Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:31:16 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> To: Paul Robinson <paul@akita.co.uk> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <20010919153116.G306@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <20010919220407.A43466@jake.akitanet.co.uk>; from paul@akita.co.uk on Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:04:07PM %2B0100 References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAMEFMCDAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <xzpelp9s9ga.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BA33CB6.FE0102C8@mindspring.com> <20010919132340.D306@blossom.cjclark.org> <20010919220407.A43466@jake.akitanet.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:04:07PM +0100, Paul Robinson wrote: > On Sep 19, "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > I loathe to join the thread, but this is so-o way off base. > > I was in this thread early on, and left because I didn't really feel > comfortable here with my pseudo-pacifist tendancies. However, here I come > back again. And to think - this is *freebsd*-chat... :-) > > > Now, as to why no new nuclear plants have been built in the past few > > decades is a whole separate issue. Economics, regulation, and public > > fear of accidents have prevented this. However, the idea that the US > > public feels guilty about using fission weapons against Japan is > > completely unfounded. > > You've actually kind of contradicted yourself there. In the 1940 and even > 1950s (post-Hiroshima) nuclear power seems to have been seen as the future > of mankind - although I'm too young to have witnessed what went on there at > the time, I've even seen some of those 'homes of the future' films made back > then that seemed to suggest that by around now every home would have it's > own nuclear power source. This didn't happen for one primary reason - > nuclear power was equated with nuclear war. I would say the primary reason is that the technology for small nuclear plants has never been economically realistic. Of course, the low expectation of consumer acceptance does not help research into making them so. I don't see where I contradicted myself. In the last few decades, from the 70's on, nuclear power has ground to a complete halt in the US after much excitement (and fear) in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. > > I am wondering what type of hazardous chemical wastes from coal > > cumbustion you are speaking of. > > Google for hazardous wastes of coal combustion (note the difference in > spelling to the one you use) and see what you get. Coal combustion is > considered by the US Government (or rather EPA) as non-hazardous, but > contains toxic metals that get land-filled - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, > lead and mercury all feature in the lists I've seen. Ah. Trace metals that happen to be there in the minerals. When I think coal combustion, I think about the actual products of combustion going up the stack. The bulk is water and carbon dioxide. The pollutants of primary concern in the off gasses are SOx's and NOx's (the old acid rain culprits). Getting particulates, which most of the trace metals will be (possibly exculding mercury of course), out of the stack is considered the easy part. Anyway, you are going to get that same bunch of metals and others, in higher quantities actually, when you process uranium ore. You need to do something with the uranium tailings and other processing wastes and you need to dispose of the coal ashes, which all have concentrations of these metals higher than the usual background level. > What I would rather have is properly managed nuclear power, or even better > would be cost-effective solar, wind or wave power, perhaps with some more > effcient electronics in the world too. Don't worry. All of those technologies will some day become cost effective when the cost of fossil fuels starts to pass them. As to how far away that is, it depends a whole lot on who you ask. > > As a chemical engineer, I could delve into how grossly > > disproportionate the fears of these things are as opposed to the real > > risks (the common irrational fears of crime and terrorism got nothing > > on these), but I'll spare you all. > > If you're a chemical engineer, I'm suprised you aren't aware of the > by-products of coal combustion. They are not really by-products since they are all there in the coal when you start. It's just that they are also left over when you are done whereas most of the carbon, which is the bulk of the mass, has gone up the stack. The metals are left in a more concentrated form. The same thing happens if you burn a _lot_ of anything, oil, wood, garbage, etc. (natural gas being an exception for obvious reasons). Anyway, building landfills is for the environmental and civil engineers to worry about. ;) -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010919153116.G306>