Newspaper scaremongering; DRS win Tesco traffic.

spartacus · Post by **spartacus** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:43 am

This is the sort of rubbish reprting I'd expect from the Sun, but the independent?

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 096234.ece

I just can't believe that Independent readers mights believe this. (Almost wrote swallow!)

Although they don't spell it out tabloid style, the link is clearly suggested that nuclear waste & food being transported by the same company = contamination. Utter rubbish.

I'd also ask the anti nuke campaigners if they'd prefer the waste to travel by road, with it's far greater accident rate.

250787 · Post by **250787** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:51 am

I was thinking that. Although DRS do operate the flask they also operate a lot of intermodal services so that article is a load of rubbish

Cheers

Matt

alexnick · Post by **alexnick** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:03 am

Wow, the Independent has gone downhill recently! I'm shocked by the poorly thought-out argument.

Nick

Whitemoor · Post by **Whitemoor** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:30 am

Since it was set up in 1995 there have been numerous incidents involving nuclear fuel trains being derailed, waste flasks being dropped and, in May, a collision with a car at a crossing

and if a class 45 and coaches didnt break a flask, i doubt these events would do anything!

jpantera · Post by **jpantera** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:39 am

If I was to type my true thoughts on that article it would be deleted right away.

The worst things is the general public wil probably believe it too!

What about all the passenger trains DRS engines have hauled!

Passengers in Radio active locos shocker!

Whitemoor · Post by **Whitemoor** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:44 am

them 37s must run on something other than diesel to make them sound so good

whoops im strolling off topic now

slipdigby · Post by **slipdigby** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:53 am

To be fair, when I read the article the impression I got was that the correspondent was attempting to point out the inherent contradiction between Tesco attempting to appease the green lobby by switching from road to rail, when their chosen contractor is owned by BNFL (who are, in the main, not many environmentalist's favourite company

).

Slip

johncas · Post by **johncas** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:42 pm

The article is about tesco using rail transport insted of lorrys so lorrys are taken off the road which is a good idea

spartacus · Post by **spartacus** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:45 pm

Half the article is being critical of DRS though, for no goos reason. What on earth has nuclear traffic got to do with this contract?

Whitemoor · Post by **Whitemoor** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:03 pm

any excuse to throw bad light on the railways

ianmacmillan · Post by **ianmacmillan** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:33 pm

Green trains?

I thought DRS were blue.

joea1 · Post by **joea1** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:52 pm

I don't understand what the problem is with the lot of you. I don't see anything negative about DRS in there. I see facts, and the opinions from those vandals, Greenpeace. Why are you moaning about the article?

joea1 · Post by **joea1** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:57 pm

jpantera wrote:The worst things is the general public wil probably believe it too!

What about all the passenger trains DRS engines have hauled!

Believe what?

Tesco are using DRS to haul goods?
DRS transport highly radioactive waste?
DRS have hauled the Royal Train?
Using rail would save about 4.5 million road miles and 6,000 tons of CO2 a year?

What part of that article should the public not believe? The opinions from Greenpeace do say that they are from the anti-nuclear group..... And there have been accidents - fact.

danielw2599 · Post by **danielw2599** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:17 pm

I have to agree with spartacus here. What as nuclear trains go to do with hauling tesco traffic? The paper seems to be putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 20

And what are these "numerous incidents " that the green peace are talking about? and in each of these "numerous incidents ", were the public at all put in danger?

Whitemoor · Post by **Whitemoor** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:18 pm

aye but as i said earlier...these accident havent caused any threat to anyone with no risk of the nuclear stuff leaking.....so in that scense...its scaremongering or however u spell it