Just wondering..

[David VanHorn-2]

Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
military running them.

If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
advantages.
If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
bits are in safe hands through the whole process.

In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
problem, and one that's pretty well understood.


Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
as whatever CO2  burden is associated.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Walter Banks]

> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It has to do with separating the military from civilian security.
Unlike many countries the US civilian security is the responsibility
of civilian authorities under civialian control. The military  is supposed
to be used for  internal security on very rare ocassions.

Since the 1950's nuclear power has been very safe (with a couple
exceptions) and secure.

There is also the possibility of alternative approaches to nuclear
power from many of the reactors engineered 30 - 50 years ago.

There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
have been running for 30 years or so.

Waste is a problem that is solvable.

w..



David VanHorn wrote:

> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?
>
> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.
>
> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.
> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.
>
> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
>
> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2  burden is associated.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> It has to do with separating the military from civilian security.
> Unlike many countries the US civilian security is the responsibility
> of civilian authorities under civialian control. The military  is supposed
> to be used for  internal security on very rare ocassions.

Well, they already secure nuclear weapons and military reactors.
And you have the advantage of a large facility with lots of handy
security people who would have a very direct interest in maintaining
that security.

> Since the 1950's nuclear power has been very safe (with a couple exceptions) and secure.

True

> There is also the possibility of alternative approaches to nuclear
> power from many of the reactors engineered 30 - 50 years ago.

Also true.

> There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
> for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
> have been running for 30 years or so.

How do they work?

> Waste is a problem that is solvable.

Yup.

It's long since apparent that we can't keep going on with "burning
stuff we found in the ground" as our major energy source.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Brian Kraut]

I also suspect that one missile to the power plant rendering a complete
military base unusable for a long, long time would be an issue.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...]On Behalf
Of Walter Banks
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:23 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..


> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It has to do with separating the military from civilian security.
Unlike many countries the US civilian security is the responsibility
of civilian authorities under civialian control. The military  is supposed
to be used for  internal security on very rare ocassions.

Since the 1950's nuclear power has been very safe (with a couple
exceptions) and secure.

There is also the possibility of alternative approaches to nuclear
power from many of the reactors engineered 30 - 50 years ago.

There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
have been running for 30 years or so.

Waste is a problem that is solvable.

w..



David VanHorn wrote:

> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?
>
> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.
>
> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.
> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.
>
> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
>
> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2  burden is associated.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Walter Banks]

David VanHorn wrote:

> > There are some Canadian artic towns have small 150-300 Kw reactors
> > for power that  require service a couple times a year. Many of these
> > have been running for 30 years or so.
>
> How do they work?

Look for slowpoke reactors on the web.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor
is a reasonably accurate link for a overview of the
technology.

Walter..


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:43:42AM -0500, David VanHorn wrote:
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It's possible that the two sites may not match up very well.

> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.

I think that it's a perception that security the biggest issue.

> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.

That's probably the biggest issue. The cost overruns that occur is due to a
lack of standardization and oversight decisions being made after the plant
construction has already started. If a plant can be preapproved before
construction and be virtually guaranteed not to have additional requirements
imposed once construction is started, then the costs go down significantly.

> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.

Typical fissionable material can only be used to make dirty bombs anyway.
You really need pure plutonium to make a decent nuclear weapon.

> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.

But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How can we change
that perception?

> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2  burden is associated.

Good synopsis.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> > In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
> fairly small
> > problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
>
> But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How
> can we change that perception?

How can I change yours?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

Sounds like a brilliant idea to me... If the American Sheeple can pull their
heads out of big oils ass and Baaaaaaa for it...

Just out of curiousity, and sort of playing devils advocate here, has anyone
got figures for a reasonable cost of building a nuke power plant and how
much electricity it would produce? I want to compare that with the number of
distributed PV systems that would pay for.

Yes, I understand the power goes off at night with PV but it would be
interesting to get an idea of the relative costs and capacities.

Also, how much of a different in demand is there from day to night? I assume
the demand really comes down after 10pm, but I think it might be pretty low
after 6pm except for hot summer days.

E.g. Build 1 nuke and 1 nukes WORTH of PV systems rather than 2 nukes. Add
light rail, bring back the mom and pop corner stores in walk-able
neighborhoods and then tell the Saudis where to stick it.

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
David VanHorn
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 06:44
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: [OT] Just wondering..

Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?

It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
military running them.

If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
advantages.
If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
bits are in safe hands through the whole process.

In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
problem, and one that's pretty well understood.


Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
as whatever CO2  burden is associated.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> E.g. Build 1 nuke and 1 nukes WORTH of PV systems rather than 2 nukes. Add
> light rail, bring back the mom and pop corner stores in walk-able
> neighborhoods and then tell the Saudis where to stick it.

I like it.  :)
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Walter Banks]

Funny  I was thinking about the distribution issues driving to work this morning.
(I was driving to about the time I used to go to bed)
I saw two very bright UV end of the spectrum flashes about a minute apart each
that lasted 4 or 5 seconds and the lights went out in the houses I could see. The
Flashes were separated by couple miles on the horizon. The second was
about 2 miles ahead of me beside the road I was on.

There was a transformer the size of a small house that blew up. It was beside
the road I was first there (I have some pictures of the resulting fire if anyone
is interested)  Several points, the transformer is less than a Km from
a small wind farm with a 2.3 Mw and two 1.8 Mw wind turbines. The
wind turbines require grid power to sync with or they too go down.
Their props were feathered. The transformer fire took power down for
8800 customers. Local power has merits.

The real issue for transportation is portable energy storage. Oil has a lot
of stored energy. 15 pounds of the stuff will move a ton on the road 60 miles.

10 m2 of solar (order of magnitude ) will power a typical household. r
I suspect that infrastructure costs of distribution may pass local power
production costs at the community or individual level at some point.


rant off

w..



James Newton wrote:

> Sounds like a brilliant idea to me... If the American Sheeple can pull their
> heads out of big oils ass and Baaaaaaa for it...
>
> Just out of curiousity, and sort of playing devils advocate here, has anyone
> got figures for a reasonable cost of building a nuke power plant and how
> much electricity it would produce? I want to compare that with the number of
> distributed PV systems that would pay for.
>
> Yes, I understand the power goes off at night with PV but it would be
> interesting to get an idea of the relative costs and capacities.
>
> Also, how much of a different in demand is there from day to night? I assume
> the demand really comes down after 10pm, but I think it might be pretty low
> after 6pm except for hot summer days.
>
> E.g. Build 1 nuke and 1 nukes WORTH of PV systems rather than 2 nukes. Add
> light rail, bring back the mom and pop corner stores in walk-able
> neighborhoods and then tell the Saudis where to stick it.
>
> --
> James.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
> David VanHorn
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 06:44
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [OT] Just wondering..
>
> Why is it that we don't site nuclear power plants inside military bases?
>
> It would seem to afford pretty good security for very little
> additional investment, and I'm also wondering why we don't have the
> military running them.
>
> If we followed the French model, and built one design instead of
> designing each one differently, then we could gain significant
> advantages.
> If the military runs them, then we can be assured that the sensitive
> bits are in safe hands through the whole process.
>
> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a fairly small
> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
>
> Alternatively, we can continue buying foreign oil and fueling the
> problems over there, or burning natural gas and coal which both
> release significant pollutants and radioactives into the air, as well
> as whatever CO2  burden is associated.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:17 PM, James Newton wrote:

> how much of a different in demand is there from day to night? I assume
> the demand really comes down after 10pm, but I think it might be  
> pretty low
> after 6pm except for hot summer days.

You know, in large parts of the country it doesn't GET that much  
cooler after the sun goes down the way it does near the pacific  
ocean...  You'd think cooling expense would go down anyway due to  
lack of radiant energy, but I'm not so sure.

So...  How much penetration does PV as currently implemented (using  
the grid as backup and/or battery) have to make before the resulting  
skew between day and night consumption (or rainy vs sunny days)  
starts making for inefficient power plants?

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> Just out of curiousity, and sort of playing devils
> advocate here, has anyone
> got figures for a reasonable cost of building a nuke power
> plant and how
> much electricity it would produce? I want to compare that
> with the number of
> distributed PV systems that would pay for.

Across the lifetime of the station and including
construction , safety inspections, compliance costs,
operating, decommissioning, returning the site to
green-field condition, waste disposal and transport,
treatment and storage of waste as requisite a nuclear plant
costs well under 10c/kWh all up. Just ask any nuclear plant
salesman.

If you ask many other people the answer may be different.

:-)




            Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> Typical fissionable material can only be used to make
> dirty bombs anyway.
> You really need pure plutonium to make a decent nuclear
> weapon.

Or U235.
You can go all the way to H Bombs on that if you must.

Interestingly, the largest yield US Nuclear weapon ever,
produced more 'output' from its fission component than its
fusion. And the design of the largest ever Soviet device
(which was rather larger than the largest US one)
purposefully halved its potential output in order to very
very greatly reduce its fallout. None of which will make
jinx (or me) happy.

if you want to make your own H Bomb you could look here

    http://www.illtel.denver.co.us/texts/make.an.Hbomb

don't expect it to help too too much, but it's interesting.

>> In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
>> fairly small
>> problem, and one that's pretty well understood.

Some people think so.
Largely they are the people who have waste which needs
disposing of or who approve of the people who have waste to
dispose of.

Good for many a long winter's evening by the (radiation
emitting coal) fire.


        R

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:28:14PM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > > In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
> > fairly small
> > > problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
> >
> > But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How
> > can we change that perception?
>
> How can I change yours?

Give a rational technical (not political or emotional) argument about the
risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste in geologically stable rock.

Studies for Yucca Mountain in the US have risk estimates for 1 million
years. The overall risk to human populations have been shown to be no more
than background radiation. But because everyone has "not in my backyard"
syndrome, that site may never take in the waste it was designed to handle.

Give me a sensible, data based counter argument, and then I may consider
changing my perception.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[sergio masci-2]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Byron Jeff wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:28:14PM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> > > > In the end, the waste has to be disposed of, but that's a
> > > fairly small
> > > > problem, and one that's pretty well understood.
> > >
> > > But the perception unfortunately runs counter to that. How
> > > can we change that perception?
> >
> > How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional) argument about the
> risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste in geologically stable rock.
>
> Studies for Yucca Mountain in the US have risk estimates for 1 million
> years. The overall risk to human populations have been shown to be no more
> than background radiation. But because everyone has "not in my backyard"
> syndrome, that site may never take in the waste it was designed to handle.
>
> Give me a sensible, data based counter argument, and then I may consider
> changing my perception.

ok ok you sold me... you can have my nuclear waste to dispose of :-)

Regards
Sergio
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[sergio masci-2]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Apptech wrote:

> > Just out of curiousity, and sort of playing devils
> > advocate here, has anyone
> > got figures for a reasonable cost of building a nuke power
> > plant and how
> > much electricity it would produce? I want to compare that
> > with the number of
> > distributed PV systems that would pay for.
>
> Across the lifetime of the station and including
> construction , safety inspections, compliance costs,
> operating, decommissioning, returning the site to
> green-field condition, waste disposal and transport,
> treatment and storage of waste as requisite a nuclear plant
> costs well under 10c/kWh all up. Just ask any nuclear plant
> salesman.
>

There you go getting the numbers wrong again. It's actually -$100/kWh, you
forgot to take into account the plutonium produced and its value :-)

Regards
Sergio
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> > How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> a nuclear plant
>> costs well under 10c/kWh all up. Just ask any nuclear
>> plant
>> salesman.

> There you go getting the numbers wrong again. It's
> actually -$100/kWh, you
> forgot to take into account the plutonium produced and its
> value :-)

No. Not at all.
-$100 is well under $10c.

And that's just the sort of thing that a nuclear plant
salesman will tell you.
And no, I didn't forget about the Plutonium :-).


        R

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally occurring veins
of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural upheaval and
that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.

Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is and can react
if there does happen to be a problem in the future. Mother nature could
belch up a load of yellow cake in Utah or Arizona tomorrow and no one would
even know it was dangerous. (where is your radiation detector?)
http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp 

We mine the ore out of the ground, refine it, use it, and then stress
ourselves to death about putting it back? How exactly are we worse off than
we were before we dug it up and purified it? Why not just dilute the heck
out of it and spray it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?

My guess is that more people die from air pollution due to coal fired
electrical generation plants every year than would die from radiation
poisoning if we just chopped the fuel rods up really fine and fed it to the
population along with the Mercury and PCB's in their fish sticks.

And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but I'm hoping it
makes the point: Radiation is but one of many hazards that we all live with.
We have cut ourselves off from an alternative source of electricity that
might well be much less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified
fear of that one type of hazard.

We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will die) due to
our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual number of
people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.

I live and work downwind from an active nuke power plant. Odds are, I will
die of a heart attack, cancer, stroke or auto accident.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg How much could another nuke
plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
wouter van ooijen
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 23:49
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] Just wondering..

> > How can I change yours?
>
> Give a rational technical (not political or emotional)
> argument about the risks of burying reprocessed nuclear waste
> in geologically stable rock.

Give me a good argument and I'll change mine :)

Actually not 'a' good argument, but good arguments to refute all my
doubts at fears.

A problem with the 'geological stable' idea is the same as with stocks:
results from the past are no guarantee for the future. When you see a
coin turn heads up four times in a row I guess you will bet your life
that it will be heads the fifth time, no?

And another problem is that it geological stability is not enough. How
about political/sociological stability? I am not sure the USA will be a
peace-loving country (or even *one * country at all) in a few hundered
years.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally
> occurring veins of radioactive ore being exposed by some
> natural or unnatural upheaval and that same sort of exposure
> happening to spent fuel rods.

The amount of radiation?

The presence of substances that are not (or not in such amounta) present
in natural ores?

> Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is

A (maybe minor) problem is the word 'we'. How long will *you* live to
make sure nothing happens to the stuff? A few hundered years ago your
nation did not even exist as anyhthing resembling the current USA.

> Why not just dilute the heck out of it and spray
> it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or, here is a
> radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?

Would be OK with me *if it was the same stuff*.

> And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but

Shocking a Dutch? You must be kidding :)

> I'm hoping it makes the point: Radiation is but one of many
> hazards that we all live with.

I could maybe halfway agree if
- you would confine the radiation to your own homegrounds
- you would confine the radiation (and pollution, etc) to your own
generation

> We have cut ourselves off from
> an alternative source of electricity that might well be much
> less hazardous in the long run because of an unjustified fear
> of that one type of hazard.

I am no proponent of most alternatives. Using less energy (and less
other 'consumables') is my preferred alternative. As far as I am
concerned the oil price can't go high enough.

> How much could another nuke plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?

I agree most anti-nuclear types concentrate too much on the reactors. It
is the waste-processing and waste-storage facilities that pose the real
thread. I don't know about USA equivalents, but you could for instance
read up on sellafield/windscale.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist