alt.energy.renewable

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:22:03 -0700 (PDT), bill
wrote:

>> > 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.