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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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 07:57:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!62.4.16.90.MISMATCH!nerim.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:49:03 +0300 (MSK) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <49cbf610.0311200221.1df60a@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1069343431 18427 80.67.180.195 (20 Nov 2003 15:50:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:50:31 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <49cbf610.0311200221.1df60a@posting.google.com>; from Dmytry Lavrov at 20 Nov 2003 02:21:08 -0800 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2741 Date: 2003-11-20T18:49:03+03:00 Dmytry Lavrov wrote: > Okay,let's assume that you're right that radioactivity is not so > dangerous. Radioactivity is certainly dangerous (in high doses). 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. > 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, 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. 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 substitute sources of energy, or severely limit our energy consumption, taking all consequences of that. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia