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