"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil
fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around
the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly
idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a
moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock.

My God, he is the only with insight now.

I have some insight into the matter.
There are very many other folk who also
have insight (more than me) about
waste disposal.

The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier
to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant.

But is isn't!! It is dumped at the bottom
of the ocean in casks that
might last 100 years, then they will slowly
leak their toxic contents into the
ocean and into the food chain. This is a
very sill idea. As people in the
20th century cursed the Victorian legacy
of piled up dangerous slag heaps
and other filth, future generations will
think the same of us.

You have behaved exactly as I expected
a member of the non-nuclear lobby to
behave. You trotted oout the received
wisdom before you even knew what my
case was based on.
I am not speaking about dumping anything
anywhere.

Existing nuclear power needs to dump the waste, that is one of the big
problems.

I have spent all my working life in particle
accelerator laboratories.
(Atom smashers to you).

No wonder you shout about highly dangerous nuclear. One thing I have learnt
well in life is that people will defend to the hilt whoever pays their wages
.. They even tell themselves lies and then believe it.

I know that practically any element which is exposed to a sufficiently
large
does of high energy particles will be converted into a *short* lived
radioactive element. In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown
to
be entirely feasible.
It has even been shown that the energy in the heat produced in the process
of transmuting the waste elements is within a hair's breadth enough to
make
the whole process self-sufficient in energy requirements.

This is not as yet proven in the field. Currently we have nuclear waste,
which in the past 50 years has been disposed of appallingly badly.

The only reason as far as I can see that no government has so far acted
on the suggestion is that they are either all dead scared of the
anti-nuclear lobbies, or they don't understand the very innovative
suggestion..

The waste can be dumped down deep disused mines
and then the seams concreted
up. In 1000 years time someone will probably tunnel into it. Of course
they will make a record, which will be lost. There are 4, 5 or 6 (no
one
quite knows) underground stores of TNT under Belgium fields. No one
quite
knows where they are. These were the largest non-nuclear bombs ever
made.
The British would tunnel under the German trenches, fill with TNT and
detonate, killing 10,000 men in one explosion from one bomb. The
disused
bombs were not used because the British trenches had moved forwards over
them. One of these bombs went off by accident in 1955. Luckily no one
was
killed. It is a matter of time before the others explode. Records of
where the bombs are? Some, but not all.

You have simply regurgitated all the standard anti-nuclear lobby
scaremongering arguments.

Which are based on how human beings act and react. Nuclear is a "highly"
dangerous energy. It needs to be handled 100% correctly at all times, with
procedures followed 100% correctly at all times. It needs to be disposed of
100% correctly at all time. If not the consequences can be dire indeed. If
the many, many 1000s of power stations all over the world were nuclear, does
anyone sane think that everything from now to eternity will be handled 100%
correctly at all times. If you think that you are half mad.

I lived in the Middle East, where air controllers would drop the controls to
face Mecca and prey as planes were flying all over the place around the
airport and about to land. I saw it in front of me, with pilots screaming
down the radio to them. Many pilots would abort and fly to safety. Atoms
for peace my arse!!! Putting this sort of equipment in the hands of such
people is madness. In 1st world countries they can't even get it right,
what chance in the third world, where logic and values are very different.

What you omitted to say is that fossil
fuel plants don't even try to deal
with their waste. They simply pour it
into the atmosphere and contribute
grossly to the greenhouse effect
which is harming the planet NOW,
not in the 1000 years from now
scenario which you dutifully trot out.

That is being addressed. At least their waste can be discarded in a slap
dash way, which nuclear cannot.

If every powerstatio in the world was nuclear,
where would all the waste go?

I have indicated one totally acceptable method of coping: Convert all
into
short lived radioactive nucleids and wait a few days before advertising it
for sale or burying it under the road.

Privately owned stations would cheaply
dump the waste (illegal dumping of
chemicals in all countries is common),

I am not in favour of a privatised nuclear
industry, but it would be no
great shakes to set up a suitable inspectorate.

Yerrr!! Sure it will work. In Italy millions of Lire will buy them off make
no mistake about it. And in just about every other third world country too.

insead of down expensive deep mines
and sealing up with concrete. It is the human error aspect that is the
flaw. When it goes wrong the effects last for 100s of years after.

You have said this before. I have pointed
out that with the scheme I
favour, it is all irrelevant.

Also, cases of leukaemia are far greater around nuclear facilities.

(1) You have not ever studied the evidence for that The statistical
significance of the evidence is quite poor.

Not what I read and TV programmes are highlighted.

(2) There are also (stronger?) pockets
of leukaemia in areas which have
nothing to do with nuclear power stations.

Two wrongs do not make a right. That chemical plant has high cases of
leukaemia, so na, na, na, we should have some cases around our nuclear plant
too.

Just co-incidence the nuclear people say. ********!!!

No not ********. The statistical evidence is in fact quite weak.

The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead
the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the
issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

They have a lot of common sense, that is clear.

No, it is not at all clear. They are simply grinding axes most of the
time.

Dependency on fossil fuel
power can be vastly reduced by use of insulation, passive solar,
superior
town planning eliminating cars, CHP, more efficient engines, etc, etc.

Not "vastly", as you said. The correct adjective is "somewhat"

No! "vastly". Transportation is greatly reduced and energy to heat and cool
is virtually eliminated.

And, by the way, there are arguments to
counter what you call flaws in your
own regurgitated suggestions for dumping,
but I won't bother, since dumping
is not essential at all.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004