Re: Should we go nuclear and conquer space?

Posted by Southern Man on Jul 12, 2002 at 09:21
(209.102.131.139)

Re: Should we go nuclear and conquer space? (Wayne Smith)

“The pendulum seems to be swinging back in favour of nuclear power and I for one am glad.”

I haven’t seen it. True there are some encouraging signs but the current shrill rhetoric about the transportation of nuclear waste is a prime example that the ignorant are still in control.

“There is no more compact an energy source or clean source of electricity at our disposal and it's time we woke up to the fact.”

Very true.

“Past policies were dictated by a very noisy minority of ecowackies who had an exceedingly limited knowledge base.”

Very true.

“Practicality has one the day.”

I believe it is way to early to make that statement. Nuclear was doing very well in the early 70’s and a single non-event at TMI brought it all to a halt. One study that shows that someone died and they lived next to a nuclear power plant and it could all be over. Remember, “John Wayne died of lung cancer and he made a movie in Monument Valley.”

“To meet greenhouse summit quotas these nations have come to realise that nuclear power is the only viable alternative to dirty fossil fuels.”

You are under the assumption that they care about reducing greenhouse gasses. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If we wanted to reduce CO2 we would do something about reducing it where most is produced (China) or work on removing it which would have less impact on the standard of living. But making China stop people from burning wood or allowing capitalists sell CO2 removal equipment to the people burning the wood are both unacceptable. Because of the capital expenditure, nuclear is also a capitalist plot and unacceptable.

“You are exposed to far more more radiation from living near a coal plant than you would from a nuclear plant.”

Very true. A nuke in Tennessee was repeatedly shut down for high radiation releases until they discovered that the radiation was being carried by the wind from a coal-fired plant on the other side of the river.

“Why don't they put down their placards, go back to school and discover some new magical energy source themselves if they are so convinced its easy.”

Because they have no interest in solving the “problem”. If the problem is solved what will they have to do to get donations? The March of Dimes is an example. They collected millions of dollars to find a cure for polio. Great cause but they made a marketing error when they actually helped find a cure. Once polio was cured do you really think they would just close up shop? No, they found other causes to collect donation for. The environmentalists seem far smarter. As long as we have a problem to solve they can get donations. But the last thing they want to do is solve the problem because then they would have to find another.

But you are correct that if the “problem” was easy to solve some nasty capitalist would have solved it long ago and we would be talking about them rather than Bill Gates.

”Back in the 50's reactor rockets were built and tested with twice the power of todays best chemical boosters.”

They were built and tested but I don’t recall power as being their strength. Their strength was that they could run for hours or days or months rather than just a few minutes as chemical rockets.

“Again, ecowackies killed progress.”

Nuke rockets were killed by their exhaust. It was dirty. They could only be used in space and at that time we weren’t in space yet. We need to resurrect them but NOW the anti-nukes would kill them.

“Ecowackies still cling to the zero tolerance belief despite lack of any evidence to support their moronic ideas.”

Agreed but when was knowledge a requirement for fear mongering?

“In India and other parts of the World this natural level is over 100 times higher than the states and always has been.”

References? Much of Brazil has radiation levels higher that the maximum allowable limits for nuclear radiation workers (10 times higher than the instantaneous limit at the fence of a nuke plant) but that is the highests as far as I am aware.

“No ill effect on life there has been found.”

Very true.

“If dosage is a measure of concentration then how hard is it to spread an exhaust about and thereby reduce it to less than background levels?”

That wouldn’t get people to donate to Greenpeace.

“Research on radiation hormesis seems to show that low doses are beneficial to our health. An increase of 300% in this level would improve our health.”

Very true.


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:


[ Forum ] [ New Message ]