Re: A case for nuclear power

Peter Hearnden · Peter Hearnden

A nuclear engineer being in favour of nuclear power. Quite extraoninary!
"Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.uk> wrote in message
news

qWPa.445521$Vi5.11505316@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> From:
>
http://www.gulflive.com/mississippi/...tml_standard.x
> sl?/base/news/105783214174060.xml
>
> A case for nuclear power
>
> 07/10/03
>
>
> To the editor,
>
>
> America's agenda for this decade is dominated by economic concerns, but
the
> public apparently doesn't see clearly the need for clean energy to ensure
> greater productivity. Our own experience in Mississippi with safe and
> reliable nuclear power demonstrates this. If more evidence is needed, look
> at the lackluster performance of the economy in California, a state where
> anti-growth environmentalism prevails.
>
> What's more, meeting the challenge of world competition requires an
> industrial strategy to accelerate productivity through maximum use of
> capital, labor, energy and technology. Policy makers warn that America's
> economy will lose its edge if current productivity trends continue. In
> response, dozens of corporations are turning to quality programs to help
> maintain their world competitive position.
>
> Quality programs alone aren't enough. Three decades of experience teaches
> that energy policy is a key to achieving economic goals. The record is
> equally clear that using more electricity, especially that generated by
> nuclear power plants, boosts productivity and helps keep the environment
> clean. However to make nuclear power an option for electric utilities, The
> House should act now to approve a Senate-passed energy bill that will
> provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the cost to construct six
> advanced nuclear plants and $1 billion to develop a new cogeneration
reactor
> that produces both electricity and hydrogen. This step will show that the
> nation is serious about improving productivity and protecting the
> environment.
>
> To take advantage of electricity's potential, President Bush's nation
energy
> policy projects the need for between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants by
> 2020; that averages to more than 60 to 90 new plants a year, or more than
> one a week. At least some of these plants will need to use nuclear power,
> since nuclear plants operate reliably and their costs are low, stable and
> predictable. Consider that improvements in the performance of U.S. nuclear
> plants have added the equivalent of 25 plants to the nation's electricity
> grid since 1990.
>
> Power plant designers have blueprints and a timetable for new advanced
> nuclear plants. Three designs already have been certified by the Nuclear
> Regulatory Commission. The new reactors are even safer than today's
> operating plants and are built from common designs. Combining better
> licensing and standard design will cut years from construction schedules
and
> billions from costs.
>
> The Senate energy bill doesn't guarantee new orders for nuclear plants.
> However, it will give utilities like Entergy and the Southern Company an
> option that not only offers reasonably-priced electric power but also
> contributes to environmental quality and improves productivity. It's an
> option that's needed to help the American economy hold its number one
> position in fiercely competitive world markets.
>
> C.T. Carley, Ph.D.,P.E.
>
> Professor Emeritus of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
>
> Mississippi State University
>
>
>

DJ · DJ

> >
> > He also fails to mention the difficulty and danger of processing and
> > disposing of the nuclear waste that can remain for thousands of years...
>
> That used to be a problem, until it was solved. Now that a
> disposal site has been chosen, the danger is no greater than for
> any other hazardous persistent inorganic heavy metal pollutant.

Are you referring to the Yucca mountains... it ain't the actual site
as it is the transportation of the waste across the country.

It is like Dave Letterman said to Christie Todd Whitman last night on
his show, the maddening part about our National Energy Plan is that 40
years ago we were talking about the same damn things as we are today.
At this same time, President John Kennedy gave to the American people,
a vision, a mission, a sense of duty, to get a man on the moon. We
completed that man on the moon mission with success; But come up with
renewable, clean, alternative energies, zip.

And why can't we talk about conservation, as a whole, and ways that
each household and community can make a difference.

Anyone live next to a nuclear plant? It ain't fun. Well, neither is
coal for that matter.

DJ

--

Tim Miller · Tim Miller

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:58:46 -0400, DJ wrote:

>> > He also fails to mention the difficulty and danger of processing and
>> > disposing of the nuclear waste that can remain for thousands of
>> > years...
>>
>> That used to be a problem, until it was solved. Now that a disposal
>> site has been chosen, the danger is no greater than for any other
>> hazardous persistent inorganic heavy metal pollutant.
>
> Are you referring to the Yucca mountains... it ain't the actual site as
> it is the transportation of the waste across the country.
>
The casks used to transport the stuff are very robust. In any case,
nuclear weapons are transported all the time. This is done in great
secrecy so the hand-wringers have no opportunity to wine about it.

> It is like Dave Letterman said to Christie Todd Whitman last night on
> his show, the maddening part about our National Energy Plan is that 40
> years ago we were talking about the same damn things as we are today. At
> this same time, President John Kennedy gave to the American people, a
> vision, a mission, a sense of duty, to get a man on the moon. We
> completed that man on the moon mission with success; But come up with
> renewable, clean, alternative energies, zip.
>
> And why can't we talk about conservation, as a whole, and ways that each
> household and community can make a difference.
>
> Anyone live next to a nuclear plant? It ain't fun. Well, neither is
> coal for that matter.
>
> DJ
>
> --

Pope Dilbert · Pope Dilbert

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:I%rQa.1612$eP6.203019@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vatican@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:ENrQa.56218$ye4.41915@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > "Tim Miller" <rabbitispoor@noamspay.indspringmay.com> wrote in message
> > news

an.2003.07.14.01.43.59.579848.574@noamspay.i ndspringmay.com...
> > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:58:46 -0400, DJ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >> > He also fails to mention the difficulty and danger of processing
> and
> > > >> > disposing of the nuclear waste that can remain for thousands of
> > > >> > years...
> >
> > make that tens of thousands of years.
>
> Nope. The high radiation waste has short half lives. Cesium is about the
> longest at thirty years so after a millenium it's activity will be < one
ten
> billionth of the original. Low enough not to pose any more hazard than the
> natural ore. That is the best standard for where our responsibility ends.

http://www.no-nukes.org/nukewatch/su.../isotopes.html

Uranium-238 alpha - 4.5 billion years....sed in new depleted uranium weapons
and tank armor; contaminates 50 million tons of U.S. uranium mine wastes
left in open piles

Uranium-235 alpha - 700 million years....used in atomic weapons, poisoning
fabrication factories

Uranium-234 alpha & gamma 245,000 years left from uranium ore milling and
enrichment

Plutonium-239 alpha - 24,300 years....sed in hydrogen bombs

Cesium-137 beta & gamma - 30.2 years....left in large quantities from bomb
production and in reactor wastes

Strontium-90 beta - 8 years....spewed by accidents at Three Miles Island &
Chernobyl--and vented in routine "allowable" releases by all operating
nuclear power reactors

Cobalt-60 beta & gamma - 5 years....left from H-bomb production & used in
food irradiation; (contaminates whole body )

Iodine-125 & 131 beta & gamma - 8.1 days - spewed in large quantities during
reactor accidents and in fallout from above-ground bomb testing

**************************

NUCLIDES OF RADIATION SIGNIFICANCE REGULARLY FOUND IN "LOW LEVEL" NUCLEAR
WASTE SHIPMENTS

Source: Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 526 W. 26th St., Room 517,
New York, NY 10001

Americium-241, 430 years

Cerium-144, 280 days

Ruthenium-106, 1 year

Tritium 12, years

ALL of these things are what's being transportedto waste sites .. Cesium is
FAR from the worst.

There is also a lot of concern, since an accident already happened in
Russia, about what the hell happens when these things are mixed.

Perhaps you better learn to read ......

>
> >
> > > >>
> > > >> That used to be a problem, until it was solved. Now that a
disposal
> > > >> site has been chosen, the danger is no greater than for any other
> > > >> hazardous persistent inorganic heavy metal pollutant.
> >
> >
> > The problem has not been solved just becasue someone found a place to
hide
> > the problem.
>
> Storage is not hiding.

I guess you never heard of "out of sight, out of mind".
Why the hell do you think it's being "stored"?
It's because the INDUSTRY can't handle it ... and the public around those
industries KNOWS they cannnot handle what they have piled up already.

