On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 02:37:57PM -0500, Vitaliy wrote: > Russell McMahon wrote: > > My $0.02 worth: > > > > One of my favorite subjects in a posting from one of my favorite authors. That's enough to get me out of lurker mode! ;-) > > We've had this discussion before :-). > Even if the core system is cost effective, and it's by no means sure > that it would be in a genuinely free market, the rotating squads of > marines, the rapid response tactical team on permanent standby, > amortization on the black helicopters, and the ongoing covert > surveillance, makes it decidedly economically unattractive. And even > the softball sized thingy assumes an unimaginable attraction for some. > Especially if you can acquire a number of them. > ========= Wouldn't it just be simpler to make it a bit more unavailable onsite. According to the page, there's no need for user accessibility. So dig a nice hole, put the plant at the bottom of it, and bury it. That would provide enough of a barrier to keep away the casual, and even not so casual wannabe nuclear terrerists/theif. > > The biggest obstacle is people's irrational fear of nuclear power. > > IMO in a "genuinely free market" folks with a business interest in nuclear > power would have had the incentive to spend the money to educate the public > about it, to explain why rotating squads of marines, black helicopters, etc > etc are unnecessary. The point is that looked at rationally, nuclear is far > far safer than a lot of other things which are stored in warehouses and > protected by nothing more than a padlock (fertilizer comes to mind). Any way > you look at it, Chernobyl was a much smaller disaster than Bhopal. Agreed on all points. The problem is that the common person generally has the xenophobic "not in my backyard" mentality compounded by the worst case scenario syndrome. It's the same reason that people drive rather than fly, and many worry about world ending asteroid hits. > > Russell, if you haven't already, I highly recommend you read Cohen's "The > Nuclear Energy Option". It's available for free on the internet, and I would > be happy to even send you a hard copy (I happen to have an extra one). Great book, though decidedly biased. As you pointed out, it's an irrational fear. No amount of data, or logic, or common sense, will overcome it. It's the same reason most will not consider electric cars: "I can't hop in it and drive 1500 miles in an emergency!" or "what happens if it runs out of electricity?!". The fact that in the first instance, that a plane would be more appropriate and in the second, there's electricity and emergengy services virtually everywhere has no place in the argument. It's a lost cause sad to say. It won't change until government mandated, and people will be fighting tooth and nail all the way down the path. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist