Posted by Fred B. McGalliard on July 8, 2004, 2:55 pm
Wait. We never addressed either of these issues when we were being
frightened by fuel rods? But for the heavy metals, the best we can do is
oxidize them into a ceramic like material that won't disolve. Otherwise,
like lead, they just hang around, so the concentration had better be very
Actually I am glad you asked. I made it up. But it could be true. I have
heard some numbers which I would not trust without a lot more research on
how much radioisotope pollution coal produces, but I do not expect much of
it to become free. I think it is left in the ash, mostly, and we then have
the problem of how well sequestered this ash is, compared to the fuel rods
and such. Forgive me for stating a counter point as if it were a factoid. It
is just a possible conclusion if we wanted to do a fair evaluation of which
process screws us over the most.
Ah! The very heart of democracy. We all get a vote. But our votes can be
bought, re-educated, or even simply nullified by the leaders doing one thing
and telling us another. On the other hand, the physics of this is not a
voteable issue. The question is not if the stakeholder agrees, but if the
physics is complete and sound. I want the science right, then try to address
the public perceptions.
Posted by John Beardmore on July 12, 2004, 4:12 pm
Of course we did, though the question is one of (perception of ?)
integrity of containment ?
Actually, the best thing might be to bombard some of them with neutrons
and extract more energy, but that's another story...
Decaying... Unlike lead...
:) Thought so !
Why do you think that ? I thought most things were pretty volatile at
Yes. Coming from a coal mining family I can see both sides of the
Proper life cycle analysis would be appropriate for sure, but you have
to appreciate the limits of the 'numeric' approach.
But we are not all well informed !
No. That is simply wrong. The physics is not subject to democratic
process (though the elements of science you are taught may be). None
the less, the decision will necessarily be made by those with incomplete
To get a good environmental decision, it is just as important to have
the decision makers understand the science as it is to have the science
correct. One can convey no benefit without the other.
Order them whichever way you like - you still have to deal with both to
get an outcome that is fair to all stakeholders.
Posted by Nick Pine on July 7, 2004, 4:45 pm
Please keep this off-topic nuclear stuff out of alt.solar.thermal.
Posted by N. Thornton on July 3, 2004, 3:16 pm
an idiotic article with clearly false assumptions in every point it
made - at least out of the first third I read.