James,

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:57:19 -0700, James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> >         'waste?, what waste?".
> 
> But this is what has been done with fossil fuels. Air pollution, lung
> cancer, lead poisoning, are all being ignored.

So that makes it OK???

And actually, all of the above are being addressed (Kyoto, increasing bans on places where smoking is allowed, RoHS...)

> Not to mention global
> warming, which is (apparently) influenced more by the greenhouse gases than
> the actual energy release.

Yes, this must be the case - the Sun radiates enough energy on the Earth's day-side in an hour than humans use in a year, so there's a huge way to 
go before energy use becomes significant compared with what's arriving.
 
> At least with Nukes, people take the waste seriously. The problem is that
> they are not making a fair comparison with the waste from other energy
> sources.

"Two wrongs don't make a right".  The problem is not that nuclear waste is being taken too seriously (?), but that the others aren't being taken 
seriously enough.  "He started it" isn't a valid excuse here, any more than it was for school playground fights...
 
> And they are being down right stupid in their fear of the nuke waste. Yes,
> it is dangerous, but it isn't THAT dangerous.
 
So you'd let them bury it in your back garden?  What would the chickens say?  :-)))

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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