Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: "Robert Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:33:33 -0000
"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eekqo19s4n0n48os68lngo9odtj95v2a0d@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:16:37 -0000 someone who may be "Robert
> Peffers" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote this:-
>
>>As it happens I'm not pushing nuclear power alone but I am taking a
>>balanced
>>view of the whole situation and I only do such things after looking at
>>other
>>side of the coin or coins.
>
> Many people believe they are taking a balanced view after looking at
> the other side of the coin, including me.
Then perhaps you might review some of the things that are obviously wrong
with the case against nuclear power generation.
Thing is you don't for you cannot see past your own prejudice
>
>>Quite obviously you have not done so with an open mind.
>
> You may believe and assert that this is the case, but you are
> incorrect.
Then why are you unable to see simple laws of physics that cannot be wrong
are being blatantly quote wrongly?
>
>>You are thus disposed you now cannot realign your thinking to anything
>>else.
>
> Mind reading again. It tells us something about you, but nothing
> about me. In fact my views of nuclear power have changed, from being
> in favour to being against, as I have evaluated the evidence over
> more than two decades.
You are once more missing the point.
The length of time is not that point but simple common sense and the laws of
physics being misquoted are.
--
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Think on this - there is no way in this World that any process anywhere can
be made to give out more than is put in. It just is not possible. Neither is
it possible to create matter, it is not possible for this to be done. Yet
here we have a group of people who really should know better making such
claims. Lets look at a couple of them. They claim a process can make enrich
an element and this results in an increase of radioactivity. The whole
concept is not possible. It is true that a substance can be enriched but
that is not the whole story for to do this the process has to involve
another part and that pat is to provide the neutrons that enrich the one
they are speaking off. This, of course, means another part of the process is
being depleted but they don't consider this as part of the whole and boldly
claim we have increased the World's radioactivity. In fact we have not and
even more so we have suffered loses in the process as heat was a by-product
that must be subtracted from the whole. So now lets look at their next
mistake and the claim they make as a result. We now have a radioactive waste
problem and this too is a mistaken conclusion for what we have is the same
quantity we started out with bur where did we get it from? The answer is
from under the ground of the uranium mines. Aye! Right! So we did, but there
was tons of ore taken out to produce a small handful of the stuff we want.
Now we have enriched some of it but we have not increased the total quantity
so if we forget about the thing we depleted what we have actually done is to
further shrink the size of the sample which is by definition more active by
unit weight but just the same in overall quantity. So what exactly is the
disposal problem? The answer is that we now have some of the earth's total
radioactivity in a place where we don't want it. For goodness sake it's not
nuclear science, Err! Wait a moment it is nuclear science but the answer is
the same, "Put it back under the ground", if possible where we got it from.
It really is as simple as that. We dug it up, we mucked it about and we put
it back under the ground and we have not added to the overall radioactive
contents of the World.
As to the risks involved - you wanted a more efficient fuel and now you have
one. The more efficient the fuel the more energy it contains so be a bit
more careful. Now the fact is you cannot prove me wrong without trying to
change the laws of physics and those rules cannot be changed.
Now explain away the fact that by looking at the total power generated by a
single fuel and seeing how many have dies from it per million people using
it and there is little doubt that Nuclear is the safest. Now if you must
argue with that it means you have to consider all fuels without picking out
nuclear and blitzing that with widely inaccurate figures while ignoring the
deaths of those killed by other fuels.
--
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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Prev by Date: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
