurate
assessment of the risks than the profit-driven nuclear industry, who
despite the public actually giving them numerous chances to prove them
wrong seems to manage to fuck things up with regularity and scare the
crap out of them once again every decade or two.
like at a basic level the public might expect the nuclear power industry
to not have a long history of repeated safety standard violations and
maintenance problems and pretty good track record of hiring a fair
number of drunks and morons to run the plants day-to-day.
The nuclear industry hasn't met the basic competence tests yet