> Now good science tells us that we don't have any experience with > containment of any materials with current technologies that is more than a > few decades. Science also tells us that it is extremely risky (the risk to > err) to simply extrapolate our short-term experience up to a few centuries > or more. There is no scientific data about containment facilities that need > to work a few millenniums. This are not only technical questions... it's > not even guaranteed that any of the current countries will still exist at > that time to perform the required maintenance.
Maintenance? Since when does a deep hole in the ground require maintenance? Once it's full, build mini-pyramids over the site, with warnings carved into the surfaces. The Eqyptian pyramids have lasted for thousands of years. In the event that somehow the radioactive stuff does come back to the surface, the area will become known in folklore as the "forbidden lands" or something mysterious like that. That's if technological societies die off and the human race reverts to a primitive state. If humans continue technological progress, it is likely there will be future people who understand why the area is hazardous. They may even develop a way to neutralize the radioactivity. If you are worried about the safety of future primitive peoples, you worry too much. If the human race regresses back to primitive times, it would probably be due to a cataclysmic war or meteor strike. In either case, future humans would have far greater hazards to worry about than a desert area in the US Southwest where radioactive waste is buried. > Didn't you say above that one of the major reasons for insecure reactors in > the ex-USSR was the lack of public criticism? You can't disqualify public > protest as NIMBY and at the same time name the lack of public protest the > primary reason for insecure reactors, and remain consistent. One way or the > other... I didn't say that people shouldn't be able to protest. Just that many such protests are simply cases of NIMBY. If someone tried to build a Chernobyl-type reactor near my town, you can bet I would be doing NIMBY protesting. But a safe reactor design, I would not oppose. No inconsistency here... > IMO the single biggest damage to the public understanding of science has > probably be done by the "scientists" who use the term "scientifically > proven". There is no such thing as "scientifically proven". If we all could > at least agree on that, we probably would be a big step further in the > proper use of science. I don't think I've ever heard a scientist use that phrase. I have heard marketers, advertising people, politicians, and public relations people use the phrase. Maybe these are the people you should be blaming? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bagotronix Tech Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Open Topic Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 9:01 AM Subject: Re: [OT] ongoing environmental thread *was* lead free > > 2) There were no methods of public protest in the USSR that could rectify > > the safety problems with their reactors. Even if it had been widespread > > public knowledge that the Russian reactor was poorly designed, there was > > nothing the Russian public could have done to change that. > > Seems that methods of public protest are considered essential for the > safety of technology, no? See further below... :) > > > The problems with containment facilities such as Yucca Mountain > > are political, not scientific. > > Well, of course. Science doesn't put values on things, and thus can't be > used to decide. Science doesn't tell you whether or not to do something, it > tells you the likely outcomes. How you value these options and how you > decide is for an individual a personal problem, and for a group a political > problem. > > Now good science tells us that we don't have any experience with > containment of any materials with current technologies that is more than a > few decades. Science also tells us that it is extremely risky (the risk to > err) to simply extrapolate our short-term experience up to a few centuries > or more. There is no scientific data about containment facilities that need > to work a few millenniums. This are not only technical questions... it's > not even guaranteed that any of the current countries will still exist at > that time to perform the required maintenance. > > > Any proposal to store radioactive waste is > > met with NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition. > > Didn't you say above that one of the major reasons for insecure reactors in > the ex-USSR was the lack of public criticism? You can't disqualify public > protest as NIMBY and at the same time name the lack of public protest the > primary reason for insecure reactors, and remain consistent. One way or the > other... > > And besides NIMBY, there's NIMOT [*] -- preferred attitude by proponents of > long term storage facilities. > > > 1) The public's lack of scientific knowledge. We don't all have to be > > nuclear engineers (I'm not), but everyone should have some basic > > understanding of science. > > I fully agree. One of the basics one should know is that science doesn't > tell you what to do or what not to do, it only tells you what might happen > if you do. So we all need to know that there are /other/ criteria, by > definition non-scientific, that need to be taken into account when deciding > what to do. > > > If you are an engineer and you oppose nuclear power, but you haven't studied > > the science and the real facts behind it, you are doing a disservice to the > > public good. > > Now why is that? I am an engineer, as good as anyone I tend to think, not > much better than average, not much worse. There are many issues to be > decided in our society, and I can't study all of them -- yet I need an > opinion on all of them. So yes, I haven't studied a lot of the nuclear > power technology, but I have studied enough to get to some issues that /for > me/ are important enough to oppose it. They may not be important for you, > but who are you to tell me what should or should not be important for me? > There is no "science" to disprove my values, as values are by definition > outside of the scientific realm. To try to do so does a much larger > disservice to public science education. > > IMO the single biggest damage to the public understanding of science has > probably be done by the "scientists" who use the term "scientifically > proven". There is no such thing as "scientifically proven". If we all could > at least agree on that, we probably would be a big step further in the > proper use of science. > > Gerhard > > [*] NIMOT: Not In My Own Time :) > ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
