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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham 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: 2003-11-22 02:41:47 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: 22 Nov 2003 02:41:47 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <49cbf610.0311220241.31360653@posting.google.com> References: <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.248.15.111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1069497707 16896 127.0.0.1 (22 Nov 2003 10:41:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2844 Date: 2003-11-22T02:41:47-08:00 List-Id: > > But of course, the biggest shocker for those who haven't studied the > issue is that the net effect of nuclear power plants is to significantly > reduce the long-term exposure of the population to radiation. Radon is > nasty. It is a gas and has a long enough lifetime to seep from the > ground into enclosed places, then it decays into several other > radioactive isotopes, some of which are also biologically active. (For > example, actiniums tends to accumulte in bones.) > > Since nuclear reactors are designed to "burn-up" the radon emitted from > the uranium in the fuel, and capture the heat generated, as long as the > radon captured when mining the original ore is dealt with, the net risk > from nuclear power plants is negative--they save more lives than they > consume. (This is true even if you add in the deaths associated with > the construction and decomissioning of the reactor.) Statistics?Show me example of plant completly removed from somewhere. Well,well,i said that i will not more reply to you,but that's enought dumb to cause me to write something. Ask yourself, 1:Are the plants used uranium from granite under my house?There's many uranium in granite. 2:Plants uses uranium from ocean(dissolved in water)?As with other things,there's more uranium in ocean than in developing mines. 3:Do you know that radon half-life is 4 days or so? 4:When mining uranium,it causes more radon to escape (before several half-lifes passed)?Are uranium mines normally under-ground enought that it takes many half lifes for radon to escape?What when mine is developed?It leaks more radon or what,assuming that there's lots(most) of uranium left with concentration lesser than can be cheaply processed. How big precent of uranium(u238 ! ) reactors will use? What you will do with waste? What you will do with u238? Using it in armour and projectiles? What with radon that in future escapes much simpler because u238 is spreaded? Risk on decomissioning:there's risk that all you're saying about radon will not mean something because there will be some leaks again.At processing waste,there's again leaks.Even small risk of Chernobil causes many radiuactive isotops to "escape". Why you so focussed on radon? There's leaks of tritium from reactors(leaks of water from cooling system) at normal exploatation.Half-life is 12 years or so. About that tritium will stay in highter atmosphere after terroristic act:Water is lighter than heavy water and all our water don't stay in highter atmosphere.Can you explain why,and then apply it to tritium?. Also,tritium is quite hard to detect,because it emmits electrons with 13Kev(that anyway enought to damage DNA if tritium is inside body.)One way to detect is to put probe into detector,that need special dosimeters that aren't avaliable for public check. You're now truing to prove most-dumbest thing in that thread:that nuclear reactors does not increases radioactivity TODAY.Yes,it's decreases radioactivity _of our olanet including under-ground_ for far future because burns some uranium,but because all industry also spreads uranium on surface it does not decreases radioactivity on surface for that far future.Because of plants we have cheap u238 ,cheap enought to use it instead of lead.Actually i think that mining lead for guns also bad thing,but you're now talking about radioactivity,right?