🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred McGalliard wrote in message <391D8B0A.34491323@boeing.com>...
>
>
>codeman wrote:
>>
>> I might add that the most undesirable location (for me personally) and
most
>> suitable for nuclear waste, would be downtown New York City. I am sure
there
>> are a few million people who would disagree with me on this so please
don't
>> flame me, I admit defeat.
>
>But you are actually correct. The hot glass tubes could provide a lot of
>heat for winter without any direct power demands. Shut it up tight for
>the summer and it will be nice and hot by next winter. If the glass is
>sound there should be no radiation at all outside the shell, well,
>perhaps a small thermal neutron count, so it would be safer than firing
>up the old coal fired plant. Just don't tell em the source is nuclear.
>Say it's a free energy device.

/satire mode on/

i prefer the homes of the shareholders in nuclear power plants as the
preferred storage sites, if they want to make a profit form the technology
the only responsible thing to do is to also share in some of the mess it
makes, not to much of their homes would have to be converted, say %15 or
so, perhaps the garage or in the spare bedrooms it would boost the share
prices of the rad shielding companies significantly.


/end humor mode/

but really monitored long term storage is my preferred option for the next
50 years or so, let technology mature a little more and then evaluate the
situation again.


but i can say that short of international military intervention or a
politically suicidal government/political party in Australia there is no
way that the the Australian people will stand for being made into an
international nuclear waste dump. we stil have not got the British to fully
clean up the marling facility where we let them explode nuclear weapons. it
will be hard enough to get the public to approve of any new nuclear
facility in this country.

ant