With one of these ?

In this case is it considerably easier to follow the boycott, right?

Why don't you tank in Switzerland? it is much cheaper

I need my car to get to work - so no boycott from me. However, we've opted to go completely fossil-fuel-free when it comes to heating our house. Air-heat exchanger + solar collectors do the trick - so we're doing our part that way.

Next time you see someone moaning on about "atomkraft" remind them of this - Canada , Slovakia , Australia and plenty of other reasonable countries have plenty of uranium reserves - much much better safety record and more cost efficient than any alternative including oil.

Limited number of suppliers, huge numbers of buyers. You tell me.

Close enough (less than a 3dB error).

Tom

The point about nuclear power is not the question of the political stability of the uranium producers - it is the "what if?". Shit happens and pretty much anything that could go wrong did go wrong in the past - so there is no 100% safety. The problem with nuclear power is that this very small chance of an accident can have far bigger consequences than any other energy source. And we all know that there were far more frequent problems in reactors all over the world than only the one (incredibly big) case of Tchernobyl.

Yes, but roller skating to Greece and back is not for everyone...

Reality is that the global warming nutters claim that producing CO2 is bad (despite the fact that it is essential for life on this planet), and that Fission is bad, despite the fact that it produces NO CO2!

Nutters, PLEASE decide!

Tom

I kind of agree with you in part but not in sum - basically Chernobyl wasn't nearly as bad as the hysteria - and there's plenty of other accidents such as Bhopal - which killed 100 times more people but didn't get the column inches.

Couple that with the huge number of deaths associated with the oil industry - it's not even close - the French have more experience and exposure of reactors than anyone else - number killed - zero.

Then let's begin to consider the environmental impact :
James Lovelock (founder of greenpeace)
"Nuclear is the only green solution"
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/...p-24-05-04.htm

Plus radiation isn't as bad as it is made out to be. People freak out about the transport and storage of radioactive waste from reactors, but completely ignore that other sources are far more radioactive. The staff who work in thermal spas for example are exposed to higher doses of radiation across their lifetimes than people who work in nuclear plants, yet nobody goes hysterical about the effect it is having on them. Also, some of the waste they throw out ought to go into the same storage as the junk from reactors if equal measures applied. The staff who work in reactors are even required to leave stuff like jewellery in the changing room in order not to bring radiation into the secure area because the safety limits have so little leeway.

A lot of the stuff that goes into long term storage is only very mildly radioactive. If something is highly radioactive, it must be decaying quite quickly and therefore its half life must be pretty short and it's not going to be a long term problem. The stuff that has to be stored long term is by definition mildly radioactive and hence not extremely lethal. Sadly, the Greens are a bit too thick to understand simple physics.

So should we buy from Tamoil then?

There was a call fo a massive protest the other day in Kent and Essex. It was very effective BBC News

Was it on the M25?

No it said M2

Had me wondering as well. I mean, how does anyone notice if you have a go slow there.

I think we should protest the gov't instead for the high petrol
taxes!

...or there, either.

Well Tamoil is half owned by Gadaffi and we have blocked his accounts, and half owned by the Dutch whom we all like.

So yes Tamoil is back on the list again.