Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))

["David T. Marx" <dtmarx@SIU.EDU>]

I think John made a good point, but I don't think people are thinking
of the long term storage.  People are concerned with transiting
active waste from storage places around the country to a
centralized facility, such as Yucca mountain.  How do we deal with
a rail or truck accident that spreads active waste in a community?
Another issue has to do with leakage at present storage facilities
into ground water, etc.

On 30 Mar 2001, at 15:07, RAUBER, JOEL wrote:

> John,
>
> I join you in your astonishment.
>
> I had the occasion to listen to Al Bartlett talk about this.  As you no
> doubt know, he usually disguises the main thesis by putting it in terms of
> understanding the exponential function.  But a talk well worth hearing when
> given the chance.
>
> Joel Rauber
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Mallinckrodt [mailto:ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU]
> > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:00 PM
> > To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> > Subject: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> >
> > > ... Turning spent nuclear fuel into products decaying in
> > > hundreds of years (instead of tens of thousands of years)
> > > would remove the need for the long-term underground
> > > depositories, like Yucca Mountain, Nevada. ...
> >
> > It never ceases to astonish me that "the public" is willing to
> > worry seriously about how we would safely store nuclear waste for
> > tens of thousands of years, when they show virtually no concern
> > about the myriad, *far* shorter term, and likely devastating
> > effects of our current and ever increasing overpopulation.
> >
> > John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
> > Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm