How about farming? The Pol Pot alternative? REH
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:18 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Washington State nuclear waste leak Carbon based energy sources? M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Washington State nuclear waste leak To what? N. On 24/02/2013 12:52 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > 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-u >>> n >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