Do you think their REALLY planning on "doing something with it in the
future??
They have NO idea what the hell is going to happen to it.

>
> > The danger is a million times greater than other pollutants.
>
> Nope. Just a different sort.

Like a bullet is a different sort of danger than a BB gun!

>
> > Where are you getting your information; the nuclear industry?
>
> Anywone with a brain can detail the facts and check the claims.

I did ... you lie!

>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to the Yucca mountains... it ain't the actual site
> as
> > > > it is the transportation of the waste across the country.
> > > >
> > > The casks used to transport the stuff are very robust. In any case,
> > > nuclear weapons are transported all the time. This is done in great
> > > secrecy so the hand-wringers have no opportunity to wine about it.
> >
> > Bwahahhaaaaaa... so the PEOPLE, whose lives are in danger, cannot do
> > anaything abut it!
>
> I just passed a truck carrying thousands of gallons of liquified Sulfur
> Dioxide. An accident with that would be immediately and horribly deadly.
How
> ever, nobody was in the least bothered by it's shipment by simple trucking
> company. There will always be dangers in technology but their is no sense
in
> getting hysterical over one danger and ignoring a larger one.

Moron ... ask the peoiple in the neighborhood where the truk went through
..... and tell them what will happen to them, and their children, if there is
an accident!

There is LESS sense in ignoring TWO dangers!

>
> > We don't even know ifthey are keeping to unoccupied back roads .. major
> > highways,m or city streets.
>
> Why would you care. The protective casks are sufficient to ensure no
> leakage, unlike normal tanker trucks filled with lethal chemicals. They
have
> almost no safeguards at all!

Like the Titanic was "sufficient"?

Why don't the other carriers have strict safety standards ????????
Because the INDUSTRIES fought them!
Are you insane enough to believe the nuclear industries don't fight safety
standards too?

Why do you think the insurance companies do NOT insure nuclear companies
against catostrophic disasters?
Because they KNOW they will happen!
BTW .. you and I end up paying that bill via tax money ........ not the
industries that are trying to sell us on this fraud!

>
> >
> > As far as "really robust" .. that's about as meaningful as the
"Unsinkable
> > Titanic!"
>
> Nah. Again you are making stupid statements. They never shot hit the
titanic
> with a 120 ton locomotive going at 80 mph or fire tested it to an hour and
a
> half. The later casks were even better.
> http://www.sandia.gov/recordsmgmt/ctb.html
> If they had tested the titanic to an equivalent degree it would have
failed
> miserably and the defects in the construction would have been detected
> before it sailed. This is the advantage of testing over loud mouthed
idiots
> with a keyboard like you.

Since your "facts" about the dangers and the level of danger are blatantly
false and fraudulent - it is not me who is the loud mouthed idiot.

ANYONE with ANY experience will tell you that, historically, technology
cannot solve the very problems it creates!

In case you never knew this ... an earthquake has THOUSANDS, to MILLIONS of
times the power of a locomotive!

Guess what lies under the Yucca mountain area!!!!!!!

Pope Dilbert · Pope Dilbert

"Thomas Palm" <thomas.palm@chello.se> wrote in message
news:3F127A44.7DC83FEB@chello.se...
> Pope Dilbert wrote:
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:I%rQa.1612$eP6.203019@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
>
> > > Nope. The high radiation waste has short half lives. Cesium is about
the
> > > longest at thirty years so after a millenium it's activity will be <
one
> > ten
> > > billionth of the original. Low enough not to pose any more hazard than
the
> > > natural ore. That is the best standard for where our responsibility
ends.
> >
> > http://www.no-nukes.org/nukewatch/su.../isotopes.html
> >
> > Uranium-238 alpha - 4.5 billion years....sed in new depleted uranium
weapons
> > and tank armor; contaminates 50 million tons of U.S. uranium mine wastes
> > left in open piles
> >
> > Uranium-235 alpha - 700 million years....used in atomic weapons,
poisoning
> > fabrication factories
> >
> > Uranium-234 alpha & gamma 245,000 years left from uranium ore milling
and
> > enrichment
>
> The Uranium is natural. Like other heavy metals it's not a nice substance
> to throw around in nature, but as Ian says, it's no more dangerous than
> the ore it came from if deposited again underground. It is after all the
> same uranium.

