RE: Nukes in Space...

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

See how easy life can be?



-----Original Message-----

From: Thomas J Savin [mailto:tjsav@lycos.com]

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:22 PM

To: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...





HMMMmmmmmmm - let me think here for just a second.  Yes I know what will

happen.  Since the earth rotates faster than the moon - The earth will reel

in the moon , then the moon will collide with the earth and both are now on

there way to hit the sun and be absorbed!  WOW! We do not have to worry

about the travels of of waste shipments form nuclear facilities. The good

ol' sun will take care of everything. Enjoy?

---

Tom Savin



On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:02:32   

 Jack_Earley wrote:

>Franta, Jaroslav wrote:

> 

><<Needless to say, its a far-future type of concept -- perhaps for the 22nd

>or 23rd centuries (because it requires almost perfectly defect-free

>structural materials, with strength properties close to theoretical

>values).>>

> 

>Actually, just about two months ago I heard about a material that could be

>extended to the moon (and back? I don't recall) without losing its

>structural integrity. I believe it is carbon-based. So it may not be that

>far into the future. . . .

> 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Franta, Jaroslav [mailto:frantaj@AECL.CA]

>Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:38 AM

>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: RE: Nukes in Space...

>

>

>Thanks Ruth -- but I think that Norm already explained that he wasn't

>thinking about rocket launches. The idea he did mention - the elevator to

>space - is an old one, perhaps best popularized by the great sci-fi author,

>Arthur C. Clarke (I believe that the elevator manufacturer Otis is already

>hyping this as their long-term goal; see also  http://www.tethers.com/

><http://www.tethers.com/>   for more on a similar, more near-term topic ). 

>Needless to say, its a far-future type of concept -- perhaps for the 22nd

or

>23rd centuries (because it requires almost perfectly defect-free structural

>materials, with strength properties close to theoretical values). Moreover,

>it would not be built specifically for nuke waste or any other special

cargo

>transport, but for general Earth-to-GEO transportation of both people &

>cargo.

> 

>But the idea of disposing of nuke waste in the Sun is ridiculous for many

>other reasons.

> 

>Hopefully, by the 22nd or 23rd century people will smarten up enough to

>realise that (or maybe not -- maybe Norm will succeed beyond his wildest

>expectations and people will get more & more paranoid, and start shipping

to

>space everything even slightly radioactive -- including all naturally

>occurring radioactive materials.... rocks, soil, plants, people, the ocean,

>you name it).

> 

>Just recently (Nov 16, 2001) journalists reported that "Scientists say

>they've discovered a method using nuclear waste to attack cancer cells

>without harming healthy tissue.... Human trials to start in the next few

>months" ( see

>http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/11/16/cancer011116

><http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/11/16/cancer011116

>

>and also http://www.pharmactinium.com/ <http://www.pharmactinium.com/>   ).

>Maybe Norm can tell us all which of the many different kinds of isotopes in

>nuclear "waste" must be disposed of, because they will never-ever have any

>use for humans. Failing that, I see no reason to spend gazillions of

dollars

>to dispose of it irretrievably.

> 

>Besides, even if you could get thousands of tonnes of the stuff into space

>in perfect safety, the antis would no doubt tell you that it wouldn't

>actually go INTO the sun, but it would vaporise in its super-hot corona or

>on its surface, and then be blown out into space along with the solar wind

&

>contaminate the entire solar system and, eventually, all its Galactic

>neighbours ! .....quick - get Sternglass or Bertell to calculate the

>projected collective dose to all human & alien species, and calculate a

>truly astronomical number of deaths based on LNT........

>

>Jaro 

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM [mailto:RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

>Sent: Tuesday December 04, 2001 9:43 AM

>To: ncohen12@HOME.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: Nukes in Space...

>

>

>I too am thoroughly sick of this mindless anti-nuke gibberish, but I can't

>resist answering this one.  A small but significant fraction of launches

>intended to go far enough away from the earth that they remain in orbit

>don't make it.  The probability is orders of magnitude larger than, for

>example, any accident to a spent nuclear fuel cask that could cause a

>radioactive materials leak or the chance that a truck of spent fuel driving

>by your hour gioves you cancer.  Note -- I am NOT saying that the

>probability of the last two event is zero -- it isn't -- but it's much much

>less than the probability that a space shot won't make it into space, and

>much much much less than the probability that a space shot won't make it

>into the sun. 

>

>To those who think this is a great idea: what are you going to say if we

>actually start spending zillions of dollars building test equipment to test

>this idea?  When the tests don't turn out perfect every time?  When the

>tests fail? 

>

>It's just pie in the sky. 

>

>

>Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. 

>ruthweiner@aol.com 

>



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

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.