-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/26/07 07:59, Wulfy wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 02/25/07 23:53, Wulfy wrote: >>> Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] > > And no, I'm not suggesting that any other form of power generation is > "better", they all have problems, but blatant "this is safe" arguments > are... short-sighted.
Possibly. What they are are poor grammar. The assertion is that they are "safe*r*" than coal. Does it really matter if humans in 5000 years tunnel into Yucca Mountain, if there are no humans left? But coal is less oogey-boogey scary. Besides, the power (a *LOT* of power) has to come from *somewhere*, on a *large* industrial scale. Especially over in China, where coal and auto pollution is hundreds of times worse than in the West. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF4vA3S9HxQb37XmcRApbnAJ4kcN9QDYo5lyv2YXozSQzLTTa1IQCgmaDc 7Bpcl+uFlQraLIHfuH3oj8Y= =/dZj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]