[OT] They're restarting Chernobyl?

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Nov 27 18:20:33 1999

Actually, the worst damage possible has already occurred. If it happens
again, it won't do much additional damage, aside from loss of in-plant life.
The surrounding area is already lethally contaminated. A fossil-fuel
powered plant would create as much environmental damage over the six or
seven years between major incidents, so I don't see this as a major risk to
us. Now, if I lived nearby, I might feel differently.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel A. Seagraves <DSEAGRAV_at_toad.xkl.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] They're restarting Chernobyl?


>[Nukes are safer]
>
>True. Nukes are safer and better in the long run that fossil fuel stuff.
>It's just the unknowns of nukes and the complexity that boggles people.
>
>Imagine me in charge of a nuke plant, with my attitdue about stuff.
>(Namely, if it don't work, fuck with it until it does)
>I bet that would cause some trouble. (What happens if I open this valve?
>let's find out... *BOOM*
>
>Could be worse. Imagine a microsoftie there. ^_^
>(Meltdown imminent? This don't sound good. Reboot it!)
>
>Ignore my typoes and incoherency here. ^_^ I'm in a funny mood today.
>
>(The russians: "Okay, is #3 ready? Yes? Okay, boot that sucker!"
> [Image: Windows CE logo] "Where do you want to glow today?")
>
>-------
Received on Sat Nov 27 1999 - 18:20:33 GMT