>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:25:54 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>>> Day Brown wrote:

>>>>> Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>> : "4976 Dead, 109 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>>>>>> : There's also the fact that when it comes to the environment, the question
>>>>>> : isn't whether it's pure, but simple how much it reduces damage.  You're
>>>>>> : gonna leave a footprint, and ten thousand wind towers makes less of a
>>>>>> : footprint than one nuclear plant, even without the issues of toxic waste
>>>>>> : and possible accident or sabotage.

>>>>>> Wind farms of equivalent wattage seem to disrupt the environment far more
>>>>>> than a nuclear plant.  Dispersed over more of the landscape, require
>>>>>> more roads and disruption to the local terrain, actually change local
>>>>>> wind patterrns, etc.  How do you figure they have a smaller footprint?
>>>>> Cause out on the high plains, the voters think whatever footprint there
>>>>> is creates jobs.

>>>>> If nuke supporters were rational, they'd push for storing nuclear waste
>>>>> on the Greenland or Antarctic ice cap. Everything'll be fine so long as
>>>>> the barrels are frozen. And if that ice cap melts, we'll have much worse
>>>>> problems than a little nuclear contamination in an area without wild life.
>>>> You're forgetting the penguins.
>>> Are there really penguins in the North? I thought most of them preferred
>>> the region around Antarctica.
>> Doubtless explaining the reference to the Antarctic ice cap.  
>  Oh you mean the one that's acutally thinning and breaking off?

> Good choice!