🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Trembly wrote:
>
> It was over 30 years ago when I predicted that the nuclear power
> technology could not be sustained for very long as it would threaten
> the existence of all humanity.
>
> The "Living Atom Theory" <http://WWW.HyperInfo.CA/~LivingAtom/> I
had
> formulated clearly explains why nature will not and cannot tolerate
any
> violation of those most precious elementary units which we call
atoms.

Nature has no qualms about permitting nuclear reactions which makes
your
"theory" rather laughable:

* In uranium ores there are always some free neutrons present because
of
spontaneous fissions of U-235 atoms (present to 0.72% of the uranium
atoms). These cause activation products, such as plutonium-239 to be
formed in naturally occurring ores.

* In the Congo there is a uranium ore that is very low in U-235
content.
About 700,000 years ago it was very high but it existed in an arid
area.
Water (for some reason) started flowing through the ore and being a
moderator, supported a chain reaction. The natural "reactor" ran until
about 100,000 years ago when the U-235 levels dropped too low to
sustain
the reaction. All fission products formed in our nuclear reactors were
formed, together with plutonium and other actinides. No attempt was
made
to dispose of the waste which was largely sequestered in the ore
bodies
where it formed.

* Every day cosmic rays induce a shower a neutrons and gamma radiation
from the upper atmosphere. From the grounds we are bombarded with more
gamma, and radon gas and its decay daughters provide us with alpha
particles, more gamma and beta radiation.

And you think that tinkering with the atom is the preserve of man
alone...
>
> The fiasco of the Ontario nuclear plants clearly support my
predictions.

There is no fiasco. You are referring, I presume to a
managerial/worker
problem that needs to be resolved. The fundamentals of the Candu
nuclear
reactor have been proven in extensive use throughout both Canada and
its
export markets (such as Embalse in Argentina). The Candu is proving a
popular choice in nations such as South Korea, Romania (where the
first
plant at Cernavoda has recently gone onto the grid) and others.
>
> For the past few decades the problems faced by the nuclear industry
> were ignored but we are now obligated to accept one reality - most
of
> the nuclear plants must be shut down.  Although this is certainly a
> step into the right direction, some irreversible and irreparable
harm
> has already occurred.

The "problems" faced by the nuclear industry are entirely political
ones
brought about by ill-informed agitators ventilating opinions long on
emotion and short on substance.

>
> The "atomic" pollution, although undetected by our senses have
> nevertheless been released.
>
It has been released every day in nature since well before the human
race existed. Do you watch television? You receive radiation from the
monitor. Do you ever travel by air? Don't (if you are worried about
radiation [I take it this is what you mean by atomic pollution] - at
11,000 metres where jets fly the cosmic radiation flux is 170 times as
great as it is at sea-level. Do you live in brick house? Brick
contains
considerable quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides. Do you
have a wife? When you are intimate bear in mind that because of
potassium-40 (half life = 1,260 million years, occurrence = 0.0118% of
potassium) you are being irradiated by her (have to say "no" to sex
then, won't you?)

> The difference between this and traditionally accepted forms of
> pollution is also a question that the Living Atom Theory
> <http://WWW.HyperInfo.CA/~LivingAtom/> explains.
>
If the "science" there is as sound as your logic so far loading this
site would just be a waste of space on my hard disk.

> Once the final curtain is dropped over this whole tragic episode of
> human technology, we may well look back and realize that what we had
> been led to believe was going to be a wonderful "clean" form of
energy
> turned out to be the dirtiest and deadliest of them all.
>
Innuendo and emotion not backed by any facts at all. Did you know that
a
coal fired station releases more radioactive material to the
environment
than a nuclear one?

Philip Ross
Chairman
NZ Atomic Energy Advocacy Council
http://www.inhb.co.nz/proceedings/atomic

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