NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/energy/5592

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 4.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!skadi!stead
From: [e-mail] (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Renewable energy from the sun
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:15:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 78
Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C Revie) writes:
> [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
> >You're worried that the burial site will remain contaminated for centuries?
> >Big deal.  The thousands of landfills across this country are virtually
> >all heavily contaminated by heavy metals (cadmium, mercury and whatnot).
> >Nobody seems so concerned about those, and remember - there the problem
> >will not decay away after a few centuries.  The heavy metals will always
> >be there.
>
> This is not a justification! You might as well say, I've shot myself in
> the foot, it was no big deal, a bit painful, so I'll do it again.
>
> I am concerned about toxic wastes sites.

Ah, but the difference here is one of scale and comparing the problems
of nuclear power vs. other sources of power.  Since there are thousands
of supposedly non-toxic landfills (ie: not listed as toxic waste sites)
that are heavily contaminated with substances just as dangerous as
nuclear waste, and in much less stable settings, shouldn't you address
those first?  To extend your foot analogy - you've shot yourself in the
foot, a shot of a local anesthetic would help the doc sew up the wound.
The shot will hurt and create a small wound.  But even this is insufficient.
We have 1000's of sites so toxic they are listed as toxic sites and 1000's
more that aren't listed but are far more hazardous than a single nuclear
waste depository in Yucca Mt.  That's more like shootting yourself all
over thousands of times.  Don't you think that deserves more attention
than your bizarre fixation on the nuclear waste depository?  The depository
is perfectly harmless.  Here's an analogy I prefer - you're shooting yourself
continuously with an Uzi, then you see a little dellinger 1-shot in a locked
display case and you point to it and yell "Save me from that heinous thing!"
That's a much more appropriate analogy.

Yet even that's not complete because that analogy fails to take into account
that using nuclear power will help lessen the use of coal and oil.  Thus
the massive amounts of toxics produced by the use of coal and oil can
be reduced, in addition to the huge amount of toxics and radioactive
waste and greenhouse gases that are all just spewed into the atmosphere
and not isolated at all.  So it's like, as long as the dellinger is in
the display case, you can't get as much ammo for your Uzi.

> >People love to complain about radioactive waste, but there are no real
> >problems, other than the people who love to complain.  Some people seem
> >to need something to be afraid of and they latch onto nuclear issues
> >because they can't understand them.
>
> I'm sorry but this is not a serious comment. Yes there is alot of
> emotion over Nuclear issues. Ever wondered why? Its not the above answer.

It's perfectly serious.  It is clear throughout history that people fear
what they don't understand.  People are even willing to unfairly persecute
people who do understand, or do you forget what happened to Galileo, etc.
It is also clear that people need thing to fear, and even in the presence
of real threats, will create imaginary threats.  Do you forget the Salem
witch hunts?  These people had serious problems of survival to face, but
instead latched onto an unreasonable fear of witchcraft against all evidence
because it comforted them.  Yes, I have wondered about the extensive
nucleophobia in this country, so I have checked into it.  Have you?
Or do you just lap up what the nucleophobic establishment spews out?

I do notice that you offer no technical reasoning in either your previous
post or this one.  In your previous post your comment consisted of two
words - certainly not an analysis of the issues.  This post includes
one rather limited and incorrect analogy about guns and feet, and the
completely unjustified statement that one of my arguments is not serious.
Then you try to justify your position by appealing to all the others who
hold the same opinion.  Your mom had the perfect logical rebuttal to
that - If everyone jumped off the bridge, would you go too?  You did
not comment at all on my few brief arguments in support of a nuclear
waste repository and my criticisms of coal power.  Thus I must assume
you simply mindlessly repeat an illogical stand against nuclear power.
Therefore, my labelling of you as a nucleophobe is still not disproven.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
[e-mail]