Russell wrote:

> But, no, I tend to write when I should be earning my living :-).

Amen, ditto! :-)
Therefore I'll try to be brief...

>>From what I've learned in life, so far, any experts who declare
> anything "impossible" should be shunned like the plague and given an
> adequately wide berth. When talking about the geographic reach of
> Chernobyl type events that's a rather wide berth :-)

Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. With new passively safe designs, 
loss of coolant will not result in explosion as it did in Chernobyl -- on 
the contrary, loss of coolant will shut down the reactor.

[snip]
>> 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.
>
> Sounds good. Not true. Doesn't work.

What's not true? The fact that the waste has less radioactivity in the long 
term?

> Some version MAY be able to be made to work.
> Someday. Maybe.
> You can get more waste out than starter product.
> The waste products are in many cases much much much ... much worse
> than the raw materials. [snip]

Put the waste in ceramic pellets. Put the pellets in cement slabs. Put the 
slabs in a place where they will be protected from the elements (like a 
cave).

The last point is not that important. Since you did your research on 
nuclear, you've probably heard of the "natural reactor" that they found in 
Africa. Suprisingly, the presense of water did not cause the "nuclear waste" 
to be carried more than a few feet from the reactor.

>> This topic has been beaten to death. Unlike nuclear power, solar is
>> economically unfeasible.
>
> Sweeping statements do not by themselves a factoid make.
> One could as easily say, "... unlike solar power, nuclear is
> economically unfeasible."
> ie *UNTIL* the "waste problem" is irrefutably solved and properly
> costed nuclear power generation is operating with the jury still out.

Nuclear power satisfies 80% of France's energy needs. If solar power was 
economically feasible, we should see it account for a significant percentage 
of at least some countries' energy needs, right? Alas, it isn't so, despite 
the government subsidies.

>> 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."
>
> Attractive is not the issue in this case - that's a straw man. You
> need to attack the right man :-).
> At issue is the ability for terrorists (whatever that means) to use
> something to threaten a large number of unspecified people credibly.
> eg ability to destroy a hydro dam may do lots of damage but the target
> is very specific and requisite remediation, prevention and costs are
> reasonably knowable so the 'terror' (I dislike that word in this
> context) bounds are well set. Known possession of a small amount of
> Anthrax spores arguably has a wider terror prospect than threatening
> to destroy the Boulder Dam.

Russell, I believe you overuse, and sometimes misuse, the accusation of your 
opponents committing a "straw man" fallacy. :-)

It was said that nuclear power plans are attractive terrorist targets. I 
replied that that is not a good enough reason to ban atomic energy, because 
there are other, just as attractive, and perhaps more vulnerable, targets 
which we would have to ban as well, if we are to follow this line of 
reasoning.

So it seems that maybe I am not the one attacking a straw man. ;-)

Best regards,

Vitaliy 

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