[OT] They're restarting Chernobyl? - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

27 Nov 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 &lt;DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com&gt;
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
&lt;classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu&gt;
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?")

------- 