[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: News Advisory: Still Crazy After Oil These Years!



Scott Nudds wrote:
: >   Yup, its totally non polluting, once you ignore the waste generated.

David Beorn wrote:
: Well, don't go spreading it on your garden - but we have methods of
: dealing with the waste that are acceptable and don't expose people to
: radioactivity (you get more radiation flying in a plane than you do from
: nuclear power plants).

  Really?  Where is your disposal site?  So far the ocean has been the
most convenient one used.

  What kinds of methods of "dealing" with radioactive waste are you
referring to?  Pumping high level waste into the ground as was done at
Hanford?  How about simply pouring it onto the ground as was done at
Rocky Flats?  I suppose you could put some of it into corn flakes, but
why repeat history.


David Beorn wrote:
: Meanwhile, nuclear is not
: polluting and they are also developing ways to re-refine the fuel and use
: it again.

  So, I take it that when Iraq develops nuclear power it will be allowed
to reprocess its spent fuel?  How about Iran?  How many countries are
you prepared to give nuclear weapons?  Acquiring them is all the rage.


David Beorn wrote:
: And, as I mentioned, if the containment building is large
: enough, spent fuel can be store for some time until they get even better
: ways to handle it.

  Absolutely.  Lets keep our nuclear garbage for another 200 years until
we figure out where to dump it safely.


Scott Nudds wrote:
: >   Do you plan on keeping the spent fuel on site for a few hundred
: > thousand years?

David Beorn wrote:
: If necessary - as long as no one is exposed, who CARES how long we keep 
: it???  The benefit is that we don't pollute in the meantime.  

  A honest answer that I can agree with.  How many new reactors would
you like to see constructed.  John McCarthy underestimates the number
needed at 120,000 world wide.  The real number is closer to 180,000.


David Beorn wrote:
: Totally, no, obviously - but we can prevent most if not all of those 
: that we watch as carefully as a nuclear plant (you have to have a 
: design & requisition with 5 signature in order to breath).  

  And there are still accidents.  One catastrophic accident comes to
mind.


David Beorn wrote:
: Obviously the reactor was NOT running so how the "reactor exploded" is a 
: mystery to me since they were PREPARING for start-up.  What exploded???  
: It doesn't say.  If the REACTOR had truly exploded, the containment 
: building probably would not still exist.  

   The SL-1 and its planned successors did not include a conventional
   reactor containment structure. Since they were designed for deployment
   only in remote areas, it was not thought to be necessary.
   
   Instead, the reactor building was a simple steel cylinder with 0.65 cm
   (0.25 in) thick walls. It was 14.5 m (48 ft) high and 11.5 m (38.5 ft)
   in diameter. No special provisions were made to ensure that the
   building would be air tight. - Rod Adams.


David Beorn wrote:
: I'd be interested in finding out more about this - where did you get this 
: info??

  You mean, the nuclear industry has shielded this information from your
view?  They wouldn't do that would they?

  I will send you more information in E-Mail.


---
"This administration is committed to a balanced budget, and we will
fight to the last blow to achieve it by 1984." (Reagan, 9/15/81)

"In the first place, I said that [a balanced budget] was our goal, not a
promise." (Reagan, 12/17/81)


-- 
<---->




References: