alt.energy.renewable

On Mar 28, 11:14=A0am, T. Keating wrote:

> >Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

Yes, that is correct. NO "renewable" solution can shut down fossil
plants.
>
> snipp... =A0promises of nuclear power to make everything..
> =A0 =A0U235 will run out long before that time.. =A0less then a centuries
> worth of recoverable U235 remains.

"Centuries" is about right. What is the problem?

> =A0 =A0Th232 =A0is a not starter without large amounts of weapons grade
> Pu239. =A0 It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core) =A0to make
> enough U233 =A0(does not exist in nature) =A0to fuel just one(1) GWe
> reactor.

Keating, you know what they say about half truths. The point of a
thorium reactor is NOT to breed MORE fuel than it uses, it is to breed
ENOUGH fuel so no more fuel has to be added.

pure U-233
pure U-235
HEU
weapons-grade Pu
reactor-grade Pu

ALL of the above are good "starter charges". One charge and the
reactor can breed enough fuel to run *indefinetly*. Since U-235 is
good, the SAME enrichment facilities can be used for initial starter
charges. A new starter charge for every 10 MSRs built...forever. The
amount of thorium need is 1 ton of natural thorium per GW Year. That
can be "mined" with four guys with shovels in half a day. The reactors
only run at 1 astmosphere so can be built for less than a half of
current LWRs.

> >Chernobyl death toll.
>
> At least half a million deaths and still climbing..
> 155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which
> received 70% of the fallout.

Not true. At best 4,000. NO area is uninhabitable, period.

> =A0 =A0At least 2.8 million people where directly exposed..

No, they were not.

> =A0 =A0Another ~100 million people indirectly exposed via contaminated
> food stuffs..

No evidence of this as any worse than the natural radiation exposed to
on a daily basis.

> =A0 =A0Still born, birth defects, and other genetic ailments abound in
> Ukraine, and Belarus. =A0 Health systems overwhelmed..

Wishful thinking on your part. In 1990 EVERY cancer in Ukraine was
ascribed to Chernobyl for financial reasons.

> =A0 =A0(2006) US National Academy of Science reviewed all the scientific
> studies to date on the subject and has concluded that their is no safe
> dose of ionizing radiation. =A0Each dose increases the chances of
> radiation related aliments. =A0 Exposure at younger ages increases the
> risk to even higher probabilities.. They have also determined that
> exposure takes on many forms of life shortening diseases.. (besides
> cancer.)

This is NOT agreed upon by actual DOCTORS who are involved in
radiation or cancer. It does not explain WHY if we are exposed world-
wide to 350 mrem every year that people who live in places where the
exposure is 200% or more of that have no more cancers than those who
exposed to the lower amount. People in Finnland are exposed to 1700
mrem and they actually have LESS cancer than the world wide average.
So...small amounts of radiation itself does NOT cause an increase in
cancer.

> =A0 =A0 A World Health Organization scientist( IAEA) admitted to lying
> about the death tool after being confronted by fellow scientists at a
> conference. =A0

Really? Where and when was this?
>
> =A0 =A0Advocates for nuclear power all based there death toll findings on
> a few very specific types of cancer, a disproved obsolete assumption!!

No...it's all forms of cancer that actual doctors agree causes cancer.
At any rate, it's pretty irrelevant all NPPs have on average less
raditation than areas without NPPs. In fact, world wide, there are
FEWER cancer cases near NPPs than away from them. Unlike you I do not
use this as a method to argue that NPP can prevent cancer, which would
be your method.

David
energyfromthorium.com
left-atomics.blogspot.com