From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-20 03:35:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada) Date: 20 Nov 2003 03:35:18 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <49cbf610.0311200335.77d4caee@posting.google.com> References: <3FB3751D.5090809@noplace.com> <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.248.15.13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1069328118 19534 127.0.0.1 (20 Nov 2003 11:35:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:35:18 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2719 Date: 2003-11-20T03:35:18-08:00 List-Id: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:... > dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov) wrote in message news:<49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com>... > > > How you will "prove" that "nuclear plants is more harmless than solar > > power"? > > Go to http://RussP.org/nucpower.htm and click on the article called > "The Hazards of Nuclear Power" by Bernard L. Cohen. Cohen is one of > the top experts in the world on this topic and was awarded Of course was awarded because "someone" need to award papers that show that plants isn't dangerous. > the Health > Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award. The > article is excellent and well worth reading, but if you don't have > time to read it, scroll down to Table 1: Deaths per 1,000 MW plant per > year of operation due to wastes. There you will see figures showing > that solar power is nowhere as safe or as clean as nuclear power. And > I'm talking about a difference of several orders of magnitude. > > You probably think that's absurd, but that's only because you are > badly misinformed, hence you haven't really had the opportunity to > think things through. Don't feel too bad -- it's very common these > days. You see, solar power requires more than sunlight hitting the > earth. It requires truly massive amounts of materials to collect it > and convert it to electric power on a large scale. We're talking about > tens of square miles of collector surface to equal the power output of > a large nuclear power plant. What with agro-culture danger?Probably bigger than nuclear plants too? Hehe,nuclear plants probably the safest thing on the planet ;-) Anyway,they more_or_less_safe only because and while level of danger from radioactivity is considered as high!We all alive now(no WW3) because of that! And you truing to "show that it's wrong".Ok,maybe wrong.But _even_if_that_ my point is at least quite useful. Why did you so like your point of view and so want to turn everyone into it even if it will surely cause safety levels to fall,and might even cause small nuclear wars? My point of view is quite common now,and it's point of view with pressure of that reactors are more-or-less safe now.Pressure of that point of view don't causes to build less nuclear plants,all plants was developed and build with this point as common. Yes,Chernobil caused to build less plants.It was warning,we always need warnings to avoid stupid things,like Chirosima and Nagasaki helps us to avoid nuclear wars(anyway,second bomb was complete stupidity). I recommend you to think on what will cause your point of view if becomes common?To what side it will change safety? > So much energy goes into producing the > solar materials that you don't break even on the energy balance for > quite a while. (I can't remember the figures off hand, but I think > it's years in non-desert climates.) > > Once you know the basic facts, it is easy to understand why nuclear > power is orders of magnitude safer that solar power could ever be. But > don't hold your breath waiting for the mass media to suddenly start > informing the public about it. Yes,there's more peoples engaged in building and mantaining solar station. But they works with risk same as risk we have when working on computer or risk when walking,risk when we live.They anyway have to live and work with that risk,on any normal job risk is the roundly same.It's pretty inpossible to make something less dangerous.And there's more accidents possible because there's more peoples engaged.It gives jobs for peoples,do you think that jobs is bad because of risk existant on any job or without any job? That calculations is speculative.Developing [non-safety-critical]software with 40 programmers is 4 times more dangerous to programmers than with 10 ? Estimation of level of danger by govs/officials/gov-awarded persons is a theme for "evil anekdotes"(don't sure in my english).For example,Space Shuttle.Claimed as safe as 1/100.000 .As Feyman sayd,it's one launch per day and one failure per 270 years,it's simple enought to check,isn't it? So many orders of magnitude underestimation of danger. Show one example where gov's (esp. american govs as govs of leading country) wasn't underestimated any danger(nuclear plants is not a example for sure.Show example of something done by govs where was and was expected many enought fails and fails was estimated by gov at more-or-less careful level,non-harmless things like lifetime of light bulbs is not about that). 2 shuttles.... we should launch every day for 540 years without any problems now. Pretty sure that with reactors there's something like that. Of course i know(but mainly hope) that Chernobil is inpossible on power plants commonly used in USA and western Europe.But waste reprocessing plants are dangerous anywhere,and anywhere power plants is lot safer than reprocessing plants.Even at normal processing on reprocessing plant,there's leaks of waste into atmosphere and water. Assume that terrorists hit reprocessing plant.It's second Chernobil.