Wonder if they'd prefer it to be moved by road........arabiandisco wrote:Conspiracy theories....
It was just a publicity stunt anyhow. The real issue is "is it safe to transport nuclear waste by train?". And the answer to that is clearly "yes". Greenpeace would say otherwise, but they would say that wouldn't they?
Greenpeace, Did they have a point on this one in the 80's?
Moderator: Moderators
- spartacus
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 3461
- Joined: Sat May 04, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Dewsbury
- Contact:
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
No to I.D. cards.
No to I.D. cards.
- arabiandisco
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 9:49 am
- Location: The Church of Noise
- Contact:
Greenpeace's agenda doesn't concern the movement of nuclear waste, they're just anti-nuclear.spartacus wrote:Wonder if they'd prefer it to be moved by road........arabiandisco wrote:Conspiracy theories....
It was just a publicity stunt anyhow. The real issue is "is it safe to transport nuclear waste by train?". And the answer to that is clearly "yes". Greenpeace would say otherwise, but they would say that wouldn't they?
Having a brain bypass
Go 49ers
Go 49ers
I don't think the CEGB rigged the test. They just didn't know what they were doing.
Just to ask one point. What are the chances of a train colliding with a nuclear flask on the tracks? If a nuclear flask train were involved in a collision, surely the wagon carrying the flask would be impacted first anyway. That may make this whole buffer-mounting argument irrelevant. I don't know exactly though.
Nick
Just to ask one point. What are the chances of a train colliding with a nuclear flask on the tracks? If a nuclear flask train were involved in a collision, surely the wagon carrying the flask would be impacted first anyway. That may make this whole buffer-mounting argument irrelevant. I don't know exactly though.
Nick