Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods. 

Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is and can react
if there does happen to be a problem in the future. Mother nature could
belch up a load of yellow cake in Utah or Arizona tomorrow and no one would
even know it was dangerous. (where is your radiation detector?)
http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp 

We mine the ore out of the ground, refine it, use it, and then stress
ourselves to death about putting it back? How exactly are we worse off than
we were before we dug it up and purified it? Why not just dilute the heck
out of it and spray it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?

My guess is that more people die from air pollution due to coal fired
electrical generation plants every year than would die from radiation
poisoning if we just chopped the fuel rods up really fine and fed it to the
population along with the Mercury and PCB's in their fish sticks.

And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but I'm hoping it
makes the point: Radiation is but one of many hazards that we all live with.
We have cut ourselves off from an alternative source of electricity that
might well be much less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified
fear of that one type of hazard.

We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl. 

I live and work downwind from an active nuke power plant. Odds are, I will
die of a heart attack, cancer, stroke or auto accident.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg How much could another nuke
plant reduce my odds of lung cancer? 

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
wouter van ooijen
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 23:49
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] Just wondering..

> > How can I change yours?
> 
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional) 
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste 
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

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

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