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: 2003-11-20 06:10:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:10:15 -0600 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:10:13 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada) References: <3FB3751D.5090809@noplace.com> <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-UyVirD+ZJu4D04aRMF1M2Z7Nm76KHdn2lTLOtTLIUJy/PsFnofj+w5COMyLzxi5FB8YUaIQQuDu1UXV!jdpDSemmOm7v8nBHskuw6IxG8w+Q3xCHMJ9UHjRJMMxySzir7akFgwL2J6Zi6g== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2735 Date: 2003-11-20T09:10:13-05:00 List-Id: Russ wrote: > 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. I looked at that data Russ, and while the risks from nuclear power plants look correct, the threat of coal burning plants is significantly understated. Offhand, two major factors omitted are grade crossing accidents involving trains hauling coal to power plants, and the loss of life from mining the coal. As I recall, the estimates for both are in the range of 1 to 2 deaths per year of operation. Nowhere near the numbers for air pollution, but greater than the numbers for radon emissions and cancer causing chemicals. 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.) -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software.