McGuirk on the Late Late Show

So they obviously lied about him being an economist. :eek: I will never trust the Late Late Show again. Or can anyone style themselves as an economist? I would have thought they would at least have had to study economics, but maybe I'm wrong.

Lyre_Bird wrote:

I would have thought they would at least have had to study economics, but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe it was really angry banana and europerson dressed up in a John McGuirk costume.

shay_562 wrote:

On-topic: I heard today what it was Trevor Sargeant said (while discussing nuclear power with TCD student John McQuirk etc etc) to the French guy, and all I can say is...jesus.

Remind us.. Or was it "you'd know he's not irish"?

*trying to dredge up memory of debate*

(was a little distracted by That Suit)

I think Sargent was trying to make the point to the French guy that what works in France may not work in Ireland, and that you'd need to be Irish to understand the level of NIMBY-ism and distrust of the planning process here.

There would be war if planning was ever awarded for anything nuclear in Ireland. The scuffle of TDs trying to grab decentralised civil service depts for their constituencies would be nothing compared to the uproar there would be.

Barry Aldwell wrote:

Maybe it was really angry banana and europerson dressed up in a John McGuirk costume.

I can assure you that it was not! :eek:

Andrew 83 wrote:

no one will want to live near one.

Except for the people who will gain employment from it. But I suppose we don't care about that any more what with out "zero" unemployment.

Actually I think some td's might actually want one. If they're enlightened enough and their area requires a much needed boost. If they had oratorical skill and knowledge to convince their constituency it'd be a good thing, not even on the big picture but for each of them personally. Or do I put too much hope in politicians?

I think this is one of those issues where a lot of those who support having nuclear power would like it but only as long as the reactor isn't beside them.

If it was properly regulated I don't see the problem. I'd happily live near one once there was lots of trees around it, or it was tastefully placed or something. Those concrete chimneys are ugggg-gly (pretty much my only gripe).

Andrew 83 wrote:

Personally no matter how safe nuclear reactors are generally I would never want to live anywhere near one because on the off chance something goes wrong...

Would you feel similar about an airport? I mean there's an offchance a plane might crash into you on your way to work or while you're asleep in your bedroom. Or how about a river? Never know, could flood like. Or what about those lovely curtains the missus really wants? No can't have them, they're flammable, house might burn down. Heck why doesn't everybody just live in a bunker?

Andrew 83 wrote:

Look at the fights to avoid having an incinerator in TD's constituencies. No TD in the country will want a nuclear reactor in their constituency and no one will want to live near one. I think this is one of those issues where a lot of those who support having nuclear power would like it but only as long as the reactor isn't beside them.

Personally no matter how safe nuclear reactors are generally I would never want to live anywhere near one because on the off chance something goes wrong...

I'd be quite happy to live near one. It's the only power plant I'd really be particularly comfortable living beside; no-one wants a constant cloud of smoke over their house. Give someone a choice between a coal plant (and that is the realistic alternative) or a nuclear plant beside them, and anyone sane will go for the nuclear one. The vague chance of accident is as nothing compared to the high chance of potentially fatal respiratory problems.

ApeXaviour wrote:

If it was properly regulated I don't see the problem. I'd happily live near one once there was lots of trees around it, or it was tastefully placed or something. Those concrete chimneys are ugggg-gly (pretty much my only gripe).

They don't all have them though. There's one in France on an island in the middle of a river, uses the river for cooling.

Yeah, warm water as a pollutant is really underestimated, it can really **** up the aquatic ecosystem - it reduces dissolved oxygen and increases the metabolic rate of aquatic organisms, and can cause an algal bloom. Plus, a nuclear reactor close to a water supply is just a bad idea anyway..