Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.


Deirdre wrote:

> Nope, you just make assertions.

And you post little science quizzes lest we ever, ever forget what it
is you do and what you seemingly derive all of your self-worth from.
This debate is an ethics debate not a who-knows-more-science debate.
It's about what this generation owes future generations in terms of
what we do the planet those future people will be occupying.

> I'm afraid I don't have enough time or bandwidth
> to discuss all that's wrong with you, no matter,
> those who read will decide from themselves.

Indeed.

>
> > > So what? 24,000 years from now _all_ of the
> > > cadminum, arsenic and chemical nasties will still
> > > be in the waste dumps...assuming, of course,
> > > they haven't leached into the watershed. Does
> > > that somehow make you happier?
> >
> > No, Deirdre. None of it makes me half as happy as it appears to make
> > you.
>
> More assertions? Why do you presume happiness
> is at stake when what we're dealing with is merely
> factual information?

The health and well-being of future generations is at stake which is
inextricably tied to happiness.

>
> > The Great Virii Queen speaks on matters of spelling! I rarely make
> > spelling mistakes and I do not use a checker.
>
> That's okay, the rest of your mistakes more than
> make up for them, don't feel bad.
>
> > The point at which one's
> > opponent starts to fall on spelling mistakes as ammunition is called
> > "the bottom of the barrel" for many reasons.
>
> That would be, of course, why your alter-ego
> jumped on "which" versus "who"? And so quickly,
> too. Hm. You don't really like him much, do you?
> You should really do something about that selec-
> tive memory of yours...have you ever thought
> of taking notes?

I'm frankly too sick today and not very interested in taking notes. My
name is Erich Bell. I live in New Jersey. I don't know RG well. I do
know from his kind emails that he's been here a long time and that he
dislikes you for reasons that should be painfully apparent to anyone
reading your posts in this thread alone. I have no idea who Deb is. I'm
not sure why you or Madra need me to be Deb but I will go back and see
if I can find this person's posts. If she gave you a hard time I think
I already like her.


>
> > > And so what if the US has Superfund sites? Every
> > > place does, at least they've identified the ruddy
> > > things which is more than most places can say.
> > > Do you know how much of your life is dependent
> > > on "Superfund sites" to be? Every refinery will
> > > become one...every chemical plant...every place
> > > that manufactured _anything_ prior to the rel-
> > > atively recent awareness of contaminated land
> > > is a potential Superfund site.
> >
> > Right and this is my fault because...? I did not design the system. I
> > simply find myself living in it.
>
> Well, you can stop living in it if it disturbs you so
> much, you know...surely someone you know has a
> gas oven?

And you claim there's nothing wrong with you!? Who writes such a thing?
A teenager, perhaps?


> I have no problem with coal and I have no problem
> with the new technologies being developed to make
> it burn cleaner. Of course, unlike you, I know what
> they are and understand them.

Like most proponents of nuclear power you see only the immediate
benefit to the people like yourself currently inhabiting the world. You
are not able to think forward because it does not suit your arguments
to do so. You are not capable of seeing the people who have to live
with the effects of uranium mining because conveniently they are far
away from where you live, are usually poor, indigenous people and
obviously don't seem to count. Your thinking is terribly simplistic for
someone with such an entrenched need to be seen as intelligent. The
real cost of nuclear power is unknown. All you can see is that these
plants don't emit CO2. You are purposefully not looking at the
environmental costs of mining the fuel for these plants, building these
plants, storing the wastes from these plants LONG-TERM and the price of
any kind of accident should one occur.

>>From The Safe Energy Handbook:

"The stories told by the indigenous delegates to the World Uranium
Hearing in Salzburg (1992) constitute an appalling indictment of
nuclear colonialism. It is their homelands, their bodies, and their
ancient cultures that are most immediately victimized by nuclear
power... On their lands, which they hold sacred, 70% of the world's
uranium is mined, most of the testing takes place, and radioactive
wastes are dumped. (11)

The risks of radioactive contamination are not equally shared by all
people. Generally those with the least economic power, particularly
indigenous peoples, bear the greatest burden of exposure to radiation.

Uranium mining on indigenous and tribal peoples' lands has devastated
local communities and environments in North America, Australia, Africa
and Asia. (12) Uranium ore, mined from large open pits and underground
mines, is processed so it can be used as fuel in nuclear reactors. For
every ton of uranium oxide produced, thousands of tons of wastes, or
tailings, are left behind. Often the tailings are simply dumped on the
land near the mine and left to the effects of the elements. Wind
carries radon gas and radioactive dust from these tailings for many
miles. Contaminated rainwater enters the soil, the watershed and,
eventually, the food chain, endangering health. Indigenous peoples'
lands have also been used to dump radioactive wastes and to test
(explode) nuclear bombs both above-ground and below-ground, resulting
in massive radioactive contamination."

And

"* In Northern Saskatchewan, Canada, where the world's largest and most
concentrated known uranium reserves are located, routine releases and
accidental spills of contaminated water from mining and milling
operations have poisoned major fisheries and threatened the health and
livelihood of indigenous communities. (13)

* In Niger and Namibia, uranium tailings are simply dumped on the
desert sand, contaminating the air, food and drinking water of nomadic
tribes. (14 )

* In the Southwestern U.S., mining wastes abandoned on indigenous
peoples' land have damaged the health of their communities. It is
little known that the second worst nuclear disaster in U.S. history was
the spilling of uranium mine tailings in the Rio Puerco River in New
Mexico in the 1980s. (15)

* Dineh (Navajo) and other uranium miners in the U.S. have contracted
cancers at a much higher rate than the general population (including a
lung cancer incidence forty times greater than normally expected). (16)
They were not told about the dangers of radioactivity.

* Tibetan people have been, without their knowledge,
radiation-tolerance test victims at sites of Chinese-operated uranium
mines and waste dumps. (17)"

And

"By the year 2000, the nuclear industry will have created 201,000 tons
of highly radioactive irradiated (used) fuel rods. (34) If liquid and
solid wastes, uranium tailings and all they have come in contact with
are included, the volume is, of course, much larger.

Many ideas for "final" disposal have been put forward, but none has
proved even remotely adequate. (35) One problem is that the plutonium
in the waste will remain radioactive for up to 240,000 years (12,000
generations) or more. For that entire time it must be isolated from all
living organisms and from the water, land and air upon which they
depend.

Deep underground burial of wastes is currently the favored policy of
most nuclear nations. However, changing water tables, earthquakes and
other geological factors will eventually disturb the buried waste and
lead to contamination of soil, water and air. No container exists that
will last as long as the radioactivity of its contents. Nor can we be
confident that our descendants will not dig into burial sites hundreds
or thousands of years from now, out of curiosity or lack of
information. (36)

None of the 44 countries with nuclear reactors has a solution to the
waste problem. Meanwhile, the wastes are either kept in "temporary"
storage facilities or buried in shallow pits. Wastes have been dumped
directly into the ground, lakes and oceans of the world (for example:
into the Irish Sea near Sellafield, England; into the Pacific Ocean
near the Farallones Islands off San Francisco, California; and into
Lake Karachay, near Chelyabinsk, Russia).

A growing number of sites have been abandoned by humans due to
radioactive contamination. Yet wind and water, microbes, insects,
seeds, birds and other life forms which cannot read posted warning
signs move freely from one ecological niche to another. (37) The
question of how to isolate radioactivity enduringly from life remains
unanswered.

Further, after irradiated fuel rods are removed, the reactor buildings
remain highly contaminated. In the U.S. the law requires that power
companies dismantle (decommission) old reactors and "clean up" sites.
While companies are required to set funds aside for this purpose, no
reactor has yet been completely dismantled. The true costs and risks of
this process remain unknown.

Our descendants will face the dangers and bear the expense of
deactivating the world's 430 (as of 1996) nuclear reactors. They will
also need to protect themselves virtually forever from the thousands of
tons of radioactive wastes the industry has already produced."


> > See above. No one, not even you, knows the real risks. The politest
> > possible term for risk-assessment is "guessing" and "hoping" things
> > don't get sticky.
>
> I'm a sight better informed that you are. But
> since you know so much, why don't you take
> this wee quiz. Mind you, I made it up on the fly
> without references, so you, if you're honourable
> (which I take leave to doubt) should take it with-
> out web-searching also:

Give it a rest. I'm not a scientist. I love what I do for a living but
I do not need to beat everyone else up with my expertise in a single
area because I am losing an ethics debate which you are clearly doing.
I could probably get about half of the questions right and Deirdre
would then say I have no right to an opinion on nuclear power because I
am not qualified enough to have an opinion. Her mistake is in seeing
the problem as purely one of risk-assessment rather than an ethical one
of Ultilitarianism vs Justice for Future Generations.

<snips out Deirdre's desperate bid to beat yet another person up with
her credentials>

> > You are the poster child of captious reasoning. It appears to be one of
> > your two techniques in debate. Ouright abuse appears to be the other.
>
> Would that be an "I have no clue?" Hm...didn't
> do too well on quiz, did you?

What's wrong? Did you have to look up 'captious'? Jeez.

Main Entry: cap·tious
Pronunciation: 'kap-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English capcious, from Middle French or Latin; Middle
French captieux, from Latin captiosus, from captio
1 : marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and
raise objections
2 : calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument

> <laughing> Guess you don't know quite as much
> as you thought. No surprise...assertions and
> assumptions, generally wrong ones, are your
> forte, I understand how you need to play to your
> strengths.

Nobody knows as much as they think but a good clue as to how much
someone doesn't know is to watch carefully how much they claim they
know. You do not appear capable of seeing the larger impact of the
nuclear power industry on the planet.

>
> > > To assume modern plants use the antiquated and flawed
> > > design of Chernobyl is your second one.
> >
> > The only thing I'm assuming is that ***-ups can happen
>
> True...you're walking about, but I don't see anyone
> decommissioning you.

Spoken with all the class you've shown us you have which is none.


>
> > By that reasoning the space shuttle is still safe. It isn't
> > but that doesn't seem to stop the US government from sending it up
> > anyway. The chances are slim but there is still a chance. I would not
> > want to take that chance.
>
> Well, of course you wouldn't...you're a coward. I'd
> jump at the opportunity to go up in the shuttle.

Someone please help her achieve this.

>
> > > To assume
> > > that modelling programmes are _fact_ and not pro-
> > > jection is your third.
> >
> > I hope you realise you are making this exact assumption in declaring
> > nuclear power to be relatively risk-free.
>
> I'm not saying anything is risk free, I'm saying
> you don't have the relative risks in perspective.

Risks to myself or risks to all the humans who have to live with these
decisions forever?

>
> > Headed to bed now. Miserable fever. Did not check my spelling. Am sure
> > you will do it for me.
>
> Merciful heavens, a fever? You mean you actually
> left your wee sterile bubble and were exposed to
> something? Dear me, you have had an eventful
> day of risk taking, haven't you?

What a sad person you must be to make a remark like that.

>
> Remember, fever reducers can cause liver damage
> or ulcers...you'll have to do it the old-fashioned,
> non-industrial way to be truly safe...that would be
> chewing on swamp willow bark, it I recall correctly.
> Nasty taste, of course, but given your normal venom
> levels, it's probably nothing you'd notice.

My venom levels. Sure.

I just found an excellent paper on the ethics of nuclear power
generation. Since I would end up quoting most of it I will simply post
a link for interested parties to read.

http://www.laka.org/teksten/afval/1-verkort-engels/3.htm

Septic (Erich)

.