James Newton wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
It is unlikely that the USA will survive the present financial crisis 
unscathed. It _certainly_ will be long gone
within 100 years.

Here is what I believe will happen shortly (within 25 years):

1. Mexico will become part of a North American Union, together with the 
USA and (probably)
Canada and /or Honduras..

2. Gold will again circulate as the article of exchange, as paper money 
systems will be replaced.

3. At least 4 major US cities will be destroyed by nuclear explosions, 
killing millions of people.

4. Except for a few electric vehicles, automobiles will be powered by 
coal gas  (carbon monoxide),
as coal will emerge as the energy source of choice. Oil will completely 
go away as a source of fuel
(but will be used as lubricants).
 
5. Despite its obvious advantages, nuclear generation of electricity 
will NOT return to common usage
because the power plants cannot be protected from terrorists.

--Bob Axtell



> 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