The evidence for safe long-term storage with water flow considerations comes from Oklo Gabon, where plutonium produced by natural reactors appears to have remained in place, despite the presence of free-flowing water. Google Oklo or read the book I cited.
All power sources have detrimental by-products. All of them. The reasons we must consider using a power source with detrimental by-products are rooted in the economics of power production, transmission, and distribution in a resource-constrained world with environmental problems. People like the IPCC and IEA who belive we must build over a thousand new nuclear plants to help deal with atmospheric carbon dioxide are not stupid or evil or selfish profit-motivated minions of the nuclear industry. You should read what IPCC and IEA have to say about it before you blithely conclude that there are other "non-polluting" alternatives. Back to the question that Michael raised - the main alternative to nuclear is coal - how do antinukes reconcile the environmental impacts (radiological and otherwise) of coal? Eric attempted an answer, but not a very good one IMO. Thanks, -dl ----- Original Message ----- From: Nick Santos Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 12:44 AM Subject: [Global Change: 3075] Re: The staggering cost of new nuclear power "The earth contains radioactive elements quite well, and for longer than 10,000 years." While true, this makes no sense as a justification for nuclear power. The earth contains radioactive elements well when they have been put there by natural processes rather than in locations convenient for humans (desolate) in concentrations convenient for humans. Even without this consideration, the earth contains radioactive elements well *without* regard for resources our societies intend to use in the future. Containment by the planet often does not necessarily include prevention of groundwater seepage. "The Government's best efforts are not at YM Nevada, they are at Carlsbad, New Mexico, where a waste repository has interred thousands of shipments of transuranic waste since it began operations almost ten years ago." I understand that the point you were originally making was that waste storage hasn't been a complete failure as it is often viewed, but I think that proving it with 10 year storage (though the best information we may have) is not effective. Even as someone who has mixed feelings about nuclear, I would be very difficult to convince with ANY study that we have managed to store nuclear waste sufficiently because there will never be a time period in my life long enough to prove it - recorded history isn't even long enough for that. Further, with the range of alternatives now available for power, the storage debate ought to raise the question of why we should consider using a power source with detrimental byproducts at all. -Nick Learn these interesting and important facts, and many more, by reading this book by a one time antinuke: http://cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/ -dl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
