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 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 08:09:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:12:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <3FB3751D.5090809@noplace.com> <49cbf610.0311191248.7eb48a43@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069344558 58783382 212.79.194.116 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2742 Date: 2003-11-20T17:12:19+01:00 List-Id: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:10:13 -0500, "Robert I. Eachus" wrote: >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.) True. However there is a true long term perspective problem with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy shifts the temperature balance, because it is a source of energy indendent from what we are receiving from the sun. At the present level it is nothing and will remain nothing for a very long period of time. But some day it will be necessary to find a way to radiate the heat dissipated in the atmosphere into space. BTW, what about wind mills? Provided that they are destroying the landscape. What about other dangers? Infrasound? I know that people (a parachute jumper) were killed. Let 100% of European energy demand be covered by mills. Would it have any large scale effect on weather? What damage would do the necessary electricity accumulation stations? -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de