> I suspect that the unknown cost of eg coal is higher
> percentage wise than
> the unknown cost of nuclear. Nuclear dangers are reasonably
> well defined.
> Even if people argue over the implications of the
> epidemiologically abnormal
> cancer rates in close proximity to the Windscale/Sellafield
> waste processing
> plants, you can in most cases be reasonably certain as to the upper
> statistical limits of what you are doing to yourselves with
> nuclear system.

But the dangers of nulclear waste are very a-social, in the sense that
we get the benefits and (a large part of) the problems are left to our
ancestors.

> I am by no means a nuclear apologist, but I do feel that IF
> one could solve
> the waste problem (quite an if alas :-( ) then it would transform the
> relative merits of the system.

Agreed, compared to the other problems (reactor safety etc) the waste
problem *is* the nulclear problem!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics