🚀 go-pugleaf

none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
<8h8p70$3ol$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>"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.
>
>
being familiar with D&L T's debating skills and level of scientific
understanding i would not bother replying directly to their/his/her/its
posts. to stop them all in their tracks, just point out that the price
anderson act(or its non USA equivalent) is in effect a huge taxpayer
subsidy and crutch, as it allows the nuclera power insudtey to operate, as
if it has to pay the insurance premiums against public loss that the
insurance industry has quoted it would bankrupt them all. with losses from
a serious accident running to trillions of dollars from a serious accident,
core melt and containment breach, and hundreds of thousands of dead, over
the lifetime of the people exposed to the radiation due to extra cancers.
>

but just to be pedantic, water comes to mind as a substance that we know
signifigantly more about with regards hazards then radiation.

>>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.


and just above we were told that

"More is known about radiation hazards, effects, and interaction with
matter than any other single hazard known to man"

if that were the case we would know all there is on the subject of
radiation hazards, and with regards to the "there is mounting evidence that
the risks are grossly overstated" i would like to see some of this research
cited occasionally, if it is refering to "radiation hormosis" the data is
rubbery, many of the calimd positive results have not been replicated in
independant laborotorys, very little research has been published in peer
reviewed journals supporting its case and nearly all of the funding for the
"radiation is harmless or good for you camp" comes from the nuclear
industry, but the same industry is highly reluctant to fund researchers who
find negative consaquences with regards radiation.
meanwhile more and more _published_ evidence and studys suggests that even
very low levels of radiation and so called "safe" alpha emitters are a
potential risk to living organisims.

>
>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.


with the above attitude of denial and blame shifting the nuclear industry
is certainly doomed, the only way to win over some of the "anti" groups is
to be more responsable and take responsabilitys for past mistakes, concede
that there are problems with the technology and spend big on improved
safety, long term fuel storage and emission reductions.


>>>
>>> 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.


the pressure is building form nuclear shareholders to dispose of the
mounting liability that the waste represents, pressure is mounting because
it is very hard to convince the public that the techology is safe and low
risk when the waste products are still mounting up.
most of the oposition to the early waste disposal plans came from within
scientific circles, as it does now. all of the "solutions" that the nuclear
industry has offered have been, when subject to examination by the wider
scientific community, found to be defective and unsafe. remember when the
nuclear industry told us deep sea burial of nuclear waste was totall safe,
that there were no risks, that they had investigated it deeply and knew all
there was to know in the subject. nothing lived at those depths, even
though we had not been able to conduct through scientific studys of the
seabed in question people were quite happy to pronoounce that no life could
survive under such high pressures and without light. sound like another
case of the "i know all there is to know" syndrome to you.

>
>>>
>>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.
>

as is demonstrated by looking at the average level of education and
comparing the public accepttance of nuclear power accross the world, the
highest acceptance levels are to be found in the third world. when nuclear
supporters make such silly and clearly wrong statements it brings all the
statements made by them into disrepute. how can we tell what is basless
bluster, PR or outright properganda and what is accurate fact.



>> > 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!


yep, if dewey cant grasp the concept that radiation causes cancers usually
a long time after the victim was initially exposed to the radiation that is
his/her/its fault. all i was saying is its very nature plays on some deep
human fears, so the nuclear industry will have to work very hard to counter
such fears. none of this denialist clap trap and blame shifting.

ant