Saintandy666

Most independent analysts have been saying 700 is a good night. I suspect the 900 figure from your paper is biased.

No election in my ward today. But promised I would go with my girlfriend to vote, which I shall be doing in a minute. Labour will sweep councils. Lib Dems will hold up in south and be decimated in the north, but not as bad as last year. Tories to be whipped badly. As for London, I think it will be closely than people anticipate.

The pay gap between Beckham and everyone else at LA Galaxy.

http://labs.yougov.co.uk/news/2012/04/30/camerons-nightmare/ Very interesting article here on why UKIP's rise and the taking away of the Lib Dem protest vote(uniting the left wing vote more) is potentially fatal for Cameron and the Tories for many a year to come.

Don't know whether to cancel my saints player subscription now we are in the Premier League...

Seriously needs to be more research into the thorium fuel cycle. Only a few plants at the moment I believe!

In your opinion. And I may well be wrong or right or even in between, but bringing out the age card as you nearly always do is no argument at all.

I thought it needed to be enriched to around 90% before that was possible? edit: I misunderstood you. That's fair enough, but it can't all be used for nukes!

I was wondering when the age related comments would come back again. Of course small amount of radiation don't matter, but there are reasons why ocean based dumping is banned. Tbh, I don't even know why we are arguing. We both support nuclear energy in principle... you are just perhaps more gung-ho about it?

I don't doubt that, but if the radioactive material leaked beyond the lead(is it lead on your sub?) you have to stop it leaking, it would be a different matter. I'm just saying we need to be careful and not just chuck it in the sea.

I agree with you that is safer than people say, and low level radiation is fine. But the waste that comes out of nuclear reactors is not safe unless dealt with properly and it certainly isn't safe to just be chucked in the ocean, which is why it was banned I assume. But thorium based nuclear power needs to be looked into, because it sidesteps this issue.

Do you have something to back up this statement that isn't as bad as 'tree huggers'(whoever they are) say?! Gamma radiation is very dangerous.

Are you serious?

Upon consulting my friend google, it appears ocean dumping of radioactive waste has been banned since 1993. So we can't do that.

It's not that simple though. If there was a leak of radiation...

With reason I guess, post-Chernobyl... but Nuclear Power plants have apparently changed a lot since then. The problem is the waste, which is why thorium is much better as a source as the radioactivity is nowhere near as bad, down to half lives I think. I think Uranium based nuclear power can only be a stepping stone due to the waste. We need renewables like tidal to come through. Or just to crack nuclear fission...

I think that in the south east over the past 2 years, as an average, we haven't had much rain at all in the winter and apparently it is the winter rain which is important.

I don't know, but just because I don't know it doesn't mean you are right or that I am right. But experts have said this, and I trust them.

What energy source do you suggest for the future? I think a mixture of many is the safest and most secure way to go. But we could definitely harness a lot of tidal power, and more research needs to be done into throium based nuclear power.

But we are in a drought. Water levels in underground stores are lower than they were in 1976(and I'm sure you can remember that and tell stories even if I can't). Rain at this time of year apparently is the 'wrong type' of rain, because it is taken all up by plants and doesn't sink into the underground stores.

True that, projects always go over budget and time, but I was just quoting 'official figures'. Having looked at the cost of desalination plants however, it would still probably be cheaper. I think Dune's extra reservoirs are probably the best way?

The cost would apparently be £2.6bn. Do you know how much desalination plants to do the same job would cost?

Fair enough. But will private companies want to do that?

I have absolutely no idea. However, having consulted google - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17078727 - I found that and it seems it can be done, but investing in infrastructure for the south-east would be cheaper. So I shall withdraw that post and say we need to invest in infrastructure. Will private companies be keen to do that?

I see, well fair enough.