Damn .. you're an idiot.

Don Libby · Don Libby

DJ wrote:
>
> > >
<...> completed that man on the moon mission with success; But
come up with
> renewable, clean, alternative energies, zip.

Plenty of clean alternatives, just none cheaper than fission, so
far (except at certain specific localities, for example, far, far
away from powerlines).

>
> And why can't we talk about conservation, as a whole, and ways that
> each household and community can make a difference.

Sure, we can talk about that, look up "demand side management" on
Google. But what are people who are not yet electrified going to
conserve?

>
> Anyone live next to a nuclear plant? It ain't fun. Well, neither is
> coal for that matter.

Now you're talking. Coal combustion is the greater health
hazard. What ain't fun about living next to a nuclear plant?
Fear and anxiety? Those are states of mind. Cheer up. If you
live next to a nuclear plant, be glad you don't live next to a
coal plant.

-dl

Karl Johanson · Karl Johanson

"DJ" <firststarfighter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46b4d4d2.0307140829.5bfd92cf@posting.google.c om...
> > The casks used to transport the stuff are very robust. In any case,
> > nuclear weapons are transported all the time. This is done in great
> > secrecy so the hand-wringers have no opportunity to wine about it.
> >
>
> And no one thought 9-11 could happen either...

Lots of people warned about the possible use of jumbo jets to ram buildings.
There was even an episode of fictional show 'The Lone Gunmen' based on that
specific premise, a few months before Sept 11.

Karl Johanson

Peter Hearnden	[1] Posted by Peter Hearnden 07-12-2003, 12:48 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote A nuclear engineer being in favour of nuclear power. Quite extraoninary! "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.uk> wrote in message newsqWPa.445521$Vi5.11505316@news1.calgary.shaw. ca... > From: > http://www.gulflive.com/mississippi/...tml_standard.x > sl?/base/news/105783214174060.xml > > A case for nuclear power > > 07/10/03 > > > To the editor, > > > America's agenda for this decade is dominated by economic concerns, but the > public apparently doesn't see clearly the need for clean energy to ensure > greater productivity. Our own experience in Mississippi with safe and > reliable nuclear power demonstrates this. If more evidence is needed, look > at the lackluster performance of the economy in California, a state where > anti-growth environmentalism prevails. > > What's more, meeting the challenge of world competition requires an > industrial strategy to accelerate productivity through maximum use of > capital, labor, energy and technology. Policy makers warn that America's > economy will lose its edge if current productivity trends continue. In > response, dozens of corporations are turning to quality programs to help > maintain their world competitive position. > > Quality programs alone aren't enough. Three decades of experience teaches > that energy policy is a key to achieving economic goals. The record is > equally clear that using more electricity, especially that generated by > nuclear power plants, boosts productivity and helps keep the environment > clean. However to make nuclear power an option for electric utilities, The > House should act now to approve a Senate-passed energy bill that will > provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the cost to construct six > advanced nuclear plants and $1 billion to develop a new cogeneration reactor > that produces both electricity and hydrogen. This step will show that the > nation is serious about improving productivity and protecting the > environment. > > To take advantage of electricity's potential, President Bush's nation energy > policy projects the need for between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants by > 2020; that averages to more than 60 to 90 new plants a year, or more than > one a week. At least some of these plants will need to use nuclear power, > since nuclear plants operate reliably and their costs are low, stable and > predictable. Consider that improvements in the performance of U.S. nuclear > plants have added the equivalent of 25 plants to the nation's electricity > grid since 1990. > > Power plant designers have blueprints and a timetable for new advanced > nuclear plants. Three designs already have been certified by the Nuclear > Regulatory Commission. The new reactors are even safer than today's > operating plants and are built from common designs. Combining better > licensing and standard design will cut years from construction schedules and > billions from costs. > > The Senate energy bill doesn't guarantee new orders for nuclear plants. > However, it will give utilities like Entergy and the Southern Company an > option that not only offers reasonably-priced electric power but also > contributes to environmental quality and improves productivity. It's an > option that's needed to help the American economy hold its number one > position in fiercely competitive world markets. > > C.T. Carley, Ph.D.,P.E. > > Professor Emeritus of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering > > Mississippi State University > > >
Posts: n/a

DJ	[2] Posted by DJ 07-13-2003, 10:58 AM
Posts: n/a	Quote > > > > He also fails to mention the difficulty and danger of processing and > > disposing of the nuclear waste that can remain for thousands of years... > > That used to be a problem, until it was solved. Now that a > disposal site has been chosen, the danger is no greater than for > any other hazardous persistent inorganic heavy metal pollutant. Are you referring to the Yucca mountains... it ain't the actual site as it is the transportation of the waste across the country. It is like Dave Letterman said to Christie Todd Whitman last night on his show, the maddening part about our National Energy Plan is that 40 years ago we were talking about the same damn things as we are today. At this same time, President John Kennedy gave to the American people, a vision, a mission, a sense of duty, to get a man on the moon. We completed that man on the moon mission with success; But come up with renewable, clean, alternative energies, zip. And why can't we talk about conservation, as a whole, and ways that each household and community can make a difference. Anyone live next to a nuclear plant? It ain't fun. Well, neither is coal for that matter. DJ --
Posts: n/a

Tim Miller	[3] Posted by Tim Miller 07-13-2003, 10:44 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:58:46 -0400, DJ wrote: >> > He also fails to mention the difficulty and danger of processing and >> > disposing of the nuclear waste that can remain for thousands of >> > years... >> >> That used to be a problem, until it was solved. Now that a disposal >> site has been chosen, the danger is no greater than for any other >> hazardous persistent inorganic heavy metal pollutant. > > Are you referring to the Yucca mountains... it ain't the actual site as > it is the transportation of the waste across the country. > The casks used to transport the stuff are very robust. In any case, nuclear weapons are transported all the time. This is done in great secrecy so the hand-wringers have no opportunity to wine about it. > It is like Dave Letterman said to Christie Todd Whitman last night on > his show, the maddening part about our National Energy Plan is that 40 > years ago we were talking about the same damn things as we are today. At > this same time, President John Kennedy gave to the American people, a > vision, a mission, a sense of duty, to get a man on the moon. We > completed that man on the moon mission with success; But come up with > renewable, clean, alternative energies, zip. > > And why can't we talk about conservation, as a whole, and ways that each > household and community can make a difference. > > Anyone live next to a nuclear plant? It ain't fun. Well, neither is > coal for that matter. > > DJ > > --
Posts: n/a

Pope Dilbert	[4] Posted by Pope Dilbert 07-14-2003, 05:57 AM
Posts: n/a	Quote "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:I%rQa.1612$eP6.203019@news20.bellglobal.com.. . > > "Pope Dilbert" <Vatican@NYC.com> wrote in message > news:ENrQa.56218$ye4.41915@sccrnsc01... > > > > "Tim Miller" <rabbitispoor@noamspay.indspringmay.com> wrote in message > > newsan.2003.07.14.01.43.59.579848.574@noamspay.i ndspringmay.com... > > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:58:46 -0400, DJ wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > He also fails to mention the difficulty and danger of processing > and > > > >> > disposing of the nuclear waste that can remain for thousands of > > > >> > years... > > > > make that tens of thousands of years. > > Nope. The high radiation waste has short half lives. Cesium is about the > longest at thirty years so after a millenium it's activity will be < one ten > billionth of the original. Low enough not to pose any more hazard than the > natural ore. That is the best standard for where our responsibility ends. http://www.no-nukes.org/nukewatch/su.../isotopes.html Uranium-238 alpha - 4.5 billion years....sed in new depleted uranium weapons and tank armor; contaminates 50 million tons of U.S. uranium mine wastes left in open piles Uranium-235 alpha - 700 million years....used in atomic weapons, poisoning fabrication factories Uranium-234 alpha & gamma 245,000 years left from uranium ore milling and enrichment Plutonium-239 alpha - 24,300 years....sed in hydrogen bombs Cesium-137 beta & gamma - 30.2 years....left in large quantities from bomb production and in reactor wastes Strontium-90 beta - 8 years....spewed by accidents at Three Miles Island & Chernobyl--and vented in routine "allowable" releases by all operating nuclear power reactors Cobalt-60 beta & gamma - 5 years....left from H-bomb production & used in food irradiation; (contaminates whole body ) Iodine-125 & 131 beta & gamma - 8.1 days - spewed in large quantities during reactor accidents and in fallout from above-ground bomb testing ************************** NUCLIDES OF RADIATION SIGNIFICANCE REGULARLY FOUND IN "LOW LEVEL" NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENTS Source: Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 526 W. 26th St., Room 517, New York, NY 10001 Americium-241, 430 years Cerium-144, 280 days Ruthenium-106, 1 year Tritium 12, years ALL of these things are what's being transportedto waste sites .. Cesium is FAR from the worst. There is also a lot of concern, since an accident already happened in Russia, about what the hell happens when these things are mixed. Perhaps you better learn to read ...... > > > > > > >> > > > >> That used to be a problem, until it was solved. Now that a disposal > > > >> site has been chosen, the danger is no greater than for any other > > > >> hazardous persistent inorganic heavy metal pollutant. > > > > > > The problem has not been solved just becasue someone found a place to hide > > the problem. > > Storage is not hiding. I guess you never heard of "out of sight, out of mind". Why the hell do you think it's being "stored"? It's because the INDUSTRY can't handle it ... and the public around those industries KNOWS they cannnot handle what they have piled up already. Do you think their REALLY planning on "doing something with it in the future?? They have NO idea what the hell is going to happen to it. > > > The danger is a million times greater than other pollutants. > > Nope. Just a different sort. Like a bullet is a different sort of danger than a BB gun! > > > Where are you getting your information; the nuclear industry? > > Anywone with a brain can detail the facts and check the claims. I did ... you lie! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you referring to the Yucca mountains... it ain't the actual site > as > > > > it is the transportation of the waste across the country. > > > > > > > The casks used to transport the stuff are very robust. In any case, > > > nuclear weapons are transported all the time. This is done in great > > > secrecy so the hand-wringers have no opportunity to wine about it. > > > > Bwahahhaaaaaa... so the PEOPLE, whose lives are in danger, cannot do > > anaything abut it! > > I just passed a truck carrying thousands of gallons of liquified Sulfur > Dioxide. An accident with that would be immediately and horribly deadly. How > ever, nobody was in the least bothered by it's shipment by simple trucking > company. There will always be dangers in technology but their is no sense in > getting hysterical over one danger and ignoring a larger one. Moron ... ask the peoiple in the neighborhood where the truk went through ..... and tell them what will happen to them, and their children, if there is an accident! There is LESS sense in ignoring TWO dangers! > > > We don't even know ifthey are keeping to unoccupied back roads .. major > > highways,m or city streets. > > Why would you care. The protective casks are sufficient to ensure no > leakage, unlike normal tanker trucks filled with lethal chemicals. They have > almost no safeguards at all! Like the Titanic was "sufficient"? Why don't the other carriers have strict safety standards ???????? Because the INDUSTRIES fought them! Are you insane enough to believe the nuclear industries don't fight safety standards too? Why do you think the insurance companies do NOT insure nuclear companies against catostrophic disasters? Because they KNOW they will happen! BTW .. you and I end up paying that bill via tax money ........ not the industries that are trying to sell us on this fraud! > > > > > As far as "really robust" .. that's about as meaningful as the "Unsinkable > > Titanic!" > > Nah. Again you are making stupid statements. They never shot hit the titanic > with a 120 ton locomotive going at 80 mph or fire tested it to an hour and a > half. The later casks were even better. > http://www.sandia.gov/recordsmgmt/ctb.html > If they had tested the titanic to an equivalent degree it would have failed > miserably and the defects in the construction would have been detected > before it sailed. This is the advantage of testing over loud mouthed idiots > with a keyboard like you. Since your "facts" about the dangers and the level of danger are blatantly false and fraudulent - it is not me who is the loud mouthed idiot. ANYONE with ANY experience will tell you that, historically, technology cannot solve the very problems it creates! In case you never knew this ... an earthquake has THOUSANDS, to MILLIONS of times the power of a locomotive! Guess what lies under the Yucca mountain area!!!!!!!
Posts: n/a

Pope Dilbert	[5] Posted by Pope Dilbert 07-14-2003, 02:20 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote "Thomas Palm" <thomas.palm@chello.se> wrote in message news:3F127A44.7DC83FEB@chello.se... > Pope Dilbert wrote: > > > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message > > news:I%rQa.1612$eP6.203019@news20.bellglobal.com.. . > > > > Nope. The high radiation waste has short half lives. Cesium is about the > > > longest at thirty years so after a millenium it's activity will be < one > > ten > > > billionth of the original. Low enough not to pose any more hazard than the > > > natural ore. That is the best standard for where our responsibility ends. > > > > http://www.no-nukes.org/nukewatch/su.../isotopes.html > > > > Uranium-238 alpha - 4.5 billion years....sed in new depleted uranium weapons > > and tank armor; contaminates 50 million tons of U.S. uranium mine wastes > > left in open piles > > > > Uranium-235 alpha - 700 million years....used in atomic weapons, poisoning > > fabrication factories > > > > Uranium-234 alpha & gamma 245,000 years left from uranium ore milling and > > enrichment > > The Uranium is natural. Like other heavy metals it's not a nice substance > to throw around in nature, but as Ian says, it's no more dangerous than > the ore it came from if deposited again underground. It is after all the > same uranium. Damn .. you're an idiot.
Posts: n/a

Don Libby	[6] Posted by Don Libby 07-14-2003, 11:54 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote DJ wrote: > > > > <...> completed that man on the moon mission with success; But come up with > renewable, clean, alternative energies, zip. Plenty of clean alternatives, just none cheaper than fission, so far (except at certain specific localities, for example, far, far away from powerlines). > > And why can't we talk about conservation, as a whole, and ways that > each household and community can make a difference. Sure, we can talk about that, look up "demand side management" on Google. But what are people who are not yet electrified going to conserve? > > Anyone live next to a nuclear plant? It ain't fun. Well, neither is > coal for that matter. Now you're talking. Coal combustion is the greater health hazard. What ain't fun about living next to a nuclear plant? Fear and anxiety? Those are states of mind. Cheer up. If you live next to a nuclear plant, be glad you don't live next to a coal plant. -dl
Posts: n/a

Karl Johanson	[7] Posted by Karl Johanson 07-15-2003, 02:58 PM
Posts: n/a	Quote "DJ" <firststarfighter@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:46b4d4d2.0307140829.5bfd92cf@posting.google.c om... > > The casks used to transport the stuff are very robust. In any case, > > nuclear weapons are transported all the time. This is done in great > > secrecy so the hand-wringers have no opportunity to wine about it. > > > > And no one thought 9-11 could happen either... Lots of people warned about the possible use of jumbo jets to ram buildings. There was even an episode of fictional show 'The Lone Gunmen' based on that specific premise, a few months before Sept 11. Karl Johanson
Posts: n/a

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
eScrew OWNS YOU!!!	eScrewDotCom@Hotmail.com	Paintball Discussion	6	12-22-2004 03:55 PM
Re: A case for nuclear power	MULP	Politics	6	07-15-2003 04:22 PM
Core of Weapons Case Crumbling	Gandalf Grey	Politics	2	07-15-2003 01:56 AM
Re: Is Einstein a Genius or a Plagiarist?	John Knight	Politics	2	07-13-2003 04:57 PM
Re: "Jane Roe" Wants Abortions Banned! Abortions Harm Women! She Wants Case Overturned! She Has that right! Abortion = baby murder	The Ghost In The Machine	Politics	0	06-22-2003 03:37 AM