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] |
Seems to me that the nuclear waste is far more
accessible for terrorists
where it's sitting now. (snip)
the waste in the casks will probably be processed
on-site before shipment
into a "glassified" form, not a liquid or a powder
that is spread
easily.. (snip)
you'd have an extremely localized contaminated area
and an event with a lot
more propaganda value than actual
physical/environmental damage. (snip)
the 1000th shipment being protected, as has been
pointed out, reactor fuel
is already being transported routinely, without
incident. (snip)
leave the stuff in the on-site storage where it is,
the government will have
to fund the (considerable) storage maintainence &
security eventually.
Companies & power plants don't live forever.(snip)
whole point of Yucca(snip)
Mountain is to phase Congress out of the equation
putting the stuff in a
place that has a chance of being maintainence-free
for thousands of years. (snip)
For example, it is well
known by epidemiologists that normally operating
coal-fired power plants
cause lots of illness, deaths, and even
radiation-induced cancers. (Coal
contains naturally occurring radioactive elements,
which are released to the
air upon burning the coal.) Furthermore, there's a
considerable amount of
disease/death/environmental damage associated with
mining the coal.
However, when it comes to liability/insurance &
etc., there may be a whole
boatload of "grandfather" clauses protecting the
coal industry. (snip)
that for the past thirty years, nuclear plants in
North America have had
excellent safety records. Even the Three Mile
Island incident wasn't bad,
compared to other industrial incidents (think
Bhopal, for example). (snip)
judgement" is a poor argument for/against actual
safety, as opposed to
public perception of safety, especially when most of
the people running the
market (snip)