Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.


<septicdoodledandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133401765.699742.219870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Deirdre wrote:
>
>> Right, now I understand...you're not afraid of
>> the radiation emitted from a material, you're
>> scared of the material itself. Gee, that makes
>> _perfect_ sense.
>
> I honestly think something must not be functioning correctly inside
> your head.
>
> 24,000 years from now half of the plutonium 239 buried at Chernobyl
> will still be there. Will still be deadly.

I hope you think the heavy metals that are very hazardous just evaporate?
Aye! that'll be richt!
Cadmium and so on do not just go away by thenselves.
Read this snippit from a recent report -
Soils tainted with heavy metals from industrial pollution and sewage sludge
may poison organisms that live in the soil far more readily than thought.
The finding raises fears that unexpectedly high levels of toxins are getting
into the food chain.

Can't you read? I've mentioned several times that almost every village and
town had a coal gas plant or gasometer. I mentioned that these are
contaminated areas that remain toxic to this day. I did not expect to have
to tell university graduates, who had studied for four year, just what that
meant. Get this I started further study in 1952 and up to retirement I was
never a year without further courses. That's 50 years in case you don't
realise it. We did not leave the academic life and get the chance to forget
everything we knew. Dounreay was commissiond around 1956 BTW:
>
>
>>
>> > In 1997, in the 20 countries which account for most of the world's
>> > nuclear power generation, spent fuel storage capacity at the reactors
>> > was 148,000 tonnes, with 59% of this utilized. Away-from-reactor
>> > storage capacity was 78,000 tonnes, with 44% utilised. With annual
>> > additions of about 12,000 tonnes.
>>
>> So? Are you planning on having a picnic there?
>> Have you any idea how much contaminated land
>> there is in the UK? Of course there's a waste
>> problem...there's a waste or pollution issue with
>> _every_ power generation scheme, why are you
>> so blind to that fact? Is black lung or silicosis a
>> better way to die? Are you of the impression
>> there's no waste connected to any other type
>> of power?
>
> No and where did I utter such a thing? Is it okay to accutely poison
> small portions of the planet versus more generally poisoning the entire
> planet? These are value judgments. I don't see one as any more
> attractive than the other. The USA alone has literally thousands of
> superfund sights. Is any of it acceptable? they

It has been pointed out to you on numberous occasions there is not a single
fuel that does not have its share of contamination. What is more as these
often had no legal restraints impossed and there were many more of them the
overall contamination is both larger in total quantity and far more
widespread. Just think of all those former gas works and gas tanks in every
village in the industrial world that left the ground full of deadly heavy
metal contamination.
>>
>> Do solar plants spring up fully formed from the
>> earth or does the manufacture of their photo-
>> voltaic require cadmium and arsenic? Oh, but
>> that's _controlled_, you say? Maybe. It's also
>> waste and it's going to go somewhere...hopefully
>> that somewhere won't be the watershed since
>> the container liners of hazardous waste dumps
>> are no more 100% than anything else.
>
> Can a cadmium mess be cleaned up in fewer than 24,000 years, Deirdre?

It is actually easier to clean up a radioactive contamination than a metalic
or chemical one.

The problem of any clean-up is first to find and identify the offending
contamination. Now imagine an acre of land contaminated with cadmium and
another contaminated with a radioactive substance. A gieger counter or
scintillation detector will soon find the radioactive substance but, now
graduate, tell us how to finf cadmium in the soil??

Tell us too how long that cadmium will remain in the soil. For that matter
tell us all about Polychlorinated Biphenyls, you do know what those are,
don't you), and how you would find these in that acre of soil? While you are
at it how long will they be hanging around?
>
>>
>> Geothermal is high in sulphur, ammonia, methane
>> and carbon dioxide...but what's a few greenhouse
>> gases as long as they don't glow in the dark? The
>> sludge produced is laden with chlorides, mercury,
>> arsenic, nickel and vanadium...none of which are
>> friendly customers. Where's it going to go? What
>> sort of cancer would you like to die from?
>
> There are no free rides and I never said there were. You are claiming
> the risk is minimal but to me, any risk of vast portions of the land
> becoming uninhabitable for centuries is too great a risk. I am not able
> to trust the government to live up to its word that they will keep me
> any safer from radiation than they have been able to do from the other
> pollutants you mention. That's a personal opinion and you have a
> different one.

