>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 4:30 PM, sergio masci wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, 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?
>>
>
> If you really stop and think about it, the reason people don't want
> nuclear power plants has nothing to do with the danger of radition.  
> It's
> to do with trust. We don't trust the people in charge to do the right
> thing by US.
>
> We don't trust them to put OUR interests before THEIR own prockets, we
> don't trust them to be competent at their own jobs and we certainly  
> don't
> trust them to keep us safe.

You don't have to trust them.  Just look at the aggregate statistics  
which including megalomaniacs and incompetents ( including  
Chernobyl ) and you will know how to roll the dice.
cc

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