🚀 go-pugleaf

 > But there are studies which do show that moderate increases
 > in radiation (even 2 to 3 times normal background) do NOT cause
 > additional health problems.

 That's a tricky thing to determine.  The lethal dose level varies
 with the individual but can be predicted using a bell shaped curve.
 What the show said was somewhere around 200 REMs can kill a person
 but it didn't give any more information like mean and standard
 deviation.

 The question remains, is background radiation safe?
 Or as I suspect, enough to allow us to reproduce without
 radiation induced complications.

 > One should spend resources on what will increase health,
 > not on things which won't make a difference (or much less difference).
 > And, quite argueably, nuclear power can reduce radiation exposure,
 > compared to coal, which is really the competator source.

 Okay.

 > The point is, we are going to generate electricity anyway, so we
 > should use methods which have low impact and risk, like nuclear power.

 Depends upon the time scale.  There won't be a Chernobilzation
 in the states, but that's not what people are worried about.
 As mentioned in the program, Nevada doesn't want the site because
 of fear that a hundred years from now it'll leak out and pollute
 the local environment.  It's a sound fear.  Suposidly safely
 burried materials have been leached in ground waters or in some
 cases dug-up by wild life and scattered widely.  In other words,
 Past history does not lead to future trust.

 > The point was that the Japanese have been able to avoid anti-nuclear
 > paranoia in spite of having been the victim of nuclear weapons
 > (and thus having the most "justification" for such paranoia.

 I'll  have to admit I don't really know Japan all that well.
 Uncertainy remains on how open they are.  I'm puzzled that their
 unions on strike still work at the plant and protest on their lunch
 hours.  Hmmm...

 But getting back to the Frontline program, in France the society
 is completely different from the states.  That part was a wow.
 Education programs, plant tours, standardized design & lower cost,
 recycling programs, and even research to find new and hopefully
 safe uses.  But that'll never happen here.

 > Maybe you aren't seeing the costs (risks) of the alternatives.

 I know some of the costs, but it does not matter in the long term.
 The economics no longer favor centralized power plants like coal
 or nuclear, but instead favor a distributive network of point sources.
 I suspect natural gas and wind power will replace older sources,
 then solar power will take over.


-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet