Talk:Nuclear Information and Resource Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-24. The result of the discussion was keep. |
So it appears that the NIRS logo was erased, perhaps this was not properly credited to us or the public domain in the wikimedia space. Can anyone help get this back - it is located on the NIRS.ORG website
thx Paxuscalta 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Double Takes
As a reader unfamilar with the organization, I want to point out some thoughts on a few facts and wording. The statement:
Specialists at NIRS offer more than 100 years of combined experience on the environmental, health and safety detriments of nuclear power.
Makes the NIRC sound really small. 100 years of combined experience typically means half a dozen people at most. And then,
Together with its partner WISE (World Information Service on Energy), NIRS outreach spans the globe, with 14 offices on five continents [1].
seems just slightly misleading since it doesn't say who's offices they are, WISE of NIRS. In the case of the later, it sounds slightly contradictory to the previous quote there. And in general I don't think a reader DOES get an idea of the size and scope of the NIRS by reading it.
Anyway, just wanted to point that out in case it was of use to any of you. Happy editing! theanphibian 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] stances
Who exactly is in favour of "ineffective reprocessing"?CyrilleDunant 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your edits have been helpful; however, please don't revert my edits. I don't see the point of changing good prose and removing factual information. As for "ineffective reprocessing," I'm sure that some people are opposed to effective reprocessing if it costs more money than they want to spend, just like with any other industry.Athene cunicularia 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- By definition, this would be ineffective :). As for my edits, it is completely irrelevant that n people where left without electricity after an earthquake, because this could have any cause: destroyed lines, automatic emergency shutdown of the plant, broken lightbulbs. It is an ineffective sentence which tries to say that the earthquake was major and ends up saying the opposite. As it stands, I think the link suffices if someone wishes to have information about the earthquake.
- Also, quotes ought to be in italics. Or using the quote template if extensive.CyrilleDunant 05:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your edits have been helpful; however, please don't revert my edits. I don't see the point of changing good prose and removing factual information. As for "ineffective reprocessing," I'm sure that some people are opposed to effective reprocessing if it costs more money than they want to spend, just like with any other industry.Athene cunicularia 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
