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 04:33:15 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 04:33:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <49cbf610.0311220433.20577bc@posting.google.com> References: <49cbf610.0311200221.1df60a@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 1069504395 23622 127.0.0.1 (22 Nov 2003 12:33:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:33:15 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2846 Date: 2003-11-22T04:33:15-08:00 List-Id: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote in message news:... > Dmytry Lavrov wrote: > > > Okay,let's assume that you're right that radioactivity is not so > > dangerous. > > Radioactivity is certainly dangerous (in high doses). There's some critical point about small doses.There's 2 points on that:If we will exposr n peoples(or animals) (not rats,needed animals with long live enought to develop cancer) to k dose of rays,and k is < 1/10 LD50(there's some troubles with LD because there's short-term results and long-term ones),there's some more animals died than in control un-exposed group,let's name it m.If we will expose n*2 animals to k/2,there's that point,actual results shows that m remains roundly the same if it's animals with long live enought. Someone trust,someone not,someone think that experiments with m near to LD50,or with short-lived animals,etc.,are applicable to humans,someone not. Sacharov's point of view:For small doses down to background,law remains the same,and even if radiactivity is spreaded ,same number of people dies...and every nuclear test kills trousands of peoples,some of 'em die in next centuries. Remember,bomb is equal to several kg's of high-activity waste. Of course burning coal is not an solution. > 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. The thing i dislike that arguments from this ones from USA where for last 25 years was "no accident"(why they don't count 50 years with real accidents to calculate safety more accurate !?),propagating NPP as safer thing than even solar cells,as safest thing on the planet,and saying that inside tank uranium armour less radioactive than background.(my reply:why in metro on stations with granite there's 1..2 background on surface,and in tonnel w/o granite,there's 0.1 of surface background(myself measured).Even screws working in granite stations exposed to more than normal dose). How they can count deaths if Sacharov's concept is right and even small leaks from reactors causes some peoples to die,without any possibility to show why? Yes,for last 25 years they was careful enought.There's "progress",so after accident they will start counting years again from that accident,calculating nice statistic without accident. Also technic stupidity with that smoke detector containing americium.For what,could anyone tell me? There's no reason i can see.Maybe smoke detector is so difficult to understand for me?Whay,they don't had any accident with manufacturing of that detectors?What,no one child got dust from detector plate(it also produces nice radioactive dust if it twisted,if i remember correctly). I don't 100%sure,but no radioactive materials used in smoke detectors in Russia,and in western Europe too. Do you know why Challenger explodes?Read Feyman article about that(nice way to make shape of rocket cylindrical,no one even tried on cola can,PHDs saying that it's right way,boltturners that wrong,and Nobel Prise Winner(Feyman) shows that boltturners are right).Same applicable to russian rockets/landing capsules too.I assume that it's possible(there's risk that it is) that same is applicable to reactors and other things too. > > 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, Yes,of course.But someone spending money on fooling in opposite way is ugually somehow interested in lowering safety,to get that money back. To keep peoples in wrong way for long time,there's some resources should be spent,as russian history shows.Of course USSR haven't spended ~money~ because they makes that money.Instead,Stalin spent many peoples. Russia is actually radioactivity-dangerous country.Here pro-nuclears even can't use fine statistics as USA does-it's even hard to show plant without leaks massive enought to increase level of radioactivity near plant to several tens background,nor safe storage pool.First nuclear submarines ,and we now can't se someone from the screw,they "somehow" died.Peoples died near place of underground tests.Non-marked places of nuclear weapons tests,and accidents with it.Arrests of "spys". Old accident with part of fuel rod(don't know how in english) or other source in the wall of bilding(many peoples died). Charachay pool. All nice things Norway worry about(somewhere in that thread was link). But some years ago on Russian TV(especially goverment-controlled) was propagation of importing spent fuel into Russia.TV time costs money.While up to 90% of peoples in russia don't want that,(wasn't changed by TV ;-),it's not increases popularity of TV channels,nor goverment. So somehow they will have money back.Storing/processing rods and waste is cheaper in russia because of low safety standards and even lower possibility of enforcing that standards. That USA ones will export spent fuel into Russia.Of course for them there's no danger. [found nice thing] After Hiroshima and Nagasaki,there's slight "Raskolnikiv" sindrom in the world(esp.USA): 0:They tried to show some reasons to bomb Hiroshima.No reasons for Nagasaki,and even wasn't tried so much. As with Raskolnikov. 1:All world uses Hiroshima in places where it's more right to write "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" Google report: Searched the web for Hiroshima. Results 1 - 30 of about 1,300,000. Search took 0.09 seconds. Searched the web for Nagasaki. Results 1 - 30 of about 690,000. Search took 0.22 seconds interesting,huh? 2:tendency to under-estimate danger of radioactivity(in small doses) > 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. If everyone will more worry about fire even in "small doses",there's should be less fire accidents in forests,less deaths by cancer(smocking),etc. It's bad if our civilisation becomes so dependant to unsafe NPP's > 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 nuclears there's troubles now (in russia.) with substitute sources of energy, or severely limit our energy > consumption, taking all consequences of that. > Of course that's bad too. Point i dislike that if discussion is about chemical wastes,there's reference to radioactive as more dangerous,and that chemical waste is only one small problem.Same if discussion about radioactive wastes,that it's only one small problem ,referring to chemical wastes of any kind.Same applicable for any kind of problem,including programming,speculation that one problem deattract from "multidimensional set of other problems". > > > Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru > Saint-Petersburg > Russia p.s. Dmytry Lavrov,Lithuania, but for some reason i worry about radioactive things in Russia(USA too). (i pochemu mne ne po barabanu...)