I read the news today oh boy! Page 342

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/mar/12/grace-dent-tvod-omg-with-peaches-geldof#start-of-comments

IanWolf
12 March 2011 8:11AM
"I wish to correct you on the subject fo furries.

The vast majority of furries do not wear animal costumes for sexual purposes. Most furries don't even own a full fursuit because they are too expensive.

The most common definition of "furry" is someone witha deep interest in anthropomorphic animals, which can be in the form of writing, art or music. While admittedly there are some people who are interested in the sexier side, many of these people are normally shunned by the furry community as a whole.

At least carry out some research first before you make your comments."

Is this the same Ian Wolf as graces our threads?

I think he might have something to tell us...

So what twerps thought it was a good idea to have nuclear reactors in an earthquake zone?

Precisely what I've been wondering the last couple of days.

Quote: Griff @ March 13 2011, 7:46 PM GMT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365806/Glossy-Jihad-Cosmo-combines-beauty-tips-suicide-bombing-advice.html

View original

That's just terribly depressing.

God knows. I do understand the dilemma but should the earth face being blootered to suit them?

Sorry if the above seems weird but it was in response to a post which has disappeared

Quote: keewik @ March 13 2011, 11:18 PM GMT

So what twerps thought it was a good idea to have nuclear reactors in an earthquake zone?

View original

People who realized that their highly industrialized nation of 130 million people had no real energy assets of its own.

There are plenty of reactors in earthquake (and hurricane/tsunami/tornado/flood) zones.

Oh, Japan

Quote: DaButt @ March 13 2011, 11:56 PM GMT

People who realized that their highly industrialized nation of 130 million people had no real energy assets of its own.

There are plenty of reactors in earthquake (and hurricane/tsunami/tornado/flood) zones.

View original

Yes, and it seems like a stupid, overly risky idea.
There are other ways to create power, even if they aren't ideal.

Money again and to Hell with the future of civilisation.

Quote: zooo @ March 13 2011, 11:58 PM GMT

Yes, and it seems like a stupid, overly risky idea.
There are other ways to create power, even if they aren't ideal.

View original

Oil: risky and polluting
Coal: risky and polluting

The Japanese reactors are very well engineered and have so far released only minuscule amounts of radiation.

Quote: DaButt @ March 14 2011, 12:09 AM GMT

Oil: risky and polluting
Coal: risky and polluting

View original

Hardly as risky as nuclear disaster.

I'm not against nuclear power in general at all.
Just seems idiotic to put a power station right in a regular earthquake zone.

Quote: zooo @ March 14 2011, 12:21 AM GMT

Hardly as risky as nuclear disaster.

View original

I'll guarantee you that more people have been killed in coal mines and oilfield accidents than have been killed by accidents at nuclear power stations. Let's not forget what just happened in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

Wait and see.

Quote: DaButt @ March 14 2011, 12:25 AM GMT

I'll guarantee you that more people have been killed in coal mines and oilfield accidents than have been killed by accidents at nuclear power stations. Let's not forget what just happened in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

View original

Those sort of things affect only the workers, or people living very close by indeed. Nuclear accidents can affect huge swathes of the planet. Millions of people.

Massive difference.