Jeff Condit
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bagotronix Tech Support" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Open Topic Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Gerhard Fiedler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] ongoing environmental thread *was* lead free
I think the logical consequence of a majority not wanting to havesomethingin their backyard is to change the technology and use something else. Why do we need stuff that nobody wants in their backyard?
Umm...because we need stuff? Everything that people need and want is an
affront to someone. Do you need radio, television, cellphones, and electric
power? If the answer is yes to any of those, a powerline and/or antenna
tower is going into someone's backyard. Do you need food? If so, then a
food processing facility is going into someone's backyard.
I can't think of any technology for power generation that doesn't have some
history of rejection by greenies or NIMBYs:
Nuclear: radioactive wastes, uranium mining pollution, possible meltdown Coal: greenhouse gases (GG), airborne mercury Nat gas: GG, pipeline ruptures Oil: GG, oil spill hazards, contributes to trade deficit Solar: toxic wastes from solar cell manufacturing, unsightly Wind: hazards to birds, unsightly Wave: hazards to aquatic life, modification of ocean currents Hydro: hazards to freshwater fish, modification of river currents
Groundwater contamination is probably a much bigger problem than spreading
directly to the surface. And claiming that this is a desert (now) doesn't
help much with a project that's supposed to be designed for 10,000 years.
Groundwater systems are finite in their expanse. In Florida, we have two
aquifers: the North Florida Acquifer, and the South Florida aquifer. In
the NF area (where I live), the water table is high. I can dig a hole in my
back yard, and ten minutes later it will be mostly filled with water. That
is also why very few homes have basements in North Florida - you could never
keep them dry! The groundwater is very good, low hard minerals and no
sulfur, and no water shortage around here. But South Florida water table is
not so good. Their water is hard with mineral and sulfur. It stinks,
literally. And there's not as much of it. So, there is proof (dare I call
it "scientific proof"? no, I won't, it's anecdotal evidence) that
groundwater systems can remain isolated from each other.
> I didn't say that people shouldn't be able to protest. Just that manysuch> 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...
Well, sounds as if when you consider something unsafe (by your personal standards), you think you would do "justified NIMBY", but when others consider something unsafe (by their personal standards), they do "simple NIMBY". Not really inconsistent, just... how do I say that... maybe egocentric?
Yes, it must be egocentric to rely on one's more complete science education
to justify one's position on a scientific matter. Why, that must be the
real reason I got my engineering degree, so I could justify my ego.
The worst thing about public ignorance of science is that they don't even
know enough to know what they don't know. Example: I was at a friend's
house, and their little boy ran into the kitchen and turned on the
(fluorescent) lights. The father gently reprimanded the boy for wasting
electricity, saying "You now owe me 40 cents, mister". I later asked the
father what that was all about, and he said an electric company employee
told him that although fluorescent lights use less energy when on, they take
a lot of energy to turn on. When I asked how much energy, the father said
"40 cents worth". I told him in as diplomatic terms as I could muster that
the electric company employee was dead wrong. His response was "He is from
the electric company, they are experts on these things." Then I asked him
to find his latest electric bill, which he did. We calculated that he pays
10 cents per KWh. So I proposed an experiment: we stood by the electric
meter, and had his wife turn the kitchen lights on while we watched the
meter. I told him that if the meter reading jumps by 4 when she turns on
the lights, the electric company employee would be correct. If not, then I
am correct. We did the experiment, and I was correct. Even after that,
they still found it difficult to accept the results of the experiment. Then
I realized that this is how most people operate - they will accept as gospel
anything said from anyone they perceive as authoritative, even in the face
of contrary evidence. And the part of "not knowing what they don't know" is
that my friend and his wife didn't realize that I had much more science
education than the electric company employee did.
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: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [OT] ongoing environmental thread *was* lead free
than aOn 12/13/04 20:30:21, you wrote:
>> Now good science tells us that we don't have any experience with >> containment of any materials with current technologies that is more>> few decades. Science also tells us that it is extremely risky (the >> riskto>> err) to simply extrapolate our short-term experience up to a fewcenturiesit's>> or more. There is no scientific data about containment facilities that > need >> to work a few millenniums. This are not only technical questions...>> not even guaranteed that any of the current countries will still existatmaintenance?>> that time to perform the required maintenance. > > Maintenance? Since when does a deep hole in the ground requireexperience
The plan there, as with all similar planned facilities, in case you don't know, includes to "contain" the material in some sort of container. These containers are made of materials we have quite limited long-timewith. Most of these need some sort of maintenance to prevent corrosionwith
damage, and for all we know so far, they /will/ corrode without
maintenance. This is what engineering data tells us. So no, the hole won't
require maintenance, but the contents will. If it were just for a holeintonothing in it, there probably wouldn't be any protests.
> Once it's full, build mini-pyramids over the site, with warnings carved> the surfaces. The Eqyptian pyramids have lasted for thousands of > years.spend
Yes they did last, but we don't have much of a clue about what much of the
stuff there means. Besides, I doubt that any current government wouldthe effort to create anything that lasting. Their time horizon issomethingIMO.between 4 and 12 years or so, mostly. I consider it rather ingenuous to think that any governmental agency or private enterprise would seriously plan for more than 50 years -- and even more ingenuous to think that they would /act/ in advance. So the claim that all of a sudden they should be able to design and run a 10k years facility responsibly is pretty wildsurface,
> the event that somehow the radioactive stuff does come back to the> the area will become known in folklore as the "forbidden lands" orsomethingsuch> mysterious like that.
Groundwater contamination is probably a much bigger problem than spreading
directly to the surface. And claiming that this is a desert (now) doesn't
help much with a project that's supposed to be designed for 10,000 years.
> I didn't say that people shouldn't be able to protest. Just that manysomething> 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...
Well, sounds as if when you consider something unsafe (by your personal standards), you think you would do "justified NIMBY", but when others consider something unsafe (by their personal standards), they do "simple NIMBY". Not really inconsistent, just... how do I say that... maybe egocentric?
I think the logical consequence of a majority not wanting to havehasin their backyard is to change the technology and use something else. Why do we need stuff that nobody wants in their backyard?
>> IMO the single biggest damage to the public understanding of scienceuse>> 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 haven't heard scientists use that phrase either, but I did hear "scientists" use it :)
> I have heard > marketers, advertising people, politicians, and public relations peopleare> the phrase. Maybe these are the people you should be blaming?
I've even heard engineers use it (or similar phrases), mostly when theyconvinced that they have just the "right", "objective" balance of risksandothers with a different balance are just simple naysayers.
Gerhard
____________________________________________________________ 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]
____________________________________________________________ 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]
