🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 16:34:58 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:

>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.

This is just plain bullshit.  Radiation hormeosis has a firm footing
in peer-reviewed literature, and is a widely accepted hypothesis
amongst professional radiation health specialists.  At least, that is
what I was told last time I was talking Australia's pre-eminent
radiation health specialist.  I wonder where ant gets his ideas from.

>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.

Alpha emitters are always dangerous, when ingested or particularly
when inhaled.  Outside the body, they are harmless.  This has been
known for decades.  More studies showing that inhaled and ingested
alpha emitters cause harm, is not adding to our knowledge
significantly.

>>
>>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.

That is EXACTLY what the nuclear industry has been doing, and has been
amazingly successful in maintaining high levels of safety, low levels
of emissions, and they have solved the issue of waste disposal.  But
do people know it?  No.  Too many anti-s running around lying to
people.

>>>>
>>>> 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. 

What are the scientific objections to Pangea's proposal for a
repository in South Australia, or the Swedish plans to bury their
waste in massive granite plutons?

>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.

Deep sea burial for LLW is still practical from an environmental
viewpoint.  The proposal assumed that life exists at extreme sea
depths, and won't harm them.  Then there is the plan to bury HLW
wedging it deep into the sea bottom, in a place where continental
drift will cause the waste to drift slowly downward into the Earth's
mantle.  Perfectly valid idea, just not likely to win public
acceptance.

>>>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. 

How do you know?

>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.

Indeed!


...Greig