borislong.bsky.social
Getting older but no wiser every second.
I refer you to line 1.
1,297 posts
857 followers
1,134 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I haven't had the Turkish bit, but if I recall correctly, the Brazilian part was because of a ban on Twitter, was last year though.
comment in response to
post
Like you just did, assuming the waste was scuttled submarines?
You really are not up to date. I'm really bored now. So again adieu.
comment in response to
post
Wow, you really know your stuff. Bye.
comment in response to
post
Would you eat meat regularly from the no go zone of Chernobyl?
The UK has insufficient food production as is, we definitely can't afford to lose East Anglia.
By the way, that French model you are so fond of, they are presently working out how to retrieve 1000's of tonnes of waste from the sea bed.
comment in response to
post
I told you to look it up. That's why you are boring me, you have no idea.
I'll make it simple for you, having an x-ray is safe, but the radiographer goes behind a shield to avoid cumulative doses, hence no sheep and venison for approximate 30 years.
comment in response to
post
So why was there a ban on Sheep and venison for decades? That's from an accident 1000's of miles away. Food and water security will only get more important, not less.
Look, you've obviously bought into the nuclear bs. I'm happy for you.
Goodbye.
comment in response to
post
My point was how wide spread the effects from just 1 accident can be.
If you don't understand the consequences of Chernobyl on our food chain I can't help you.
Nuclear is not safe, it's not cheap, it's not clean, but even if it were, I wouldn't build reactors on an eroding low level Coast line.
comment in response to
post
Posting this for no particular reason:
www.gobankingrates.com/investing/re...
Trump International Golf Course is just outside LA. It mighht be a safe place for peaceful protests to gather as he probably wouldn't want to destroy his own property.
comment in response to
post
I always took Till Death Us Do Part as taking the p out of racists.
The minstrel show, just awful.
comment in response to
post
I did know that. My point being it was a shared workload, across nations.
comment in response to
post
Of course, but the civil service doesn't get to choose its own research, it's directed by government.
I've mentioned before, being both in the EU then out have been used as an excuse to not share the wealth, so rejoin is not a magic bullet. Cui bono?
comment in response to
post
Membership and compliance with the ECHR is literally written into the agreement, and like the US constitution it is supposed to protect the people from the rise of authoritarianism.
Project 2025 is not a purely US thing.
comment in response to
post
The WFA was pretty much the cookie meme/hunger games.
Why has our 1 cookie been so much smaller than most other major economies for decades is a better question?
comment in response to
post
boring work, environmental/food/chemical standards etc?
I guess they spent more time with lobbyists.
comment in response to
post
The governments should've been keeping a rough tally on net benefits for decades, particularly after the ERG was formed.
Of course it's not accountancy, but to not be able to refute the side of a bus was pathetic. Also? What the heck was Parliament doing when the EU took over all the day to day -
comment in response to
post
Even now the rough amount of £s lost per annum varies wildly, the only consensus appears to be it's £ billions.
I guess when you've spent decades pretending the UK is poor, in order to avoid sharing the wealth, for the system's beneficiary's Brexit was better than telling the truth?
comment in response to
post
What I found frightening and enlightening in the run up to the referendum was the lack of accurate cost benefit figures from remain.
Given the decades of agitation against EU membership, and purely in fiscal responsibility terms, I expected better preparedness. Leave filled that void with BS -
comment in response to
post
Crikey!!!!
Fingers crossed.
comment in response to
post
Hence their hatred of socialism and the rise of privatised state services. Capitalism can't compete.
comment in response to
post
Manipulation.
comment in response to
post
Construction began over a year ago, what a waste of money.
comment in response to
post
I'm struggling to remember a time when we had a government that wasn't supremely comfortable with death by/for economics, of other people obviously.
comment in response to
post
Found it. Groundworks for major renewable projects across the Highlands could be exposing radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl #nuclear disaster almost 40 years ago.
www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/call-fo...
comment in response to
post
I see they haven't mentioned the loss of jobs in the local tourism industry for the foreseeable?
comment in response to
post
No. It was recent and referred to soil at up to 40 cm depth. If you can't find it, check out the effect on sheep farming, they weren't safe to eat for about 30 years, food chain etc. As I said, it's just not worth the risk.
comment in response to
post
The deaths from thyroid cancer are likely many x your figure.
Why do you think we had a venison ban for so many years?
Anyway, I have bigger concerns today, but thanks for the chat.
comment in response to
post
the risk or the hassle.
You haven't even considered the dangers during pandemics. It presented a challenge during Covid to keep Sizewell running.
comment in response to
post
Just search Chernobyl soil Scotland or something. It was an article from a reputable source.
Presumably they identified the source from half life or something.
Do you not remember the ban on Highlands venison at the time?
My point is simply that regardless of anything else, nuclear is not worth ..
comment in response to
post
The animals are not necessarily 'healthy' as we learned from the progeny of Hiroshima. The land is unfit for human habitation. As I pointed out, the effects of Chernobyl on Britain have just come to light.
I trust the nuclear industry as much as the equally opaque fossil fuel industry.
comment in response to
post
I specifically mentioned Chernobyll. It's only in the last few weeks they've discovered lots of contaminated soil, who will pay for that clean up? Russia? The sand near Sellafield still has radioactive particles. Nuclear is not green, or cheap and a target for bad actors + a WMD if reactors fail.