Bob Axtell wrote:
>> If one looks at the figures dispassionately, nuclear plants have
>> operated safely in most
>> locations.  They do cause deaths and the cost vs benefit ratios are
>> acceptable.
>>
> In order to render Chernobyl safe, more than 500,000 men risked
> sterility and worse in order
> to pour a concrete coffin  around the radioactive  plant. Do you really
> think that kind of
> cost is "acceptable"?

>From what I've read, most people who know what they're talking about agree 
that another nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl is impossible. The 
RBMK design used in Chernobyl was unsafe because one of its primary purposes 
was to make plutonium for bombs.

> I disagree. The benefits of nuclear (if there are any) do not outweigh
> the true cost. Because
> waste has not been solved for plants already in operation, the true
> "costs" have not yet been
> determined.

As James said a while back (and I'm paraphrasing), "just take the waste back 
to the mining site, and spread it thin". Nuclear waste is less radioactive 
in the long term, than uranium ore.

> Worse, yellowcake (raw uranium ore) is found cheaply in
> Nigeria... another
> Islamic country. Think about it; its $70 oil all over again

Unfair comparison. US has enough *locally mined* nuclear fuel to last for 
many, many years using current technologies. If fuel reprocessing (which was 
prohibited during the Carter administration for security reasons) is allowed 
again, it will last even longer. I'm not even talking about new technologies 
that have the potential to make the fuel last virtually indefinitely.

> Agree. But the source should be solar energy, not nuclear. Nuclear
> needlessly adds to the
> global heat burden, solar does not... the sun will shine regardless. No,
> I DON'T mean PV,
> I mean brute solar concentration. Its a nuclear plant without nuclear
> fuel. Childs' play.

This topic has been beaten to death. Unlike nuclear power, solar is 
economically unfeasible.

>> It is all pretty simple if standard politics^1 disappeared.  Sadly,
>> therein lies the rub.
>> Terrorism issues^2 are no different for nuclear than for other
>> technologies.
>>
> But a nuclear plant is more attractive as a terrorist target because of
> the radioactivity involved.

Let's make a list of technologies that are attractive to terrorists, shall 
we? And then work together to get them banned?
Commercial jets and high-rise buildings would be at the top of the list of 
"attractive terrorist targets."

>> ^1   Greed, NIMBY, tribalism, socialism (see greed ), and alpha/beta/
>> omega pack behaviour.
>> ^2   Terrorists are created by politics.  See ^1.  If state sponsored
>> terrorism went away so would
>> small group terrorism go away.  Sigh !   Might as well wish for a
>> marmalade moon.
[snip]
> You were just kidding, right, Gus? This is a joke to get me going, isn't 
> it?

Based on Gus's history of posts, I don't think he's joking. Personally, I 
think Gus is taking the ideas of personal and market freedoms too far, but I 
do subscribe to the views he expressed in this particular post.

Best regards,

Vitaliy Maksimov
ScanTool.net, LLC
Tel.: +1 (602) 923-1870 x112
Fax: +1 (602) 532-7625
E-mail: vitaliy@scantool.net 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist