Nuclear power far from clean
Mike Trembly
It was over 30 years ago when I predicted that the nuclear power
technology could not be sustained for very long as it would threaten
the existence of all humanity.
The "Living Atom Theory" <http://WWW.HyperInfo.CA/~LivingAtom/> I had
formulated clearly explains why nature will not and cannot tolerate any
violation of those most precious elementary units which we call atoms.
The fiasco of the Ontario nuclear plants clearly support my predictions.
For the past few decades the problems faced by the nuclear industry
were ignored but we are now obligated to accept one reality - most of
the nuclear plants must be shut down. Although this is certainly a
step into the right direction, some irreversible and irreparable harm
has already occurred.
The "atomic" pollution, although undetected by our senses have
nevertheless been released.
The difference between this and traditionally accepted forms of
pollution is also a question that the Living Atom Theory
<http://WWW.HyperInfo.CA/~LivingAtom/> explains.
Once the final curtain is dropped over this whole tragic episode of
human technology, we may well look back and realize that what we had
been led to believe was going to be a wonderful "clean" form of energy
turned out to be the dirtiest and deadliest of them all.
Etienne Szekely
Rossland (British Columbia)
<mailto:uf...@ciao.org>
Skeeter Abell-Smith
Mike Trembly (mi...@compact.com) wrote:
}It was over 30 years ago when I predicted that the nuclear power
}technology could not be sustained for very long as it would threaten
}the existence of all humanity.
"threaten the existance of all humanity"? Oh my. All those poor
people dying from nuclear power plants in North America every year.
Too bad we don't more often use those safe sources like coal and oil.
If only we could could cover the planet with windmills and photovoltaic
panels, not that we have any idea what to to with all the bi-products
of their manufacture, but at least they have no half-life. All
those chemicals will last forever until they find something with which
to interact.
But I digress...
Read "The Anti-Nuclear Game" by Gordon Sims, University of Ottawa
Press, ISBN 0-7766-0285-3. It's a real eye-opener.
= = To send me e-mail you must replace "nospam" with "teapot". = =
The above opinions may differ from those of others. Take no offense.
Check out the Canadian Firearms Home Page:
http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
--
Why do governments think they know better than I what is best for me?
Paul Sammy
> The "Living Atom Theory" <http://WWW.HyperInfo.CA/~LivingAtom/> I had
> formulated clearly explains why nature will not and cannot tolerate any
> violation of those most precious elementary units which we call atoms.
Cor! Whats the big ball in the sky doin' then? Call the Nature Police!
> Once the final curtain is dropped over this whole tragic episode of
> human technology, we may well look back and realize that what we had
> been led to believe was going to be a wonderful "clean" form of energy
> turned out to be the dirtiest and deadliest of them all.
Your ridiculous prose and anti-technology stance has devalued any
valid points you may have made.
Loon.
> Etienne Szekely
> Rossland (British Columbia)
> <mailto:uf...@ciao.org>
Why is this in scot.general?
Paul
--
World Shotokan Dojo List : www.argonet.co.uk/users/sps/Karate/
PlayStation Technical FAQ: www.argonet.co.uk/users/sps/psxfaq/
A sufficiently advanced political argument is indistinguishable from bollocks.
Tom McCOSh
--
It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited
commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227.
I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each
unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial
email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms.
My posting messages to UseNet neither grants my consent to receive
commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
My address is munged.
Please remove "mapson" and the two "-"s around it to reply.
Tom McCOSh
Mike Trembly wrote:
>
> It was over 30 years ago when I predicted that the nuclear power
> technology could not be sustained for very long as it would threaten
> the existence of all humanity.
>
> formulated clearly explains why nature will not and cannot tolerate any
> violation of those most precious elementary units which we call atoms.
>
>
> For the past few decades the problems faced by the nuclear industry
> were ignored but we are now obligated to accept one reality - most of
> the nuclear plants must be shut down. Although this is certainly a
> step into the right direction, some irreversible and irreparable harm
> has already occurred.
>
> The "atomic" pollution, although undetected by our senses have
> nevertheless been released.
>
> The difference between this and traditionally accepted forms of
> <http://WWW.HyperInfo.CA/~LivingAtom/> explains.
>
> Once the final curtain is dropped over this whole tragic episode of
> human technology, we may well look back and realize that what we had
> been led to believe was going to be a wonderful "clean" form of energy
> turned out to be the dirtiest and deadliest of them all.
>
--
Ken Nelson
ske...@nospam.usask.ca (Skeeter Abell-Smith) writes:
>Mike Trembly (mi...@compact.com) wrote:
>}It was over 30 years ago when I predicted that the nuclear power
>}technology could not be sustained for very long as it would threaten
>}the existence of all humanity.
>"threaten the existance of all humanity"? Oh my. All those poor
>people dying from nuclear power plants in North America every year.
>Too bad we don't more often use those safe sources like coal and oil.
>If only we could could cover the planet with windmills and photovoltaic
>panels, not that we have any idea what to to with all the bi-products
>of their manufacture, but at least they have no half-life. All
>those chemicals will last forever until they find something with which
>to interact.
>But I digress...
We don't know if people in North America are dying from nuclear power yet.
It would only take one bad accident say 200 years hence to change the
statistics big time. Everything has a half life, sort of. Everything that
man builds or makes goes away eventually. Nuclear waste stays around for
a few hundred thousand years or so. That's more than any chemical.
regards ken
Hal Lillywhite
>We don't know if people in North America are dying from nuclear power yet.
>It would only take one bad accident say 200 years hence to change the
>statistics big time.
In case you haven't noticed, mankind has already changed the
statistics big time. We've blocked rivers for hydropower, dumped
lots of carbon dioxide into the air and spued out a lot of other
chemicals which have had major effects on our environemnt. And the
former Soviet Union probably did a lot more damage with ordinary
chemical pollution than with the Chernoble (SP?) nuclear accident.
In W. Virginia coal companies are flattening whole mountains to get
a fuel which puts out all sorts of pollutants.
I'm not sure how accurate the green-house theories are but if they
are true you better believe that fossil fuel is a lot worse than
nuclear power. With that you're talking about release of carbon
dioxide literally raising the temperature of earth to that of
Venus! I doubt the green-house theories and I doubt we'll ever
have another accident like Chernoble. However the nuclear risk is
much more tolerable, we can hope to recover from that. If a green-
house effect were to start we would never recover.
>Everything has a half life, sort of.
Nope. At least not that we know of. A lot of chemical pollutants
like arsenic and heavy metals appear to hang around forever. Even
some man-made chemicals don't break down.
>Everything that
>man builds or makes goes away eventually. Nuclear waste stays around for
>a few hundred thousand years or so. That's more than any chemical.
Again no, at least not the dangerous nuclear waste. Chemicals can
last forever but anything radioactive will go away. Furthermore the
most dangerous nuclear waste is what's called "high level" waste.
This is the stuff with a lot of activity emitting lots of radiation.
However that high level of radiation means it is decaying rapidly so
this stuff doesn't stay around long. For example cesium 132 has a
half-life of 6.58 days. In one year only one atom in 5 X 10^16
will be left. (That is one atom in every 50000..., 5 followed by 16
zeros for those not familiar with the notation.) This makes for a
very radioactive material for a short time. On the other hand the
longer lived stuff is not very radioactive. If it were it wouldn't
last long. In fact some of this stuff is hardly more radioactive
than a lot of normal rocks we mess with every day. One interesting
tidbit is that the congressional hearings on the Three Mile Island
accident were held in a room made of granite. People in that room
were exposed to more radiation from the granite than were people
right by the reactor.
Fact is, radiation is a natural phenomenon. Nearly every material
has some fraction of radioactive isotopes in it. In fact we all
depend on a large nuclear reactor (the sun) to keep us warm and
provide other energy. The unfortunate thing is that we have allowed
"radiation" and "nuclear" to become witch words. By that I mean
that guilt is automatically assumed as it was in early day Salem for
any woman accused of being a witch. Instead of thinking rationally
about the issues too many people hear a witch word and condemn
without knowledge. Nuclear power has been the victim of this type
of reaction. Had it been treated rationally I am convinced we would
now have a lot of very good, very safe and low polluting nuclear
power plants in this country. More importantly we would have fewer
coal, gas and oil fired plants and fewer dams on our rivers.
No, nuclear power is not perfect. Nothing in this life is perfect.
However it is a lot better than any other power source I know of
which is readily available in large quantities. The
"environmentalists" who oppose it have done great harm to the
environment by causing the construction of more dangerous power
plants.
Appendix - Here are the major energy sources and what their problems
are, as I remember them at the moment:
Gas: Puts out lots of carbon dioxide. Fairly expensive
Oil: Lots of carbon dioxide and other airborne pollutants,
expensive.
Coal: Same as gas and oil. Also more difficult to extract and
transport than gas or oil. Extraction often causes environmental
problems.
Note: All three of the above are available in limited amounts on
this planet. Coal will almost certainly last longer than gas or
oil. Once we use up the supply these will be gone forever.
Hydropower: Major environmental disruption, limited number of
suitable sites.
Solar: Very expensive at present, major chemical problem in the
manufacture of solar cells. Only available in daylight without
storage elements which present other problems.
Wind: Not reliable, expensive, needs storage, limited number of
suitable sites.
Geothermal: Probably limited number of suitable sites. However the
major problem at present is lack of knowledge and Luddites blocking
technology. Likely to be quite expensive but I don't think we have
the data yet to determine cost in large scale production.
Nuclear: Waste disposal. However the major problem is political.
Politics has limited use and driven up costs.
(I may have forgotten a couple but this should give people the
idea.)
althepal
In article <5vuv3m$l...@macs.mxim.com>, ha...@macs.mxim.com says...
mainly of carbon dioxide thenstop exhaling and at the same time stop all
animal life from exhaling including fish. Also of course you're going to
have to turn off all the volcanos and a lot of the marshes, bogs, fens
etc. No automobiles either!
Jan Vermaak
>>Fact is, radiation is a natural phenomenon. Nearly every material
>>has some fraction of radioactive isotopes in it. In fact we all
>>depend on a large nuclear reactor (the sun) to keep us warm and
>>provide other energy. The unfortunate thing is that we have allowed
>>"radiation" and "nuclear" to become witch words.
It is more a moral question. Radioactive waste is very dangerous for a very
long time. We must take the responsibility, for the next few THOUSANDS years
that this pollution will not harm people or the environment. This, I'm very
sure, is a impossibility. What can go wrong in the next 10 000 years? Nobody
can guarantee that this stuff will NEVER leak to groundwater and into our
water systems. The greatest threat is possibly human curiosity and
indiffrence. I know about a case where drums full of dangerous chemical
waste were dug up, and the drums sold as drinking water containers!!!
With nuclear power, we exploit a natural resource to the expence of future
generations. They will sit with the problems. We must find ways to have a
sustainable power resource. I don't have any answers on where we can find
it.
Michael Zarlenga
Jan Vermaak (jver...@lantic.co.za) wrote:
: It is more a moral question. Radioactive waste is very dangerous for a very
: long time. We must take the responsibility, for the next few THOUSANDS years
It's cheap and safe to glassify the waste and bury it back into the
Earth from whence it came.
The major problem with burying nuclear waste is waste migration into
the water tables. Glassification completely solves that problem.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"Dolphins are intelligent and friendly."
"Intelligent and friendly? Yeah, on rye bread with some mayonnaise."
Eric Cartman, South Park
Tom McCOSh
Jan Vermaak wrote:
>
> >>Fact is, radiation is a natural phenomenon. Nearly every material
> >>has some fraction of radioactive isotopes in it. In fact we all
> >>depend on a large nuclear reactor (the sun) to keep us warm and
> >>provide other energy. The unfortunate thing is that we have allowed
> >>"radiation" and "nuclear" to become witch words.
>
> long time. We must take the responsibility, for the next few THOUSANDS years
> sure, is a impossibility. What can go wrong in the next 10 000 years? Nobody
> can guarantee that this stuff will NEVER leak to groundwater and into our
> water systems. The greatest threat is possibly human curiosity and
> indiffrence. I know about a case where drums full of dangerous chemical
> waste were dug up, and the drums sold as drinking water containers!!!
>
> With nuclear power, we exploit a natural resource to the expence of future
> generations. They will sit with the problems. We must find ways to have a
> sustainable power resource. I don't have any answers on where we can find
> it.
--
It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited commercial
email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a US $500
charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial email.
Sending unsolicited commercial email to my email address denotes
acceptance of these terms. My posting messages to UseNet neither grants
my consent to receive commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit
commercial email.
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email)
at http://www.cauce.org/ and tell your Congresspeople how Spam mailings
hurt you. Help protect genuine Internet commerce: Outlaw UCE Spamming.
Note: My address may be munged.
Michael Zarlenga
EskWIRED (eskw...@shore.net) wrote:
: : The major problem with burying nuclear waste is waste migration into
: : the water tables. Glassification completely solves that problem.
: Please contact me for a special limited time offer! The liberals will
: tell you that its owned by the City of New York, but I know that they
: can't fool you! If you act soon, I will let you be the first to invest in
: a major piece of infrastructure, spanning the East River, connecting
: Brooklyn and Manhatten.
It's ManhattAn.
If you think my statements are incorrect, then address them.
Rainer Thonnes
In article <5vuv3m$l...@macs.mxim.com>,
ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
>
> Nuclear: Waste disposal. However the major problem is political.
> Politics has limited use and driven up costs.
I like it. Politics has, indeed, only very limited use.
We'd be better off without it.
--
I'm experimenting with poisoning my address to foil advertisers.
Provided you're not trying to sell me anything, you may email
me at r...@dcs.ed, but you need to stick .ac.uk on the end.
Alan Lothian
r...@ukol.com (Rainer Thonnes) wrote on 23 Sep 1997:
> In article <5vuv3m$l...@macs.mxim.com>,
> ha...@macs.mxim.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
> >
> > Nuclear: Waste disposal. However the major problem is political.
> > Politics has limited use and driven up costs.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I like it. Politics has, indeed, only very limited use.
> We'd be better off without it.
>
Indeed. It's just that the waste disposal problems
are so formidable. Bullshit, after all, is the most
dangerous form of toxic effluent known to man.
You might like to consider certain political issues
in terms of half-life. Irish politics, for example, are
still deadly after five hundred years.
Alan Lothian
"The past resembles the future as water
resembles water": Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)
Carl Witthoft
In article <606voj$78n$3...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net
(Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
> It's cheap and safe to glassify the waste and bury it back into the
> Earth from whence it came.
>
> The major problem with burying nuclear waste is waste migration into
> the water tables. Glassification completely solves that problem.
Yup. Glass never shatters. smirk.
Personally, I go for the (valid) line that nobody ever recoups the energy
investment it takes to build a nuclear plant. Safe or not, it ain't worth
the cost.
--
Carl Witthoft(changeDOT) c...@worldDOTstd.com carl@aoaincDOTcom
Pinball maniac, windsurfer, volleyball setter, happy Dad
http://world.std.com/~cgw
Jan Vermaak
Mike Zarlenga
>The major problem with burying nuclear waste is waste migration into
>the water tables. Glassification completely solves that problem.
Last time I checked, glass was brittle. Are you sure that, in a time span of
thousands of years, no cracks will develop. The earth is active, and a
tectonic event may cause pressure on the glassified waste. This may cause
tension cracks to develop.
You haven't replied on the human factor. Curios people may dug the stuff up.
Terrorists may use it.
Craig Dowell
>>The major problem with burying nuclear waste is waste migration into
>>the water tables. Glassification completely solves that problem.
>
>Last time I checked, glass was brittle. Are you sure that, in a time span of
>thousands of years, no cracks will develop. The earth is active, and a
>tectonic event may cause pressure on the glassified waste. This may cause
>tension cracks to develop.
Why is it important that no cracks develop?
>You haven't replied on the human factor. Curios people may dug the stuff up.
>Terrorists may use it.
Anybody who has the technology and resources to dig the waste out of a
multi-thousand foot mine, getting in through the rock, concrete and steel,
would presumably know what a geiger counter was all about. It's not like
we're talking about digging a two foot hole, dumping plutonium in it and
putting a cloth over it.
Terrorists would have to have the technology to refine the hunks of glass
back into something useful to them.
Bob Casanova
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 21:48:01 GMT, in sci.skeptic, c...@worldDOTstd.com
(Carl Witthoft) wrote:
>In article <606voj$78n$3...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net
>(Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>> It's cheap and safe to glassify the waste and bury it back into the
>> Earth from whence it came.
>>
>> The major problem with burying nuclear waste is waste migration into
>> the water tables. Glassification completely solves that problem.
>
>Yup. Glass never shatters. smirk.
Left alone, no, it doesn't.
>
>
>Personally, I go for the (valid) line that nobody ever recoups the energy
>investment it takes to build a nuclear plant. Safe or not, it ain't worth
>the cost.
Yep, let's just keep burning coal; *that's* the ticket!
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken