Reprocessing discussion, late entry

["Vincent A King" <slavak@gj.net>]

Excerpts from recent postings:



*****************************

*****************************

From: Raymond Shadis



"...Please, no more banalities from the "Friendly Atom." comic series. Thanks. Ray"

*****************************

*****************************

*****************************

The except above was in response to:



"Raymond:

....The point is the Pu is here now...what do we do with it? ("Burn" the Pu up in PBMRs and get rid of it and make electricity instead of trying to stockpile it and/or bury it. Eventually with the PBMR technology as the pilot we may master fusion electric power)."



Paul W. Shafer

*****************************

*****************************

*****************************

"I hope you will forgive me if this is not clear. English is my second 

language.I have apparently not yet mastered a third: plain English." 



Ray

*****************************

*****************************



Radsafers,



In order to help Mr. Shadis master his English, I would offer that when an individual tosses out what is seen as a denigrating, condescending, and non-responsive remark in answer to a legitimate statement, as happened in the exchange above, further responses may tend to get a little hostile. As Miss Manners would say "Gentle Reader: One should not become too outraged if responses take on the tone that one sets in his or her own communcation."



Mr. Shadis' 'no more banalities' request also appears to be an attempt to dodge the legitimate issues raised by Mr. Shafer. To expand a little, plutonium, used as fuel:



(1) would significantly extend energy resources at a time when fossil fuels are becoming rapidly depleted, 



(2) is gone once it is fissioned (so it can't be used for bombs),



(3) is turned into short half-lived radioactive daughters, whose 'unique' (but well-understood) hazards are safely dealt with every day, as has been the case for over a half century,



(4) would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (which some people think are bad for the climate; I'm waiting for the definitive USA Today survey to make up my mind).



These are all facts for which I've heard no substantial rebuttal (and irritatingly little promotion). About the only reasons reported by the media for why reprocessing was abandoned (or, more hopefully, just put on hold) in the U.S. are:



(1) too expensive (I'll consider listening to rational discussion on this, but not from unscrupulous people or groups who make the criticism while simultaneously making every effort to increase those costs through frivoulous legal action), and 



(2) proliferation (although I've never heard a credible scenario for how this would occur. By the way, our self-imposed moratorium has doesn't seem to have lived up to its purpose of eliminating this risk)



--(In case no one has noticed, I'm borrowing Jaro's outline format - I like it....Thanks, Jaro! In keeping with this format, there will now be a multiple choice pop-quiz for everyone)--



"Why does the media like to repeat that nuclear energy is a dead option 

(even though polls have shown that a majority of people in the U.S. have favored it for a long time)?"



(a) journalism schools don't admit students with pro-nuclear viewpoints, therefore networks and newspapers have no one on staff who can discuss the industry intelligently;



(b) an energy crisis sells more stories;



(c) they want to see if an industrial society really does run on energy, or if that's just a load of bunk from those technical geeks;



(d) they're running their own test of that greenhouse-gas-leads-to-global-warming theory;



(e) it's the media's duty to save us from what the majority wants;



(f) ....???....



Cheers,



Vincent King

Reporting from Idaho

slavak@gj.net



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.