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 02:45:41 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 02:45:40 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <49cbf610.0311220245.11f584c8@posting.google.com>
References: <JtPsb.8014$fB3.463946@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <Az7ub.3669$ZF1.458179@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <oH8ub.4782$n56.638@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <jL9ub.34$2z1.1706@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <I_aub.9262$3o6.6712@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0311192231.48b3056a@posting.google.com>
 <SqmdnVW4jrTaViGiRVn-sA@comcast.com> <bpiqdi$edn$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <i9krrvosjjdgcpuu622ugj54ic44nqsu6i@4ax.com>
 <Kdidnb0UxJpsoyOiRVn-tA@comcast.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 1069497941 17086 127.0.0.1 (22 Nov 2003 10:45:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:45:41 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2845
Date: 2003-11-22T02:45:40-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Kdidnb0UxJpsoyOiRVn-tA@comcast.com>...
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
> > It is a wrong question. The correct one is: what is the expected
> > damage per megawatt (mean + dispersion). If you compare the answers
> > for all sorts of plants, you will probably see that Robert is right.
> 
> I'm going to try to stop posting on this subject, but...
> 
> With a BWR, AGR, or PWR nuclear power plant the expected number of 
> deaths per quad is negative.  (Anyone who wants to argue against LMFBRs 
> and in favor of MSRs as breeder reactors will get no arguments from me.)
> With a coal buring power plant, the expected number of deaths  from the 
> normal operation of the plant--excluding disasters--is too high for me 
> to stomach.  Every time I look at this data and factor in the threat of 
> global warming, I am tempted to do the human race a favor and go destroy 
> coal buring power plants.

What bad with NPP,that you can't go and destroy,you need to manage
waste for loong time.


And when i'm looking on statistics how many money spent on development
of reactors and how many on solar cells and accamulation,i also have
similar idea,but about nuclear plants.