Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.


<septicdoodledandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133289922.145666.272370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Robert Peffers wrote:
>> Yeah! But the strange thing is the way the same peple who go all weak at
>> the
>> knees at the very mention of radioactivity can read all the real stories
>> that pop into the news on a daily basis of the real deaths caused by more
>> conventional fuels, the mine explosions, the exploding homes, the dam
>> bursts, the oil fires and so on and never turn a hair.
>
> All of those stories are awful. None of them will hold a candle to the
> senselessness of one nuclear missile fired in anger.
No doubt but the deliberate attack with weapons of any kind is nothing to do
with this debate in the first place and you are holding it up against a list
of accidents caused by other fuels.
the comparason is not only odius but downright daft.
> Try and imagine
> what would happen if Iran fired a nuke at Israel or Pakistan at India.
> If 21st century nuclear power becomes accepted at home then we accept
> the inevitability of other countries doing the same but with 20th
> century technology and 20th century military goals.
Strawman!! Nothing to do with this debate. Your point would be just as silly
if it was germ, chemicl or conventional weapons. The link between weapons
and fuels is stupid for every fuel that ever was is also weapon if the
userer so decides.
>
> We also say "yes" to huge piles of nuclear waste that will have to be
> administered for millenia by people who have, in the past, seen fit to
> utterly poison the Irish Sea and vast tracts of land within the UK.
Strawman! The total quantity of radioactive material cannot be made larger
and radioactive stuff was around billions of years before man came along.
The problem you think exists is not the one that does exist. We have not
increased the World's radioactivity we have just moved it from where we
howked it up to another location. It has always been there.
>
> You can point at how 'clean" nuclear power is because it's not
> poisoning the air. You choose not to see its potential for poisoning
> the land. You say you can store it safely but that has not been the
> case so far. At least not in the UK. The costs will be astronomical to
> build these plants too. It will take many years and billion of pounds.
> We need something now.
Rubbish! There has never been a fuel that did not have either a pollution
effect or an environmental effect or both.
Think of all the lead from petrol that is in the banks and verges of every
road in the World.>
> Think of something else.
Oh! I do! I do! It is you who has the blinkered and tunnel vision who cannot
see the other fuels problems and even worse who chooses to block them out by
selective fears of just the one fuel. Grow up and get over the fear of the
bogyman.
>
>> How about the stark fact that the very word fuel indicates that it is a
>> potential source of power means exactly the same for the stored potential
>> of
>> water uphill as it does for the scoop of Uranium.
>> By that I mean there is a standard way of indicating how much potential
>> work
>> it can do. The stone cold fact is that no matter what the fuel that
>> quantity
>> of work is exactly the same and is just as potentially dangerous. Simply
>> put
>> a given amount of power in a given quantity of fuel can do just the same
>> work and can kill just as much.
>
> This is the "the world is a dangerous place" argument. It's been tried.
> I don't think the goal is to accept the dangers that exist and add to
> them. I think a nice idea would be to make the world safer as well as
> cleaner. Your argument is a baby with the bathwater one.
>
>
> Septic
>
No it is the all fuel is actually a potential energy holder by its very
nature argument. It is also the every fuel is also a weapon argument. Then
it is also the total radioactivity is still the same but in a different
place from where we got it argument. - Do try and keep up.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nuclear Power: Unsafe, Uneconomical, Unsustainable
    ... "A critical point about the practicability of nuclear power to provide ... The quality of uranium ore varies inversely with their ... rock and shale that will provide the fresh fuel for a one gigawatt ... Fresh fuel for one reactor contains about 10 curies of radioactivity ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... > can end up with a bigger quantity of fuel after withdrawing power from it. ... like is the bit about spent fuel being weapons' grade ... On the bright side, Bob, if the reactors are shut down ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: North American Vigilante
    ... but with much less drag and started as a nuclear strike platform tossing the ... as a fuel tank and with a dedicated recce nose ... The weapons bay was considerably longer than the nuclear ... The tanks, which were ejected with the bomb, acted as ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... You don't need weapons grade to make a nuclear explosive. ... > Pu240 in a mixed oxide fuel is a non-issue, ... >>It's not but making it from Pu produced by reprocessing of spent reactor ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... You don't need weapons grade to make a nuclear explosive. ... > Pu240 in a mixed oxide fuel is a non-issue, ... >>It's not but making it from Pu produced by reprocessing of spent reactor ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Loading