Slightly OT I know but if you go half way down the page and click on the small
satellite image it brings up a pop-up of 4 larger versions of the images on the page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4520430.stm
--
Nick in Northallerton
Also @ www.whelan.me.uk
And nickw7coc on
Yahoo & MSN
but I use http://www.trillian.cc as I like it better
also on Skype and Google talk

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Slightly OT I know but if you go half way down the page and click on the
small
satellite image it brings up a pop-up of 4 larger versions of the images
on the page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4520430.stm

Sadly does not appear to be there now

wafflycat wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
...
Slightly OT I know but if you go half way down the page and click on the
small
satellite image it brings up a pop-up of 4 larger versions of the images
on the page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4520430.stm

Sadly does not appear to be there now

One of them is, but it is 36 hours old. Sadly, yesterdays long thin
plume is not likely to make people worried about the 'toxic gas cloud'
that the media are trying to peddle, so it is rarely shown.

I fear for the 'fallout' of luvvies when they have no live 'inferno'
pictures to use as a background.

In article , writes:

.. Sadly, yesterdays long thin
plume is not likely to make people worried about the 'toxic gas cloud'
that the media are trying to peddle, so it is rarely shown.


"..the 'toxic gas cloud' that the media are trying to peddle"?


Don't you think it is toxic, then? And that "the media" are *conspiring* to
INVENT a danger that does not exist?


No Cheers,


keith






---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:13:43 +0000 (UTC), (Keith
Dancey) wrote:

In article , writes:

.. Sadly, yesterdays long thin
plume is not likely to make people worried about the 'toxic gas cloud'
that the media are trying to peddle, so it is rarely shown.


"..the 'toxic gas cloud' that the media are trying to peddle"?


Don't you think it is toxic, then? And that "the media" are *conspiring* to
INVENT a danger that does not exist?

PAH! :-)

Richard Webb

Keith Dancey wrote:
In article , writes:

.. Sadly, yesterdays long thin
plume is not likely to make people worried about the 'toxic gas cloud'
that the media are trying to peddle, so it is rarely shown.


"..the 'toxic gas cloud' that the media are trying to peddle"?


Don't you think it is toxic, then? And that "the media" are *conspiring* to
INVENT a danger that does not exist?


No Cheers,


keith

Anything is toxic in large doses, but this is really only 95% carbon
and as long as the wind keeps blowing it will disperse. And the media
were trying to hype up the idea that there was a toxic cloud that was
moving out of control, but because nobody started falling down dead
from the fumes, they had to abandon their stories.

wrote:


Keith Dancey wrote:
In article ,
writes:

.. Sadly, yesterdays long thin
plume is not likely to make people worried about the 'toxic gas cloud'
that the media are trying to peddle, so it is rarely shown.


"..the 'toxic gas cloud' that the media are trying to peddle"?


Don't you think it is toxic, then? And that "the media" are *conspiring*
to INVENT a danger that does not exist?


No Cheers,


keith

Anything is toxic in large doses, but this is really only 95% carbon
and as long as the wind keeps blowing it will disperse. And the media
were trying to hype up the idea that there was a toxic cloud that was
moving out of control, but because nobody started falling down dead
from the fumes, they had to abandon their stories.

Heard yesterday on Classic FM News that the dark smoke-cloud covering SE
England may persist for two or three weeks!

--
Graham Davis
Bracknell

In article , writes:

Keith Dancey wrote:
In article , writes:

.. Sadly, yesterdays long thin
plume is not likely to make people worried about the 'toxic gas cloud'
that the media are trying to peddle, so it is rarely shown.


"..the 'toxic gas cloud' that the media are trying to peddle"?


Don't you think it is toxic, then? And that "the media" are *conspiring* to
INVENT a danger that does not exist?

Anything is toxic in large doses, but this is really only 95% carbon
and as long as the wind keeps blowing it will disperse. And the media
were trying to hype up the idea that there was a toxic cloud that was
moving out of control, but because nobody started falling down dead
from the fumes, they had to abandon their stories.


I can't help but feel all this "media conspiracy" stuff is hysterical
nonsence on your part. The plume is toxic. There was a danger from it,
and the media reported quite correctly that (a) an inversion prevented
it dissapating at higher altitudes, (b) heat from the fire took the
plume to a "safe" height, (c) changing wind strengths and directions
spread the plume to different locations, (d) light rain might wash it
back to ground and (e) as the heat from the fire reduced, so the height
of the plume might lower and threaten people underneath it.



No Cheers,

keith



---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 90 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...
London?...