🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dewey & Lucy Thompson" <dlthompson@socket.net> wrote:


>You are very confused here, or at least your facts are very confused.  More
>is known about radiation hazards, effects, and interaction with matter than
>any other single hazard known to man.  


Give me a  break you asshole! Please go on a live broadcast with me to
debate the issues. That one statement right there will have the
audience laughing at you.



>Radiation is hazardous, it does cause
>immediate and delayed effects, however the risks of those are very low in
>relation to most other hazards in the world today, indeed, there is mounting
>evidence that the risks are grossly overstated.  (Of course the "anti" crowd
>will parade out their pseudo-scientists to show the deadly hazards).  I
>prefer to listen to true scientists.

There is growing evidence in both camps to support opposite
conclusions. 

>> so then they propose deeper burial and vitrification, turns out that
>> vitrification does not work as the radiation and heat produced by the
>waste
>> produce micro fissures in the vitrified mass, allowing water in and
>> radioactive waste out. now its even deeper burial, still with unresolved
>> questions and site selection problems, also there is the inevitable
>> pollution from the waste reprocessing plants and fuel refining and mining
>> facilities, the more nuclear power reactors the more reprocessing
>> facilities and so on.

>The unresolved site selection process are mainly due to unrelenting attacks
>by the "anti" crowd who will accept only one answer "NO NUCLEAR", and will
>attack all angles to shut down the industry.  The waste issue was grabbed
>onto a number of years ago as the best "tactical" avenue.
>>
>> we already have several yucca mountains worth of high level waste piled up
>> around the world. sure the problems of waste disposal have been solved,
>> that is why so much of it has been disposed of in such responsible ways.

>It has built up because up until quite recently there was little pressure to
> forge ahead.  Now that pressure is building.

And because know one knew (and currently) knows how to solve the waste
issue.

>>
>application.

>>
>> ignore greigs rantings, he is seriously out of touch with the current
>state
>> of the art in energy generation  and the increasing public opposition to
>> the use of nuclear power, funny, the more educated and technically
>literate
>> the public becomes the less popular nuclear power becomes.

>Actually, you have it exactly backwards.  The more educated and technically
>literate the public becomes, the less popular the "anti" crowd and their
>mis-information becomes.

You are completely abou- face. The original poster is correct.

> > with such a huge liability(the invisible nature of radiation and its
>often
>> delayed effects) to counter and no cold war to drive the propaganda mills
>> it really is inevitable that nuclear power technology will become less
>> important in our future.

>"The invisible nature of radiations delayed effects"?.  Just WHO is spouting
>"propaganda" here?
You!
>dewey