I'm not sure... depending on how you strike your frame of reference, nuclear would seem to possibly be the least worst least risk alternative...
M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:02 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Washington State nuclear waste leak This has been suggested, from time to time, by those who cannot hazard a guess as to potential for harm. The real message is--don't create it at all. Natalia On 24/02/2013 9:45 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > One thing I've always wondered is why no one seems to have suggested > just sending it off into space? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith > Hudson > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:43 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; pete > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Washington State nuclear waste leak > > At 09:12 24/02/2013, Pete wrote: > >> (PV) I disagree, in as much as problems at Hanford do not reflect >> anything about the current state of nuclear technology. >> Hanford is not a commercial power station, it is a federal research >> establishment and part of the weapons infrastructure The closest >> Canadian equivalent would be Chalk River, but there is really no >> equivalent as we made no attempt to refine isotopes for weapons in >> Canada. > (KH) Our equivalent in the UK is Sellafield with scores of waste tanks > (some > leaky) contaning radioactive liquids of long half-life that should > have been sequestered decades ago. One of the reasons why a solution > has not yet been found is the poor quailty of scientists and engineers > attracted to a career in nuclear projects. Whereas, 70 years ago, it > took dozens of the world's most brilliant physicists to construct the > nuclear bomb, today, most UK universities (201 out of 203) eschew > teaching nuclear engineering because they can't attract students of > any calibre. Our Nuclear Inspectorate has been under strength. > >> (PV) But Chalk River was a reasearch institute active during the >> early years of exploring nuclear energy, and it also has great >> warehouses full of hazardous materials. >> >> We have learned much from the activities in these projects, and no >> one today would consider storing nuclear wastes as liquids in tanks, >> certainly not from power plants, which shouldn't produce such material. >> >> Canadian heavy water reactors, which I might remind you, can run >> quite happily on what is considered the spent fuel of a US light >> water reactor, typically run on unenriched uranium, which requires no >> exotic processing to prepare, and when spent, in a CANDU reactor, it >> is really quite spent, and can be prepared as a solid waste block >> encapsulated in glass, and stored underground in the same mines from >> which it was extracted, nested in gravel beds in the Canadian Shield, >> where there is zero risk of groundwater contamination nor exposure >> via earthquakes or whathaveyou. > (KH) I didn't know the above, but the point is taken -- apart from "zero" > risk. > >> (PV) I don't have any really strong opinions about the adoption of >> nuclear energy one way or the other, but most criticisms I hear of >> the industry just aren't up to speed with the current state of the >> technology. Pointing at 60 year old mistakes as a reason to dismiss >> the current technology makes no sense. > (KH) One 60 year-old mistake is that no insurance corp has yet agreed > to cover nuclear reactors. Another fact of the last 60 years is that > no civil engineering firm that has been all too eager to design and > build a reactor has yet agreed to run them and to supply electricity > at the price stated on the tin (that is, the low price that > politicians keep on telling us is the real price) -- or indeed to run > them at all. What's more -- considerably more -- is that the cost of > sequestering radioactive wastes year after year, or rather century after century, has never yet been estimated and published. > (Even glassified blocks, buried at very deep level has to be inspected > regularly so that its safety for hundreds of generations of humans is > assured.) The long and the short of both of the above facts is that > nuclear power has had to be subsidised before, during, and after > construction. We've never been given the true costs of nuclear-generated electricity. > > Keith > > > > >> -Pete >> >> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Keith Hudson wrote: >> >>> It was good to read this because I think it comes just at the right >>> time to permanently affect new build in the advanced countries. The >>> news of these leaks comes on top of the realization of universal >>> shale gas and ought >> now to >>> finally stop the bleatings (and false propaganda) of the wannabe >>> power >> station >>> constructors (who, be it noted, are not the slightest bit interested >>> in running them once built). >>> >>> Keith. >>> >>> >>> At 21:56 23/02/2013, Natalia wrote: >>>> Most of you have probably read this by now. Given what this news >>>> reveals, how can more new builds of such plants be justified? >>>> >>>> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57570857/wash-state-governor-6-un >> d >> erground-nuclear-tanks-leaking/ >>>> Natalia >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Futurework mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
