The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Subject: Re: eer
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Organization: The Armory
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test69 (20 September 1998)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Steven Walz)
Date: 28 Oct 2002 11:53:05 GMT
In article <email@example.com>,
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Steven Walz)
>>In article ,
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>On 26 Oct 2002 04:12:34 GMT, email@example.com (Richard
>>>Steven Walz) wrote:
>>>>Nukes=nuclear reactors for power generation?
>>>Yup. A few brave souls in the environmental movement have said, very
>>>quietly, that nuclear power might be the most environmentally safe way
>>>to generate electricity, and have been promptly screamed at by the
>>>orthodox. With sound, standardized, fail-safe reactor designs and
>>>competent management, nukes are very clean and very safe.
>>Agreed, they ran an experimental one in Germany and were unable to
>>make it melt down when they tried to run it dry! But those are smaller
>>than investors prefer, AND trying to trust the CEOs not to crank them
>>up to dangerous levels for more profit would take armed guards ordered
>>to summarily execute them.
>>And the waste is STILL just as much of a longterm problem.
>I have a question on this.
>For a light water reactor the U for it gets dug out of the ground and then goes
>through a very intensive isotope separation process to concentrate it enough
>to be usable as fuel for the reactor. Using the fuel rods burns about 50% of
>the original isotope and leaves you with some fairly short lived by products,
>with the exception of some Pu and Th. Both these elements are emitted
>by coal fired generators, so if these are a problem then it seems that the
>scope of concern is way to limited.
>So, if you really want to get rid of it(which also seems questionable),
>why can't you mix the remainder back up with the original talus and put
>it back where you found it. Overall less radioactive than when you
U is EASY to get rid of. Pu is NOT. Also, wherever we get water is tested,
and we are experienced at avoiding deriving city water from radioactive
springs, and there are a bunch in the southwest. If we start putting
radioactive stuff back, then we wind up putting both Pu and a host of other
long-lived isotopes with it, and we risk suddenly finding that we didn't
REALLY understand the aquifer very well and that we have polluted the shit
out of massive acquifers upon which human life depends!!!
-Steve Walz firstname.lastname@example.org ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup