alt.energy.renewable

> >> > The fact is that radioactive storage is a not an unsolved scientific
> >> > problem, it is an unsolved POLITICAL problem, and it is precisely the
> >> > anti-nukes who have made it so.
>
> >> An "anti-nuke" being anyone who questions it?
>
> >No, an anti-nuke being anyone who opposes it in defiance of reality.
> >In opposition to the opinions of every reactor engineer, waste storage
> >specialist, and nuclear physicist.
>
> An anitnuke person is one who realizes,
>
> That nearly all Uranium is bound up in complex ores which require
> large amounts of chemicals(H2SO4+others) to separate the U from the
> ore compound. As the highest grades of U ores are quickly being
> depleted and the amount of ore mining, plus correspondingly usage of
> chemicals used increases exponentially with more demand.
>
> (to the point.. where it consume more energy to mine and separate
> than one receives,,, crossover point will occurring sometime in this
> century.)
>
> That breeder reactors and those with similar design elements are
> extremely unsafe (pure metallic U or Pu, instead of a safer ceramic),
> molten metal coolants (to increase breeding ratio) have experienced
> many failures.. major radioactive releases. Windscale, Santa
> Suzanna, Fermi, Chernobyl.
>
> That nearly every US breeding/seperation type facility that was used
> to reprocess fuel, extracting Pu/remaining U235 is now a EPA super
> fund clean up site and is off limits to nearby human habitation..
>
> That the release of large amounts of short/medium lived isotopes is
> considerably more dangerous that naturally occurring long lived
> isotopes.
>
> That the release of large amounts of radioactive food chain isotopes
> is much worse..(once ingested.. Exposure distance == 0). And that
> their is only one way to successfully remove those isotopes from the
> food chain.. (Wait thousands of years for the isotopes to decay to low
> levels. )
>
> That complex life forms with long lifespans(humans) are at greater
> risk to radiation exposure.
>
> That exposure at early age increases the risk of early
> death/disability considerably.
>
> That those who haven't died yet, often experience extreme forms of
> disability, thus removing their positive contributions from society.
>
> That symptoms of radiation exposure takes on many forms besides
> just a few certain types of cancers.
>
> That countries with N-power reactors could quickly build bombs from
> either the source fuel or waste products if they choose too..
>
> > In denial of tens of thousands of
> >reactor years of reliable service, in contradiction of engineering
> >showing 8 nines of reliability on long-term storage, and in denial of
> >fundamental physics that show it safe. That's an anti-nuke.
>
> Nuclear power has sent over a million plus humans to early deaths..
> Throw in atmospheric weapons testing, that number climbs to
> tens/maybe hundreds of millions.
>
> >Ask all the questions you like, but when you receive an answer that is
> >well researched, backed by real world data, and adequately answers the
> >question, shut the hell up.
>
> Not on this planet..
>
> When societies are severely stressed, they almost always turn to
> war upon their neighbors and/or population.
>
> It would be incredibly stupid to supply them all with the means to
> make N-weapons. Devices which can easily destroy enemies N-power
> plants and release their highly radioactive contents (far worse than
> the bomb itself) upon said enemy. Thus achieving a society killing
> blow with a minimal usage of N-weapons.

So sayeth the *exact* epitome of the anti-nuke as I have
described. All these objections have been answere ad nauseum and ad
absurdum in this and every other forum on the subject, and yet you
cling to these lies in defiance of logic reason, facts or any other
rational decision making process. I won't bother reposting those
proofs here, because they manifestly fall on deaf ears (or more
appropriately covered ears screaming LALALALA) with you. Thank you
for serving as an objective example to the neutral parties here of
exactly how weak the anti-nuclear case truly is.