[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "POLLUTION FREE"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't coal/gas/oil plants have to cool their
spent steam also? What's the difference in excess thermal energy between a
nuclear and non-nuclear plant?
In Message Thu, 30 Nov 95 16:12:04 -0600,
"DAVE GILMORE" <DGILMORE@navajo.astate.edu> writes:
>Excuse me, but what about thermal pollution? I don't know much about
>nuclear power, but aren't large amounts of water needed for cooling
>purposes with resulting elevation of temperature in the receiving
>waters? Temperature changes can cause population changes in various
>organisms, from microbes on up.
>
> > Well, how about >
>> No carbon dioxide, no NOx, no unburned hydrocarbons, no soot,
>flyash,
>> acid rain, no smoke, no smog, no noise, negligible gaseous radioactive
>> releases, all solid radwaste is buried and secured from human contact
>> for 300 years. Our liquid effluents have not been found to
>> concentrate significantly in the aquatic life in the rivers, lakes or
>> oceans. Oh yes, what about that spent fuel? While it is a problem,
>> it cannot be considered pollution. If the public ever gets over its
>> unfounded fear of radiation (or something equally dramatic happens)
>> the spent fuel can be safely stored underground virtually
>> forever--still, no pollution.
>> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
>> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Blue Ice & [I-131]
>> Author: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
>> Date: 11/29/95 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>> Would you expand upon the concept of "pollution free", please?
>>
>> David F. Gilmore,
>Assistant Professor of 0 0
>Environmental Biology __ "have a day"
>Arkansas State University
**********************************************************************
William G. Nabor
University of California, Irvine
EH&S Office
Irvine, CA, 92717-2725
WGNABOR@UCI.EDU
**********************************************************************