Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:09:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BA97A05.B14F6ACF@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAMEFMCDAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <xzpelp9s9ga.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BA33CB6.FE0102C8@mindspring.com> <20010919132340.D306@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" wrote: > Nuclear powerplants from the 50's and 60's are being decomissioned > because most are operating near or well past their design > lifetimes. These plants _need_ to be decommissioned. The engineers who > built and run them will tell you this needs to be done. I think you need to look up the nuclear plants that are currently in operation in California, along with the list of the ones being decomissioned, and compare them with their dates of construction. I think you'll find that your statement doesn't hold water (inre: "from the 50's and 60's"). > 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. I disagree, but then my education included playing aroud with a real reactor. > > We do this _despite_ the fact that nuclear waste can be held > > safely until it is itself safe, while the chemical waste from > > coal-fired plants _does not break down_ -- it is dangerous > > _forever_. > > I am wondering what type of hazardous chemical wastes from coal > cumbustion you are speaking of. Hydrocarbon byproducts from combustion which are ejected into the atmosphere, and are not broken down due to photo exposure... only as the result of being metabolized by something/one. > You mentioned Brookhaven later in this thread. When I used to live in > the East, only that fringe of professional protesters gave a whit > about Brookhaven until a report came out about the contamination in > the nearby soil and groundwater. Then _and only then_ did the local > media and public really care about Brookhaven. It's not some imagined > guilt about using nuclear weapons on Japanese driving protests at > Brookhaven, it's fear of our pal Blinky of Simpsons fame. Find me a "blinky", and I'll believe you. > 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. Nuclear materials are feared because of our object lessons on what they _can_ do, not based on what we fear they might do. -- Terry 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?3BA97A05.B14F6ACF>