Oh! Get real! If that were the case you would be pushing just as hard to
stop, coal, gas, oil, hydro and so on for every one of these kills more,
many more, every year. By your own logic your governments record of keeping
you safe from nuclear problems is better by far than from all those others.
Furthermore I doubt that you have been affected in any way by nuclear power
generation but I also have no doubt that you have breathed in pollution
from, coal, gas and oil like every other human on the planet and you do so
every day, (and you called Deirdre a silly woman.

While you are doing all that shouting about nuclear power generation every
time you open your mouth and breath in you are taking into your body
pollution from coal, gas and oil. Yet you have a pathalogical fear of
nuclear power generation.

>
>>
>> Nuclear power plants do not emit the combustion by-
>> products of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur oxides, they
>> do not contribute to Global Warming (assuming it's a
>> correct model). What waste they produce is the most
>> compact of any power generation scheme...but every-
>> one knows the devastation a nuclear bomb can cause,
>> therefore all nuclear entities are equally devastating
>> and all radiation is dangerous. Nothing will ever change
>> with the technology of nuclear power, no discoveries
>> for dealing with the waste will ever be made, no one
>> is looking at the problem and no one cares...it will never
>> improve. Is that what you believe?
>
> I do know that more money is being spent finding out about nuclear
> power 'solutions' than is being spent to find out about other forms of
> energy because politicians and governments are just as lazy as anybody
> else in the end. The waste is compact and several orders of magnitude
> more deadly.

One very good reason for that is that it is contained and the population at
large is not breathing the bloody stuff in.
>
> Care to read about what happens to a country when something bad happens
> with nuclear power plants? Here's a Guardian article about the
> Chernobyl tragedy you love to minimise.

Yes dear and the facts are often nothing like those in such as the Gardian
or any other rag in the World for they have spewed out misinformation about
this incident that ranged from 20,00 to 250, 000 dead but few , if any, have
printed the actual facts. NBor have they given much space, if any, to the UN
report of 2000 that told the truth nor the 2005 one that confirmed it as
true.


> http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112665,00.html
>
> It looks like no place for a picnic for the next few centuries. To me,
> this is the potential real cost of the of risk putting in loads of
> nuclear power plants. It will only take one accident to see them all
> shut down again. Every one of them. Each plant costing billions of
> pounds.

I don't think you would be too happy to picnic on or near a gas works site
either. Here is a happy little thought for you. I lived a few years in
Edinburgh and my father actually worked in Granton Gasworks. During that
time I watched a large and high sea wall built around a certain area. This
was in the Firth of Forth and behind that wall went countless tons of waste
from the gasworks. Many tons and years later then covered all that waste
with a thin layer of topsoil and it became another part of the seaside
pleasure area between Cramond and Granton. That waste was awash with heavy
metals. Think also of Fife where so many old coal bings have been leveled
and covered over as leasure areas. Coal slag is also full of heavy metals. I
wonder haw many of us have spent time and even picniced on such contaminated
land?

> Thanks but no thanks. I think there are wiser ways to spend that money
> and research into alternatives is one.
>
> Septic
>

If you seriously think that the wave, tidal, wind solution is really good
you are no more than a dreamer of dreams. The fact is that I do support such
methods and have said so often but the dream and the reality are two
different things. They have there place but that place is not all over every
available corner of the land I love so much.
--

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

  • Caviar enemas vs inter-generational justice
    ... Imagine if your mum and dad went off on first-class round the world cruises, filling their toilet cistern with 30 year old Laphroaig and their swimming pool with Dom Perignon, having caviar enemas and a programme of extensive plastic surgery, all of it on your credit card that they took without asking. ... My last post dealt at length with the venerable climate writer Mark Lynas' advocacy of nuclear power. ... Whilst the issue of financial cost has some bearing on climate impact, Lynas is right when he says that the issue of radioactive waste and radioactive damage are not really part of the climate equation. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... >> nuclear power generation, spent fuel storage capacity at the reactors ... Of course there's a waste ... any safer from radiation than they have been able to do from the other ... > Nuclear power plants do not emit the combustion by- ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... > Deirdre wrote: ... >>> Radiation spills and the land is dead and gone pretty ... Of course there's a waste ... Nuclear power plants do not emit the combustion by- ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Time to talk about Global Warming [was Re: Maccies arent fanatical? (by the way, what is a "Macc
    ... if they know what to do with the radioactive wastes involved with nuclear power. ... At one time I advocated for breeder reactors, but the problems of waste disposal still remains. ... Vitrification can immobilize waste for tens out thousands of years, and the high-level wastes that come out of a fast breeder reactor have short enough half lives that they're no more radioactive than naturally occurring stuff after about 300 years. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)