Posted by pseudonym on July 5, 2004, 5:58 am
Well, capital punishment doesn't cost much, unless you include the
average of $ million of lawyer's fees it takes in the US. Yes, the
process of getting someone to accept your 10,000 year radioactive
waste is expensive because of NIMBYism, but the expense is a real one
that must be paid.
Is it possible to bury a large volume of radioactive waste for a
longer period than civilization has yet existed? Maybe. Is it cheap?
No. Yucca mountain in the US hasn't even opened yet, and the local
government in Nevada is doing everthing it can to stop it. If you
tried to run the Europe and the US and Asia off of nuclear power, how
many yucca mountains would be needed, and what would the real expense
be? Is it ethical to place this burden on people 1,000 years in the
future, when in truth there is no way to prove that a particular bit
of engineering will be reliable for that long?
For that matter, how do you secure nuclear plants and wastes against
terrorists who have proven to be both inventive and suicidal?
Posted by daestrom on July 5, 2004, 1:20 pm
after a very
I love these 'arguments' about '..there is no way to prove.....X'. There is
also 'no way to prove the Brooklyn Bridge will be standing tomorrow'; 'no
way to prove the house you're living in will be standing tomorrow'; 'no way
to prove a particular tree will be standing tomorrow'; 'no way to prove a
particular airplane won't fall out of the sky tomorrow'.
Engineering can only build on past performance and extrapolate. It's done
every day in every new building built, every new bridge built, every new car
built. It's acceptable for 767's to be built this way carrying thousands,
if not millions of passengers in their lifetime. Or every home built in a
city. Yet somehow the scaremonger's and irrational don't think it is
acceptable for nuclear waste.
And have you ever think about the burden's that have been left us by our
predecessors? Probably not very often. Yet who gave us racism, slavery,
religious hatrid...?? We don't go around blaming the ancient Egyptions or
Romans for such things now, do we? How many generations were poisoned by
lead plumbing because of our ancestor's?? Was that 'ethical'?
In 500 years, our progeny may be thanking us in their nightly prayers (or
whatever passes for that in their time) for putting all of that valuable
fissile and radioactive material in such a well marked location that they
were able to find it and save them a lot of trouble. They may use some of
it for irradiating foods to limit spoilage; fueling their reactors; various
medical and industrial processes.
The same way you secure airplanes, public monuments, highways, everything
else. By also being inventive. Considering the number of airplanes
hijacked, the number of buildings attacked and the number of nuclear plants
not attacked, it would seem that nuclear plant security is working.
Posted by Anthony Matonak on July 5, 2004, 2:16 pm
I think the main issue with the nuclear waste is that all the past
performance and extrapolations indicate that what is promised by
politicians (keeping it safely) isn't going to happen. More to the
point, it especially won't happen where they plan to do it.
People curse prior generations all the time. Anyone who has had to
do any kind of toxic waste cleanup (including lead and asbestos) on
their property usually has a bad opinion of previous standard practices
and sometimes previous owners. Anyone who has come down sick due to
toxic waste usually is not happy about it.
The question is, should we do this ourselves? Should we knowingly
poison and kill people in the future? Most folks would rather not.
We do not secure any of these things very well. It's just not possible.
Security comes mainly from various police forces attempting to catch
the dangerous people before they do something or, at least, not very
long after they have.
Posted by daestrom on July 5, 2004, 2:33 pm
Last time I checked, politicians weren't designing things. Just bi** about
why some money should go to their favorite projects.
More to the
Is burying toxic waste in a well marked, guarded, monitored location
'knowingly poisoning and killing'?? Nuclear or otherwise toxic? How many
barrels of toxic waste are being buryed every day with far less
oversight/planning everyday? What is being done about that?
If burying nuclear waste is 'unethical', then so is burying many other toxic
metals/toxins. Considering the relative amounts and quantities involved,
seems like we should be focusing on coal ash and lead batteries more than we
are. Yet these receive far less attention (haven't seen Dan Rather saying
anything about them on the 6 o'clock news). And they may 'poison and kill'
many in future generations than nuclear waste.
Posted by nicksanspam on July 5, 2004, 5:10 pm
Would you kindly move your nuclear thoughts out of alt.solar.thermal,
home of "practical uses for the sun's heat"?