Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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



You mean premature deaths and morbidity? remember to factor in the ~ ten to
one ratio of their numbers when making the comparison. Furthermore, deaths
and morbidity resulting from incomplete containment several centuries hence
count also.

bc


Rick Tarara wrote:

How many people have been killed in the U.S. due to the operation of nuclear
power plants? How many due to coal-fired plants? Be cautious but keep your
caution in perspective.

Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Rogoway" <rogoway@SJM.INFI.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))

Another let's not worry about X because Y is bad too. I choose, in all my
free will,
to worry about nuclear material spills. The so called "specially designed
containers
driven by trained drivers over selected routes" is brought to you by the
same people
who approved the Diable Canyon nuclear power plant plans that were
backwards. The
same people who approved falsefied weld joints on the Emergency Cooling
System at
Diable Canyon and other places. The same people who approved flammable
wires on all
the control and safety sensor wiring on Brown's Ferry and who almost
approved a
Nuclear Plant at Bodega Bay that was right on an earthquake fault. The
containers
were built by the lowest bidder. And now we have an industry friendly
Federal
Administration. James, I'm sure you have such trust that if the "selected
route"
went past your front door you wouldn't mind. I would.


Ray Rogoway

James Mackey wrote:

It hardly seems logical to agonize over possible nuclear material spills
considering the vast quantities of chemicals that are transported over
our
highways by basically unregulated drivers & rigs (in reality). Nuclear
transports
are in specially designed containers driven by trained drivers over
selected
routes. There's enough stuff rolling along I40 through Arkansas to make
a
nuclear spill look minor.
James Mackey

"David T. Marx" wrote:

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