> The POINT is that it is better to have the radioactive 
> material in a place were we KNOW about it rather than in a 
> place where mother nature (bless her homicidal heart) can 
> belch it up at us at some unpredictable point in the future. 

You still don't get it: what we must store after using it is totally
different from what we mined. I would *not* mind the natural stuff being
stored in Yucca mountain or even in a clay pit in the Netherlands. But
real nuclar waste (what remaings of the fuel rods after their usefull
life) is a totally different piece of cake.

> And by avoiding nuke power, we subject ourselves to coal 
> power, "natural" gas power, and oil power

Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently 'accepted'
amount of energy ( and at the current price).

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