> Gee, Russell, you nailed it!
> I wish _I_ could write this well.

Thanks.
Flattery will get you somewhere :-)

But, alas, one has only "nailed it" in the majority of cases when the 
reader already more or less agrees with you. If the argument isn't 
what you want to hear it's far less convincing. This is just as true 
for me when I'm listening to things that I disagree with :-).

That said, I continue find myself convinced or swayed by "opposing" 
argument more often than I expect to be.

Even if your "opponent" (in the broadest sense of the term) can't find 
any real holes in your argument you still haven't nailed it if you 
haven't won their heart. Old adage - "A man convinced against his will 
has the same opinion still" has merit. And in the case of nuclear 
power hearts and facts often enough don't seem to go together. James 
has suggested on numerous occasions that resistance to nuclear power 
is based on groundless fears which aren't supported by the evidence. 
And yet I would say almost the opposite, that claims for the safety of 
nuclear power are based on the belief that nuclear waste is not a 
problem, and I say that this belief is groundless and is not supported 
by the evidence. James and I are, often enough, reasonable and logical 
people and in many technical areas think somewhat similarly, but on 
something like this we differ radically. He at least will certainly 
not think that I've nailed it :-).

> In the Sept 2006 Scientific American, page 81, "Waste Management": 
> "No
> country in the world has
> yet implemented a system for permanently disposing of the spent fuel 
> and
> other radioactive waste
> produced by nuclear power plants".

Most would agree with this, but proponents of nuclear power would 
argue that either reasonable solutions are in the pipeline or that 
good solutions already exist but are being stymied by political and/or 
uninformed resistance. I read recently, and I don't know if it's true, 
that while Yucca Mountain is yet to be used, it's full capacity will 
have been allocated before it starts to be operated.

Note that -

>> Would YOU trust a man who is trying to sell you something that was
>> felt to have such an unknown and potentially high level of risk 
>> that
>> the industry applied to the government for a waiver from legal
>> responsibility - and the government complied?

may in part address

> Actually the unknowns will probably stop new nuclear plants in the 
> US.
> The US government is
> badly overextended financially, so nuclear enthusiasts will try to 
> use
> outside investors. But these
> guys have been burned before- legal tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs, 
> all
> have been subjected to
> enormous lawsuits. These big guys aren't stupid. Unless the waste
> problem is solved, no money
> will be forthcoming.

as legislation that limits liability of nuclear power plants may apply 
or be able to be extended to waste storage. Guaranteed imminity from 
legal process has a nice ring to it.


> Awesome, Russell. Do you write for a living?

Thanks again.
But, no, I tend to write when I should be earning my living :-).
It's a marvellous tool for procrastination when the latest project is 
calling plaintively from the dungeon.
A label that vaguely fits me is "self employed electronic designer / 
developer" although I hope for that to not be a broad enough label 
over the next year or so :-). Stirling engine development is only one 
of the things on the (hopeful) agenda. We'll see.




        Russell

.





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