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

[Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>]

OK, but remember to reduce the death toll due to the reduction in Radon that
goes along with the mining of Uranium!  ;-)  Bernie Cohen gave a colloquium
many years ago using (tongue-in-cheek) statistics to show that building a
1000 nuclear power plants improved the longevity of the population on just
this point.  He allowed for 2 major (much worse than Chernobyl) accidents.
What to do with the waste?  Dump it in the ocean said he--that's where it's
going to end up eventually anyway!  The physicists in the audience
understood what he was doing--using the same kind of statistical arguments
used by the anti-nuclear crowd to 'prove' his own conclusions--but there
were a number of environmentalists who were really confused!
;-)    ;-)     ;-)

Rick

**************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Associate Professor of Physics
Department of Chemistry & Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
219-284-4664
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE Physics Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara

Win9.x, WinNT/2000,  Win3.x, Dos, Mac, and PowerMac
New: Updated versions of the Energy Simulators
Windows and Mac  CD-ROMs  now available.
****************************************************


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Cleyet" <georgeann@REDSHIFT.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:37 PM
Subject: 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