In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

One quick example: Irrationally afraid of nuclear
power, the "PC police" has seen to it that we stick
with the burning of fossil fuels for our electricity.
How clever.


Irrationally afraid of nuclear power? According to the UN, there have
been
386 serious nuclear power plant accidents around the world (serious
defined
as a significant release of nuclear material into the atmosphere). Several
of those accidents have been right here in this country. In addition,
there
have been over 6,000 nuclear weapons tests, resulting in millions of tons
of
radioactive material spread across this planet. Nobody is certain how many
nuclear weapons accidents there have been. And, since records are not
kept,
nobody is certain how many accidents there have been at nuclear research
facilities. The nuclear industry, peaceful or military, has been no friend
to this planet or it's people. And that's not a "PC" perspective - it's
simple common sense.

The following comments address power plants only. Weapons is an entirely
different issue.

Yes, irrationally afraid. The number of deaths from nuclear power plants
pales into insignificance in comparison to the number of minors who have
died to bring us coal to burn not only from accidents but black lung
disease.

How do we know this is true? Are there no accidents in uranium mining?

Part of the problem is the difficulty of data gathering. If a miner works in a
deep mine for 30 years and dies of black lung, it's a safe bet where he got it
- and that gets recorded.

But if someone works in nuclear processing job for a few years develops cancer
or leukemia 20 years later how do we establish a causal link? If a baby born in
Harrisburg in 1980 had a birth defect that becomes fatal 10 years later, does
that get counted as a result of the Three Mile Island accident?

The damage done from nuclear power plants pales into
insignificance in comparison to the damage done from oil spills.

Specifics, please? I'm not defending oil spills, but their effects are clear
and observable.

More
people have died from dams breaking than power plant accidents.

Maybe. Again, the problem is one of data collection. If Holtwood Dam (a few
miles from TMI) fails and somebody drowns, that's obvious and recorded. If
somebody who was downwind of TMI in 1979 gets cancer as a result of exposure,
who can prove it?

If we applied the same logic and standards to other sources of power as we
do to nuclear, we would not have any electricity at all.

I disagree!

We'd have to shut
down every coal, oil, and hydroelectric power plant in the world.

Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient form of power
generation available at this time.

Based on what statistics?

First off, to compare apples to apples you have to consider things like how
many KWH are generated per fatality. Yes, it's a gruesome stat, but that's how
risk assesment works.

Second, the risks take different forms. For example, a coal fired plant, even
with the best pollution control, spews a measurable amount of pollution into
the air.But a coal plant cannot melt down or leak massive amounts of long-lived
pollution. OTOH, a nuke plant emits much less pollution per KWH generated, but
it can have a meltdown or leak that contaminates a wide area for an
unimaginable length of time.

Then there is the matter of nuclear waste. How is it to be dealt with? Where is
it to be stored for the enormous lengths of time required for it to become
reasonably safe? How are nuke plants to be decommissioned?

When the technology was new, we were assured that long before nuke waste became
a problem, there would be systems in place to deal with it. We're still waiting
for those systems. We were also told that nuke power would be "too cheap to
meter" and other such George jetson nonsense. Still waiting...

Wind and solar have to be excluded at this time since the technology doesn't
exist to make these forms widely available on an efficient basis.

I disagree again!

Wind technology has come a long way and is becoming competitive with other
forms of generation. How many trillion dollars of tax money has been poured
into nuclear power research since 1945? How does that compare to wind power
research?

And if we
follow the logic of some people in this group on other items, wind power is
too antiquated since it's been used for hundreds if not thousands of years.

HAW! Good point!

And let's compare nuclear power to some non-power industries. Are you aware
of how devastating accidents at chemical plants can be? Have you ever seen
a grain elevator explode from sparks causing the suspended dust to explode?

Sure. But when a grain elevator explodes, it does not leave long-lived waste
all over a huge area. Nor does its operation generate things that look harmless
but will be very dangerous thousands of years from now.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than any other type of power
generating facility or any of several other industrial endeavors.

OK, fine. Does that include a wind farm?

But would you rather live next to a nuclear materials processing facility? Or
nukewaste storage facility?

The BIG problem with evaluating risk in a real world situation is that the math
doesn't tell the whole story from a human perspective. The risk of a
catastrophic nuke plant accident is very small, but the results of such an
accident are very bad.

How many people has the Chernobyl accident killed - so far? How much economic
damage? How much will never be properly recorded?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message

No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...

Kim W5TIT



that's because the environmental wackos are doing thier damndest
to fight them, at every level of governement and in every manner
of social disobedience...

This is why california hasn't built any new power plants in 10 years
while experiencing a DOUBLING of population.... resulting in
the blackouts they just had.

Clint
KB5ZHT

You might make it clear that California hasn't built any new plants of ANY
KIND because the environmentalists wackos are blocking them. It's not just
nuclear they are blocking. They have taken the step that any risk
whatsoever is unacceptable. Actually I'm amazed that there even willing to
take the risk of getting out bed. Maybe they don't even use beds since they
could fall out and break their necks.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Only 31 people died from Chernobyl. Even now there has been
no increased incident of deaths from diseases that may possibly be linked to
radiation.

Directly attributed deaths. If a pregnant woman 1000 miles away was exposed to
high levels of windblown radiation, and her child developed leukemia at age 2
and died as a direct result of that exposure, how does that death ever get
attributed to the Chernobyl accident?

The area where the fallout could be discerned from the normal
background measurements was relatively small.

How many square miles? How long will it be hot?

In addition, that accident
was due to an unauthorized experiment being conducted at the facility. In
other words, rules and safety precautions were being deliberately ignored.

Yep. Absolutely true. And I've never seen any reason given.

But these were not stupid, evil or suicidal people. They just did some
amazingly dumb things, which got out of their control. And perhaps that's the
real lesson of Chernobyl: People will do amazingly stupid things for no
explainable reason at all. Then the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces.


But when technology is small and distributed, the effects of doing amazingly
stupid things for no explainable reason at all are contained to a relatively
small area and numbers of people. When technology is huge and concentrated, the
effects can be much worse.

And the more complex the technology, the easier it is to do something really
dumb.

Nuclear power generation has been round for 50 years now. A total of 34
people have died. That's the 31 at Chernobyl and 3 in the 1950s at an
experimental government facility (where once again regulations were not
followed).

Attributable deaths.

The collapse of hydroelectric dams have affected areas as wide or wider than
a nuclear power plant accident. And they have killed more people. I'd much
rather live next to a nuclear plant than downstream of a dam.

When is the last time a hydro dam in the USA collapsed and killed people?

And speaking of long term environmental impacts, what about thousands of
square miles that are supposedly affected by acid rain from burning coal??
What about the miles of coast and ocean that have been contaminated by oil
spills?? The long term effects could be quite significant.

Sure. But not as significant as the effects of radioactive materials that take
millennia to break down.

Consider just one spent fuel rod from a nuke plant like TMI. How long before it
is harmless?

So if an honest evaluation and comparison of long term effects, deaths,
environmental impacts, etc is done and the same standards applied across the
board, then it would indeed be necessary to shut down all oil, coal, and
hydroelectric plants.

I'd like to see such a comparison.

Personally I don't care to sit in the dark and
shiver.

It's not a binary problem.

Now let's take a look at serious industrial accidents. A prime example is
the chemical plant in Bhopal. 3,000 people died immediately when that
happened. As many as 10,000 people have died from long term effects of
exposure to the gas released since it damaged their lungs and other organs.
No one is shutting down the chemical industry.

The chemical industry in India does not have anywhere near the safeguards of
the chemical industry in the USA.

And as horrible as the Bhopal disaster was, the gas dispersed and will break
down. How long will TMI be radioactive?

Yet some chemicals are as
persistent in the environment as nuclear materials.

Some examples, please?

A process can be developed to break down any chemical compound. PCBs, for
example, were specifically designed to be inert and nonreactive, yet they can
be broken down into their components quickly. But there's no way to speed up
nuclear decay.

So sorry to say, your long term environmental arguments just don't hold
water. There's lots of things that can affect even wider spread areas and
last just as long.

Perhaps we should discuss the half life of plutonium?

And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

Only 31 people died from Chernobyl. Even now there has been
no increased incident of deaths from diseases that may possibly be linked
to
radiation.

Directly attributed deaths. If a pregnant woman 1000 miles away was
exposed to
high levels of windblown radiation, and her child developed leukemia at
age 2
and died as a direct result of that exposure, how does that death ever get
attributed to the Chernobyl accident?

The area where the fallout could be discerned from the normal
background measurements was relatively small.

How many square miles? How long will it be hot?


Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000 miles from the
plant it will have a concentration of only 1 millioneth of the concentration
at the release site. While specific deaths can't be attributed, the overall
numbers can be assigned by simply comparing the death rate due to leukemia
in the affected zone to the death rate outside. This can be done for each
cause of death that can be increased by radiation. If society wants the
data, it can be gathered. But people would rather hide behind the emotional
fear of possible problems than researching what problems will occur and the
magnitude of the problem and making an enlightened decision.

In addition, that accident
was due to an unauthorized experiment being conducted at the facility.
In
other words, rules and safety precautions were being deliberately
ignored.

Yep. Absolutely true. And I've never seen any reason given.

But these were not stupid, evil or suicidal people. They just did some
amazingly dumb things, which got out of their control. And perhaps that's
the
real lesson of Chernobyl: People will do amazingly stupid things for no
explainable reason at all. Then the rest of us are left to pick up the
pieces.


Still, stupidity can't be allowed to stop us from facing the energy needs of
the future. Instead one addresses the issue and error proofs and mistake
proofs the facility.


But when technology is small and distributed, the effects of doing
amazingly
stupid things for no explainable reason at all are contained to a
relatively
small area and numbers of people. When technology is huge and
concentrated, the
effects can be much worse.

And the more complex the technology, the easier it is to do something
really
dumb.


Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively simple in fact.

Nuclear power generation has been round for 50 years now. A total of 34
people have died. That's the 31 at Chernobyl and 3 in the 1950s at an
experimental government facility (where once again regulations were not
followed).

Attributable deaths.

The collapse of hydroelectric dams have affected areas as wide or wider
than
a nuclear power plant accident. And they have killed more people. I'd
much
rather live next to a nuclear plant than downstream of a dam.

When is the last time a hydro dam in the USA collapsed and killed people?

And speaking of long term environmental impacts, what about thousands of
square miles that are supposedly affected by acid rain from burning
coal??
What about the miles of coast and ocean that have been contaminated by
oil
spills?? The long term effects could be quite significant.

Sure. But not as significant as the effects of radioactive materials that
take
millennia to break down.

Not proven. Millennia worth of acid rain could conceivably be just as
harmful as the time taken to breakdown radioactive materials. Why? Because
even though the acid rain dissipates, it keeps on coming down year after
year.


Consider just one spent fuel rod from a nuke plant like TMI. How long
before it
is harmless?

Let it be reprocessed and recycled and it's not a problem.


So if an honest evaluation and comparison of long term effects, deaths,
environmental impacts, etc is done and the same standards applied across
the
board, then it would indeed be necessary to shut down all oil, coal, and
hydroelectric plants.

I'd like to see such a comparison.


I would too. It is exactly the type of data that we as a society need to
make informed decisions about our energy future. Right now we are stuck
with people's emotional reactions. I should have said "...it would probably
be necessary..." My point was that people are refusing to even consider the
dangers of other means of power generation.

Personally I don't care to sit in the dark and
shiver.

It's not a binary problem.


It's getting close to that in California although shivering will be mild
(except perhaps up in the mountains) as it isn't a severe climate.
California has built no new power plants of any kind in 10 years. They
can't get any of them (fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear) past the
environmental requirements in the state. Population continued to grow and
they had brown outs and blackouts. Their solution was to buy it from out of
state. Well that hasn't worked either. The rates are simply too high and
the state can't afford it. Costs are being absorbed by the state government
instead of being passed to the users and it's wrecked the state budget. It
looks like those contracts will be canceled and California will be right
back to their brown outs and black outs.

Now let's take a look at serious industrial accidents. A prime example
is
the chemical plant in Bhopal. 3,000 people died immediately when that
happened. As many as 10,000 people have died from long term effects of
exposure to the gas released since it damaged their lungs and other
organs.
No one is shutting down the chemical industry.

The chemical industry in India does not have anywhere near the safeguards
of
the chemical industry in the USA.

And as horrible as the Bhopal disaster was, the gas dispersed and will
break
down. How long will TMI be radioactive?


TMI has been contained so it will not impact the surrounding residents.
Long term radiation exposure thus becomes a non-issue.

Yet some chemicals are as
persistent in the environment as nuclear materials.

Some examples, please?

A process can be developed to break down any chemical compound. PCBs, for
example, were specifically designed to be inert and nonreactive, yet they
can
be broken down into their components quickly. But there's no way to speed
up
nuclear decay.

Yes you can speed up radioactive decay by reprocessing and reusing the spent
fuel. While PCBs can be broken down, it's not being done due to cost. Save
with PVC. Same with other chemicals.


So sorry to say, your long term environmental arguments just don't hold
water. There's lots of things that can affect even wider spread areas
and
last just as long.

Perhaps we should discuss the half life of plutonium?


Again preprocess and reuse.

And if you're going to discuss dangerous industrial processes, consider
this:
The most dangerous common form of mechanized transportation in use today
in the
USA are privately owned motor vehicles. Every year and a half, about as
many
Americans die on US highways as died in the entire Vietnam war. Airlines,
trains, buses and ships are far safer, yet few people refuse to drive or
ride
in a car compared to other modes. Why?


1. Convenience
2. It's what they are used to
3. Each feels they are in control so it can't happen to them.

Just because we do something doesn't mean it's rational. Mankind is a
rationalizing animal. We will find justifications for our wants and desires
and fears whether there is any basis in fact for them or not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

Mike Coslo Wrote:

some snippage

You try to convince the public that the reactor is safe. What they
remember is that they were told that Chernoble was safe. The public is
left to sort out who is telling the truth, and who is not. And the
superior attitude of the techies did not help. Any guess why they chose
not to believe anyone?



And bad information and false promises are the biggest problems in life as a
whole. Being born isn't safe either. Sleeping isn't safe. There is
nothing in this world that is safe. However people are foolish enough to
think so.

Good heavens, Dee. You could also point out that people are content to
hurtle themselves at each other at relative speeds of 140 miles per hour
and above in metal and glass boxes containing very dangerous flammable
fluids.

But I'd probably call that slippery sloping the issue.

I think that the way we were building the things was an inherently
unsafe situation. The concentration of so much power in one or two
relatively small places (per area served) is not an inherently safe
operation. It achieves economy of scale, but in the end, probably didn't
even do that.



My point was that it is no riskier than things we accept on a daily basis.
As I commented above, there is nothing that is truly safe.

No there isn't. But fact is, the safety must be addressed. THe idea
that all is well, and mockery of safety issues is how we get places like
Love Canal and Chernoble. Would you care to go live in either of those
places? Those people were told "There's no problem." Now when people
come around and tell people "There's no problem" the reaction is quite
different

And Jim mentions the waste disposal problem. This IS a real problem, as
beyond whatever safety precautions we put on the material, it is going
to be nasty stuff for a long time. And there we are telling people
"there's no problem" in storage again.

I feel in discussing this with you that I'm being pushed into the anti
nuclear power group, when I can assure you that isn't the case. What is
obvious to me is that due to the history of this topic, people have a
pretty good reason to be skeptical.

- Mike KB3EIA -

--
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...




You might make it clear that California hasn't built any new plants of ANY
KIND because the environmentalists wackos are blocking them. It's not
just
nuclear they are blocking.

yes, very very true....

Clint

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

My point was that it is no riskier than things we accept on a daily
basis.
As I commented above, there is nothing that is truly safe.

No there isn't. But fact is, the safety must be addressed. THe idea
that all is well, and mockery of safety issues is how we get places like
Love Canal and Chernoble. Would you care to go live in either of those
places? Those people were told "There's no problem." Now when people
come around and tell people "There's no problem" the reaction is quite
different

And Jim mentions the waste disposal problem. This IS a real problem, as
beyond whatever safety precautions we put on the material, it is going
to be nasty stuff for a long time. And there we are telling people
"there's no problem" in storage again.

I feel in discussing this with you that I'm being pushed into the anti
nuclear power group, when I can assure you that isn't the case. What is
obvious to me is that due to the history of this topic, people have a
pretty good reason to be skeptical.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I quite agree that safety must be addressed and that people should be
skeptical. I would certainly insist on seeing the data to show safety
rather than just letting someone tell me it's safe.

The point I was trying to make is that people are allowing themselves to be
scared off of nuclear power by emotional arguments and are not exercising
the appropriate degree of skepticism on these arguments and demanding data.

The "I think, I feel, I believe" approach has no place on either side of the
argument. But when people let fear get in the way of seeking facts to
resolve the issue, then they are doing all of us a disservice.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "charlesb"
writes:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute while
working
perfectly.

Yup. So do nuclear plants. The pollution in each case is different, of
course.
Nuke plants generate various forms of radioactive waste that will
remain
hazardous for far longer than anyone realistically knows how to deal
with.

Unlike the nuclear plants, they don't have to wait for an
accident in order to cause a problem.

But when a nuke plant has a problem, it's a BIG problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yep, my point exactly. And, waste generation and facilitation is a part
of
the equation I completely forgot to even include in the debate. And,
it's
a
very important part of the issue.

Suffice it to say that no one will ever convince me that nuclear
generation
is a cost/environmental/health effective way for our power needs. It
will
never happen to be that nuclear generation is the way to go...and the
industry recognizes that as well. No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...


Because they are blocked on every hand by people who operate on emotions
rather data.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


See my reply to Clint, Dee. Nuclear power is bad ecnomics.

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
. com...

Dissipation will be by the inverse square law so at 1000 miles from the
plant it will have a concentration of only 1 millioneth of the
concentration
at the release site.


It's a popular thought in the environmental impact world that the "solution
to pollution is dissolution" or something like that. And, of course, that's
wrong. On its 1000 mile (more actually) trip to infinitesimal measurement,
how much impact did it have along the way?


Nuclear technology is not complex. It's relatively simple in fact.


Another favorite thought. Yeah, in basis theory, the technology is not
complex. Everything on paper looks great.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message

No new nuclear power generation is
planned, 'least not that I know of...

Kim W5TIT



that's because the environmental wackos are doing thier damndest
to fight them, at every level of governement and in every manner
of social disobedience...


Has nothing to do with "wackos", Clint. Nothing at all. It has
everything
to do with Board Room decisions for publicly held corporations who have
learned thier lesson losses from the construction, start-up, and
generation
of power from nuclear power plants. They are not cost effective in any
way.
They've become a pariah on the backs of the companies who have already
built
and own them.


This is why california hasn't built any new power plants in 10 years
while experiencing a DOUBLING of population.... resulting in
the blackouts they just had.

Clint
KB5ZHT


Sad to say, I think you're totally wrong. The above statement(s) are
speculative at best and sensationalistic at worst. Nuclear power is
economically unfeasible--proven by the plants already built and generating
in this country. Leave alone all the implications of environmental and
health impacts. They are just plain bad economics.

Kim W5TIT

So why hasn't California built any oil, coal, or hydroelectric power platns
in the last ten years? I'll tell you. They too are being blocked by the
environmentalists. Are they also economically unfeasible? It's unlikely.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE