Re: wind, solar and nuclear power

[Zack Clayton <zclayton@YAHOO.COM>]

I was looking at the article and this is what I choked on:



"Exchanging one set of environmental consequences for

another is not a real solution," said Gunter of the

coal-vs.-nuclear question. 



I would like to know what the alternative of exchanging one set of

environmental consequences for another set is?  



Any action has consequences, some are more benign than others. 

Shutting coal and going to solar has the consequence of increased

production of hazardous waste from the production of the solar cells. 

Switching to wind has the consequence of visual pollution (i.e. the

ugly landscape), noise, and increased bird kills.  Hydro? - which

spawning run do you want to disrupt this time?  What senic vista do you

want to flood.  Nuclear, what site do you want to build on and how long

to you want to hold up a disposal site?  



As for the idea of a mass changeover to more efficient appliances, 

where will all those white goods go and are you prepared to recycle all

of them?



Zack Clayton

Health Physicist 3

Columbus,  OH



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/