Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

I hate to be the Newsgroup Gestapo, but really, this thread is flooding 
my newsreader and it is waaaaaayyyyy off topic. It might even give 
newbies to this group the wrong impression. Could you guys pick this 
thread up in someplace that is more on-topic? Thanks.

MDC


Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote:
> Dmytry Lavrov wrote:
> 
> 
>>Okay,let's assume that you're right that radioactivity is not so
>>dangerous.
> 
> 
> Radioactivity is certainly dangerous (in high doses). No one disputes that.
> The problem, however, is what is more dangerous - to live with potential
> sources of high radioactivity, such as nuclear power plants, or without them.
> 
> 
>>Govs also want to do that,to start using nukes in wars,to make safety
>>standards lower ,etc.Many officials "benefits" from under-estimating
>>level of danger.There's big money spent on that propagation.All that
>>awards to someone showing that it's isn't dangerous..on writing
>>fooling papers about safety,or about tank armour,etc.
> 
> 
> Naturally, there are forces - sometimes governments, sometimes businesses -
> which are interested for understimating of that danger and lower safety
> standards - for radioactivity as well as for many other issues.
> 
> 
>>And another
>>side:how many money specially spent on "fooling" peoples that it's
>>dangerous? Show me any personal Bill Gates spending money on that as
>>many as govs spend for opposite direction.Of course you can talk about
>>mass-media,about doing money,but again show me organisation that
>>spends money from other sources on "fooling peoples" that it's
>>dangerous.
> 
> 
> You seem to be somehow hypnotized by "big money". People generally need not
> a presence of "big money" to be fooled - they can be fooled by an idea, by
> a perceived need of community feeling, or even of their own accord. (Note,
> that people fighting against the danger of radioactivity new almost nothing
> about it - they new just what media and friends said them - as a rule... the
> redioactivity is invisible for them in all senses.)
> 
> Look, a simple fire is a danger, isn't it? But we can't survive, at least our
> civilization can't survive without that dangerous fire. So, we keep it with us,
> but at the same time we keep firefighters and keep safety standards against
> fire. And oh well, there always been attempts to avoid or lower those standards,
> to save money on them etc. The situation with nuclear power plants (and nuclear
> waste, by extension) is similar in several important aspects (although analogy
> is not generally close for several reasons).
> 
> You may hope that current situation with nuclear power plant is relatively
> temporary - perhaps for several decades, no more, and then they will be replaced
> by other, better sources of energy (or at least they will be made inherently
> safer). But for now we have alternative: either tolerate nuclear power plants
> or suffer significantly worse troubles (not only dangers, but real and immediate
> troubles) with substitute sources of energy, or severely limit our energy
> consumption, taking all consequences of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
> Saint-Petersburg
> Russia
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Trying is the first step towards failure."
         --  Homer Simpson

======================================================================