🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5vu0kh$5i2@flatland.dimensional.com>,
Hyperion Systems <hyperion@dimensional.com> wrote:
>In article <3422620C.57971318@geocities.com>,
>Wil Maxwell  <wmaxwell@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Nuclear power is far cleaner than
>>any other power (other than hydro-electric and solar,) and IMHO should be
>>encouraged and not discouraged. Of course, proper safegurds MUST be
>>followed.    If you can show a cleaner, safer, cheaper alternative, then do
>>so. Otherwise, I don't think you can shut down the nuclear power plants. I
>>think we should use hydro-electric and solar (or use Tesla's method for free
>>microwave energy), but it's not as cost effective.

I would point out that hydro-electric is far from perfect.  Sure, there's
little to no waste, but the construction of dams upsets the ecosystems
both upstream and down (reference the answar dam (if i recall it's name
correctly) in Egypt) not to mention that there is, unless i'm mistaken,
some thermal pollution from the water being warmed by it's trip through
the turbines.  I'm not against hydro-electric, but I really don't think
it's th answer.

>
>>    The only people who condemn nuclear power are those who are making
>>billions from fossil fuel power.
>
>How come since the pollution does not spew from the smoke stack, people
>seem to forget about it, and call it "clean".  Nuclear waste is some of
>the most toxic stuff we humans can generate, AND we have never developed a
>safe method to dispose of it.  It seems to just ride around the country on
>train cars.  Also, we cannot build a container to store it in that will
>last longer than the stuff it contains.  That radioactive waste will
>remain dangerous for long after the container corrodes or breaks.

Containes can be made that will last long enough, and safe methods of
storage have been developed, but not implemented for the most part.

It's been a long time since I last heard about them, and maybe someone
from the myriad of groups that this was posted to can give more
information on them, but aren't breeder reactors nearly waste-free, or am
I mistaken?  If I recall correctly, they keep cunsuming the waste they
preoduce. 

>
>And, last, let's not forget Chernobyl.  Hardly what we could call "clean"
>is it?  Of course, "that can't happen here", right?

Pointing at Chernobyl as an indication that nuclear power is unclean is
like saying that a dam breaking and flooding the valey below would
indicate that hydro-electric is unclean.  Chernobyl was bad, and an act of
extreme srupidity.  Ever read about how it happened?  Admitedly, I don't
recall the details, but I believe it involved shutting of the failsafes
and running some tests that really kinda needed the failsafes.  Not to
mention (again, if I recall correctly) flooding the core to cool it down--
a method commonly used to increase the likelyhood of a chain reaction.

>
>- John

===============================Adam=Moore=================================
-Adam Moore  Hopeful Romantic  _            0))__)>   
 gt4551d@prism.gatech.edu  |\/|_)  "I've been a right bastard!"
                           |  |-\     -Jesus, in "The Spirit of Christmas"
                                                         /~(_)~\     ,,
"Let me kiss your mind, bathe your soul..."    `//::::: (=<|===|=====II}
      -Me'Shell N'deg�Ocello                   //-`'DVC  \_(~)_/     ''
==========================================================================