Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:29:48 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <20010920002948.A6942@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <3BA97A05.B14F6ACF@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:09:25PM -0700 References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAMEFMCDAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <xzpelp9s9ga.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <3BA33CB6.FE0102C8@mindspring.com> <20010919132340.D306@blossom.cjclark.org> <3BA97A05.B14F6ACF@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 10:09:25PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> > Nuclear powerplants from the 50's and 60's are being decomissioned
> > because most are operating near or well past their design
> > lifetimes. These plants _need_ to be decommissioned. The engineers who
> > built and run them will tell you this needs to be done.
>
> I think you need to look up the nuclear plants that are
> currently in operation in California, along with the list
> of the ones being decomissioned, and compare them with
> their dates of construction.
I haven't been able to find a list of ones being decommissioned other
than some experimental sites. I also believe that utilities can
collect for _future_ decommissioning costs even while a powerplant is
still in operation.
> I think you'll find that your statement doesn't hold water
> (inre: "from the 50's and 60's").
Yeah, I was off. The ones currently in use were designed in the
60's, built in the 70's, and came on line in the early 80's. In the
US, the last order for a new nuclear plant that was actually completed
was made in 1973. I am not aware of any full-scale nuclear powerplants
being fully decommissioned, only experimental plants from the
timeframe I mentioned. I could very well be mistaken though.
> > > We do this _despite_ the fact that nuclear waste can be held
> > > safely until it is itself safe, while the chemical waste from
> > > coal-fired plants _does not break down_ -- it is dangerous
> > > _forever_.
> >
> > I am wondering what type of hazardous chemical wastes from coal
> > cumbustion you are speaking of.
>
> Hydrocarbon byproducts from combustion which are ejected into
> the atmosphere, and are not broken down due to photo exposure...
> only as the result of being metabolized by something/one.
If it is metabolized by something it does not last
forever. Hydrocarbons do not generally last that long in an oxidizing
atmosphere or else it would be chock full of 'em by now since they are
a by-product of combustion of pretty much any organic
material. There have been forest and grass fires, volcanic eruptions,
natural eruptions of fossil fuels, etc. pumping these types of
materials into the atmosphere for a lot longer than there have been
people and they have not built up. Not that humans have not tried
pretty hard to crank this stuff out really, really fast for the last
few centuries.
> > You mentioned Brookhaven later in this thread. When I used to live in
> > the East, only that fringe of professional protesters gave a whit
> > about Brookhaven until a report came out about the contamination in
> > the nearby soil and groundwater. Then _and only then_ did the local
> > media and public really care about Brookhaven. It's not some imagined
> > guilt about using nuclear weapons on Japanese driving protests at
> > Brookhaven, it's fear of our pal Blinky of Simpsons fame.
>
> Find me a "blinky", and I'll believe you.
Here's a quote from the "Covert Action Quarterly" from the period
(mid-90's),
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB: THE CANCER CONNECTION . . . . .. . . . . . . 21
by Laura Flanders
For almost half a century, Brookhaven Lab has been
spewing out toxic waste and radioactive poison. Alarmed at a
high incidence of breast cancer, women in the area are
calling for action.
No moral outrage or guilt dealing with nuclear weapons. Fear of
contamination and cancer.
> > As a chemical engineer, I could delve into how grossly
> > disproportionate the fears of these things are as opposed to the real
> > risks (the common irrational fears of crime and terrorism got nothing
> > on these), but I'll spare you all.
>
> Nuclear materials are feared because of our object lessons on
> what they _can_ do, not based on what we fear they might do.
I miss the distinction. We all know what they can do so we worry about
what a release might do. I definately buy that that is what people
worry about. But I really have never detected guilt over using nuclear
weapons having anything to do with it.
--
Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010920002948.A6942>