[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A real solution
Transmutation in it simplest concept is again that nasty thermodynamics
problem. It is simply that you will need more energy (from what source)
to make it non-radioactive (and remember it started out radioactive).
As for the sun idea - as you point out it needs to be done safely.
After all - if you wanted to REALLY spread the stuff around - I couldn't
think of a better way than to launch and then have it come back down and
burn up.
Norm - I invite you to be a bit more introspective about your acceptable
alternatives. It seems quite honestly that the less you understand
about an alternative the more you simplify it and the more you espouse
it.
I know, I know - we should at least TRY!!! - well for many things we
don't have to spend billions to try and fail. We can KNOW now that it
is VERY improbable at out current state of technology - or the
technology of the reasonable future.
This does NOT mean that these things should NOT be revisited as
technology break throughs happen. Some of these things violate the most
basic laws of physics.
So - what you only succeed in doing is keeping the problem at a distant
arms length - postulating grossly improbable challenges to methods on
the table now - to wait for those of science fiction to come to pass.
This is the ONLY reason we do NOT have a solution working now - because
we are blocked from using the best technology we have to do the best job
we can NOW - because MAYBE we will find a better way in the next
millennium!
Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:
>
> Hi Cousin Jerry,
>
> This is a good question and one I've thought about alot.Looking backwards, we
> had no business as a country allowing this much nuclear waste to be produced
> without a plan to get rid of it. The Federal Government certainly has a
> responsibility for not following through on a solution. Nuke power companies
> paid their money into the waste fund in good faith, and are now stuck with
> overflowing spent fuel pools.
>
> Now, bearing in mind that I'm no scientist (as has been pointed out on this list
> and in private emails), here's my thoughts on waste. For now, I support the
> position of NIRS and Public Citizen that nuke waste stay where it is, and that
> we stop generating any more until we know what to do with it. After all, Yucca
> Mountain, the storage place of choice, has many problems, including chances of
> volcanic eruptions over a 10,000 year period.
>
> Transmutation sounds good in theory, but I understand (no flame please) that
> there are many problems to be solved. I remember reading info from IEER (Takoma
> Park, Md) about those problems, but please don't ask me to spell them all out,
> you all are aware of them. I'd support continuing to look at transmutation.
>
> Glassification makes some sense, but I'm not that familiar with the details on
> it, and one would still need a secure storage space for 10000s of years.
>
> So, the solution I'd look for is one that safely eliminates the waste or turns
> it non-radioactive.
>
> The only plan that I've thought of (and I'm still no scientist), is to develop a
> way to dump the stuff into the sun. This would require some way of getting the
> stuff into orbit safely and to be able to handle large payloads safely. We don't
> have the technology, except in sci-fi books, now for that.
>
> That's where I'm at right now - just be polite in shredding these thoughts!
>
> norm
>
> Jerry Cohen wrote:
>
> > Norm,
> > This is not a dig, I am really curious. For the last 40 years or so, the
> > AEC/ERDA/DOE has been floundering around attempting to find an acceptable
> > solution for managing/disposing of nuclear waste. Billions of dollars have
> > been spent with little, if anything, to show for it. To my knowledge the
> > characteristics of an acceptable solution , have never really been
> > defined . As I'm sure you are aware, if you don't know what you are looking
> > for, chances are that you will not find it. In your opinion, if a "real
> > solution" were ever to present itself, how would you , as an opponent to
> > nuclear power, recognize it ? Specifically, what do you think they should
> > look for?
> > jjcohen@prodigy.net
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Date: Saturday, August 12, 2000 2:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: About this list
> >
> > >Hi Al,
> > >
> > >I am certainly in favor of nuclear medicine. Xrays and MRI's saved my life
> > when they
> > >discovered a tumor growing near my spine about 7 years ago. I have no
> > problem with
> > >research, with looking for better, safer ways of making energy. I'd have no
> > problem
> > >with nuclear spacecraft as long as they are launched in space and in such a
> > way that
> > >there was no danger for their falling back to earth.
> > >
> > >Lochbaum still thinks nuke plants can be run safely. I'm not convinced of
> > that. I
> > >continue to feel that because there are non-coal, green, safe alternatives,
> > that we
> > >can and must phase out nukes over a reasonable period of time.
> > >
> > >To convince me that nuke plants are safe would be difficult, due to my
> > level of risk
> > >I'm willing to accept and due to my experiences working to close the Salem
> > Nukes. In
> > >theory, it's possible to build a totally safe nuke as soon as you work out
> > a real
> > >solution for the waste. In reality, human beings get involved, and that
> > eliminates
> > >even the theory of "totally safe".
> > >
> > >peace
> > >norm
> > >
> > >
> > >Al Tschaeche wrote:
> > >
> > >> Neon John wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > One MUST understand the nature of the enemy if we are to have ANY
> > >> > hope of prevailing.
> > >>
> > >> Absolutely!!!!!
> > >>
> > >> And the nature of the anti nuclear leaders and true believers is just
> > that. Anti
> > >> - they will never be pro. It won't make any difference what we say, they
> > want
> > >> nothing nuclear and will continue with that point of view forever. That
> > is why I
> > >> always preface a communication with an apparently anti person with the
> > question:
> > >> "Is it your point of view that humans should have nothing to do with
> > things
> > >> nuclear: no radiation, no radioactive material in the world?" If they
> > answer,
> > >> "Yes," then my work is done. Even if they answer "No," after we have
> > corresponded
> > >> a couple of times, it becomes apparent the answer really is "Yes." It is
> > only
> > >> those who have really not yet made up their minds about whether radiation
> > is a
> > >> problem with whom we have a chance. Any other RADSAFERS have the same
> > >> experience? Al Tschaeche, antatnsu@pacbell.net
> > >>
> > >> ************************************************************************
> > >> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > >> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> > >
> > >--
> > >Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr
> > Ave., Linwood,
> > >NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer machine);
> > >norco@bellatlantic.net; UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/
> > COALITION
> > >FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/
> > ICQ#
> > >54268619; The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
> > >“We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make” (Mary
> > Chapin
> > >Carpenter)
> > >“Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t give
> > up the
> > >fight!” (Bob Marley)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >************************************************************************
> > >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> --
> Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,
> Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8537 or 609-601-8583 (8583: fax, answer machine);
> norco@bellatlantic.net; UNPLUG SALEM WEBSITE: http://www.unplugsalem.org/
> COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE WEBSITE:
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~norco/ ICQ# 54268619; The Coalition for Peace
> and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.
> “We have two lives, the one we’re given, and the other one we make” (Mary Chapin
> Carpenter)
> “Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights...Get up, stand up, don’t give up
> the fight!” (Bob Marley)
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html