Note: This book was published in 1990 and is already out of date.
While I don't disagree with much of what is said, there are some
specific errors of fact or logic given below ...
"Nitrogen oxides are best known as the principal pollutant from
automobiles and are the reason why cars need expensive pollution
control equipment which requires them to use lead-free gasoline;"
Wrong - lead additives were removed from fuels because lead in the
environment is of itself harmful, and it was the introduction of
lead-free petrol for these other reasons that then allowed catalytic
convertor technology to become practical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_Replacement_Petrol
"Lead is very toxic and lead compounds in exhaust gases escape into
the atmosphere causing pollution. Impacts on human health are widely
documented. This led to the introduction of lead-free petrol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...verter#History
"Widespread adoption of catalytic converters didn't occur until more
stringent emission control regulations forced the removal of the
anti-knock agent, tetraethyllead, from most gasoline, because lead was
a 'catalyst poison' and would inactivate the converter by forming a
coating on the catalyst's surface, effectively disabling it."
This same paragraph containing the above error also contains:
- 2 examples of qualifiers such as 'perhaps' when claiming
causality;
- "And next comes the ash, the solid material produced at a rate of
1,000 pounds per minute, which is left behind to cause serious
environmental problems and long-term damage to our health." ... "And
then there are heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and many others that
are known or suspected of causing cancer, plus a myriad of other
health impacts." ... "And then there are heavy metals like lead,
cadmium, and many others that are known or suspected of causing
cancer, plus a myriad of other health impacts. Finally there is
uranium, thorium, and radium, radioactive wastes released from coal
burning that serve as a source of radon gas." The latter two are the
principle hazard in the first, but he's stating them as if they are
three different things.
The above show that this is someone struggling to make a biased case.
"For example, if all the air pollution emitted from a coal plant in
one day were inhaled by people, 1? million people could die from it,3
which is 10 times the number that could be killed by ingesting or
inhaling the waste produced in one day by a nuclear plant. [para]
This is obviously an unrealistic comparison ..."
Exactly, so why make it then?
"For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be
to convert the waste into a glass — a technology that is well in hand
— and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations."
RANDOM locations?! Geologically stable ones I could understand at
least, but RANDOM locations? For example, would this include the
mid-Atlantic ridge, a constructive plate margin where undersea
eruptions frequently take place?
"Another, and very different, way of comparing the dangers of nuclear
and coal waste is on the basis of how much they are changing our
exposures to toxic agents. The typical level of sulfur dioxide in the
air of American cities is 10 times higher than natural levels, and the
same is true for the principal nitrogen oxides.6 For cancer-causing
chemicals the ratio is much higher."
But what percentage of these increases are actually caused by burning
coal to produce electricity, rather than burning other fuels to move
about?
"For radiation, on the other hand, exposures expected from
hypothetical problems with nuclear waste are in the range of 1 mrem or
less, tens of thousands of times below those for which there is direct
evidence for harm to human health."
I've not heard anyone claiming that the problem from nuclear waste is
one of general public exposure to it - that usually only arises from
accidents (or, hypothetically, from potential terrorist action).
"One option is to dispose of the spent fuel directly by sealing fuel
assemblies into canisters and burying them. A much more rational
approach from the standpoint of long-range planning is to put the fuel
through a chemical reprocessing operation to separate out the uranium
and plutonium which are valuable for future use as fuels, and to
convert the residual material into a form suitable for burial. If we
follow the first option, our uranium resources will run out sometime
during the next century, whereas the second option can provide all of
the energy humans will need for as long as they inhabit planet Earth,
without an increase in fuel costs (see Chapter 13)."
There are two mistakes, at least, in this paragraph:
"the second option can provide all of the energy humans will need for
as long as they inhabit planet Earth" is ********. Uranium fuel is a
finite resource, it cannot last a potentially infinite time.
"without an increase in fuel costs". I've linked many times before to
evidence that reprocessing fuel does increase fuel costs. That's
exactly why it isn't currently done.
"Storage facilities for waste packages have been designed, and there
would be no great difficulty or expense in building them."
A bland assumption stated as fact.
"We have already pointed out that producing the materials for
deployment of a solar array requires about 3% as much coal burning as
producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning."
A specious argument. Why assume that solar arrays have to be made
using electricity produced from coal? Why not use wind or nuclear
powered electricity to make them instead? And, in the interests of
fairness, why aren't the carbon and electrical inputs into mining,
refining, and reprocessing nuclear fuel included and compared with
those for coal and solar power?
"We showed in Chapter 8 that there are many ways that money can be
used to save lives at a rate of at least one life saved per $100,000
spent. But even suppose that so many improvements are instigated that
it will cost $1 million to save a life in the distant future (all our
discussions discount inflation). There is a continuous record
extending back 5,000 years of money always being able to draw at least
3% real (i.e., discounting inflation) interest. Each dollar invested
now at 3% interest is worth $2.5 million after 500 years and will
therefore be capable of saving more than one life."
Another specious argument - the same principles will apply in 500
years as now, and then 500 later, and so on; the net result of
applying this argument consistently throughout time would be that no
money at all would ever get spent on saving lives.
"The current status is that a tentative site has been selected, under
Yucca mountain in Nevada".
Work on this site is no longer funded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_M...ste_repository
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:53:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html