tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5751378779673407348.post6909347332394448390..comments2023-04-03T10:29:47.613+02:00Comments on The Greenby Blog: High Voltage HypocrisyOla Tedinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11309097535265836696noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5751378779673407348.post-34166103737267542472013-04-12T17:16:01.428+02:002013-04-12T17:16:01.428+02:00All of thеm business uѕually gοod. So, thеy starte...All of thеm business uѕually gοod. So, thеy started traԁing things <br />thеre. Ӏf yοu are tаkіng aԁvantаge of the <br />tах сοde. Fог that, the <br />integгation ωith Cеρhalon is probаbly the waуs regaгԁing аttracting and alsο mаintаining сonsumеrѕ.<br /><br /><br />Feеl free to viѕit mу site :: <a href="http://www.wordpress.org.za/groups/business-improve-search-engine-ranking-next/" rel="nofollow">internet marketing job description</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5751378779673407348.post-54792199034325032982008-01-20T08:47:00.000+01:002008-01-20T08:47:00.000+01:00Well, that just goes to show the basic problem of ...Well, that just goes to show the basic problem of Wikipedia, does it not? Knowledge by consensus.<BR/><BR/>The stats I used in my first answer are from scb.se, Swedens bureau of statistics.Ola Tedinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11309097535265836696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5751378779673407348.post-22174124917299134132008-01-20T05:58:00.000+01:002008-01-20T05:58:00.000+01:00Thanks Ola. The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikiped...Thanks Ola. The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Sweden tells it a little differently, and appears to be what I read before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5751378779673407348.post-50374223670260295212008-01-19T12:37:00.000+01:002008-01-19T12:37:00.000+01:00Dear Brad,Thank's for your comment.here´s what hap...Dear Brad,<BR/><BR/>Thank's for your comment.here´s what happend:<BR/><BR/>The referendum on nuclear power in Sweden 1980 had three options that got the following results:<BR/><BR/>1 Yes: 18.9 percent<BR/><BR/>2 Keep it now, but get rid of it when possible: 39.1 <BR/><BR/>3 No: 38.7<BR/><BR/>As you can see both yes and no get's a majority when combined with no 2.<BR/>The resulting gridlock has completely paralyzed energy politics in this country.<BR/><BR/>OlaOla Tedinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11309097535265836696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5751378779673407348.post-38194838406740257802008-01-19T01:07:00.000+01:002008-01-19T01:07:00.000+01:00"It's inconclusive result (you could either vote n..."It's inconclusive result (you could either vote no, yes or maybe, to nuclear power..."<BR/><BR/>I've read (elsewhere in the blogosphere) that the choices were more like No, Emphatically no, or Hell no! There really wasn't a 'Yes, we'll have more, please' option. But perhaps the real choices had lost something in the translation.<BR/><BR/>Would you care to comment? How was the pro-nuclear choice worded?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com