🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3C02895C.80FD4C35@rockymountaineers.com>, Amos Keppler 
<amoskeppler@rockymountaineers.com> writes
>John Beardmore wrote:
>
>> In article <3C0004E1.890C6072@rockymountaineers.com>, Amos Keppler
>> <amoskeppler@rockymountaineers.com> writes
>>
>> > The Weekly Report - Archives
>>
>> Archived from what ?
>>
>> >  WEEK 46 Nov 5th to 11th 2001
>>
>> When was it originally written ?
>
> November 4th 2001

Good Lord !  Not a repost from your mouldy archives !  Better have a 
look at it then !


>> >  SELLAFIELD: ADVANCED STATE OF DENIAL
>> >
>> > http://www.midnight-fire.net/theweeklyreport/archives.html
>> >
>> >  - Everything is dangerous, one of many citizens living close to the
>> >nuclear and dangerous nuclear plant of Sellafield tells an international
>> >reporter.- Crossing the street is dangerous, but we keep doing it anyway
>> >every day and even several times each day.
>> >  This is one of the many explanations the locals are using to elaborate
>> >on the relative calm in Sellafield. The beaches are dangerously
>> >radioactive. The fields, the water, the humans and animals are all
>> >showing high levels of radiation and the number of cancer cases are far
>> >higher than other places, but the exterior calm remains. In an area
>> >where living birds are classified (by the British authorities) as
>> >“flying nuclear waste� that people are warned not to approach,
>>
>> Funny !  Nobody warned us when we went there !
>
> Funny, why don't I believe you.

Because you're in an advanced state of denial ?  Because you've never 
been ? Because you anly listen to one side of the debate ?  Because you 
only like to spread bad news ?  How should I know how you get your head 
so twisted ?


> I guess the locals didn't warn you. that goes without saying, considering
>their "attitude".

Didn't see a lot of the locals while making a trip to the plant !

So when you say:

     "living birds are classified (by the British authorities) as flying 
nuclear
     waste that people are warned not to approach"

you don't actually mean you get warned by the British authorities or by 
anybody official then ?  Or by any public sign or literature ?

You just mean that there are some mutterings from "the locals" who 
might, or might not warn you, depending on their beliefs about the plant 
and "attitude".  Big deal !


> The British authorites, though, have indeed sent out a warning or two,
>considering the plant

Yes -  there have been a few official warnings about specific incidents, 
and there is not doubt that the plant has had quite poor emissions in 
the past, the leukemia cluster looks quite plausible, and that the '57 
fire was nearly an utter disaster.  Come to think of it, their 
criticality wasn't too damn clever either but as they say at the plant, 
'Nobody died'.

[And the rest of us say under our breaths, "on the day...".]


> and the "flying nuclear waste".

So where is this so designated outside the anals of "The Weekly Report - 
Archives" ?


>> > no one is
>> >running off. Or rather: Those who have not run off already aren’t.
>> >  - There wouldn’t have been jobs here without the plant, one is saying
>> >defensibly.- This is white trash area, man. No one cares about us,
>> >whether we live or die…
>>
>> Evidence ?

None I see !


>> >  And after a prolonged silence he’s finishing his sentence:
>> >  - Not even we do.
>> >
>> > Amos
>>
>> Well, that's big of you Amos !
>
> Not I, John. The one in the interview.

INTERVIEW ??  Who was being interviewed ?  If this is reported speech, 
perhaps you could use quotation marks instead of expecting us to use ESP 
?

Whose views are being reported here anyway ?  Who are these anonymous 
white trash ghouls ?

Or are the origins of this 'story' also utterly without foundation ?


> Don't drool too much now, John.

Well !  Big of whoever.   We can't even tell whose speech is being 
reported here !

In what respect does this "Not even we do" attitude, whose ever it is, 
do credit to the cause you parrot ?


>> Have you ever visited the plant ?
>
> I have been outside it, if that's what you mean.

No it's not !!

I meant gone into it and seen it up close.  Gone in and got some ideas 
of the precautions taken.  Gone in and talked to some of the scientists 
about the improvements that have been made down the years ?  That sort 
of stuff.  I'm not suggesting swallowing all the hype, but I guess it 
does no harm to get both sides of the story !


> Very briefly. What kind of
>question is that?

ROFL !!

One that might begin to determine is you are a deranged activist passing 
on exaggerated twaddle, or somebody who has had the basic courtesy to go 
and see what they are criticising.   Seems to be the former.


> Another diversionary tactic, I guess. Sigh...

Not really -  just keen that your ramblings shouldn't go unquestioned - 
unless of course you have evidence to support your claims.

Mind you -  as you or your 'sources' are unable to handle reported 
speech properly, I won't hold my breath waiting for detailed technical 
justification of your position !


J/.
-- 
John Beardmore