wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:24:47 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state
accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer
space and the politician gets nothing.

We're not prepared to make the effort to use a cleaner source of
energy and we're not prepared to keep its waste product on our planet
so the solution is to put it off planet and potentially contaminate
somewhere out of this world?

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?



I don't know. I have a moral problem with that. Already, our nearby
space is turning into a junk field. What if all that junk and possible
nuclear waste ever comes back to home? Then we might have a REAL
problem.


You don't send it into orbit like all the other junk that is up there, you
go for a close by star which BTW would consume the waste in the blink of an
eye.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:28:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The
fist
one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.

Any government/politician that does any more than to maintain the
infrastructure and protect its borders is IN OVER IT'S HEAD.

No state police? No weights and measures inspectors? No health
inspectors? No public universities?





--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.





--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:28:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

That statement could just as easily be applied to other places. The
fist
one that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec.

Any government/politician that does any more than to maintain the
infrastructure and protect its borders is IN OVER IT'S HEAD.

No state police? No weights and measures inspectors? No health
inspectors? No public universities?






All better done by the public.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
On 6/8/2013 10:35 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:34:00 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a
safe manner.

I used to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Then I did some
software for a couple of nuclear plants. After listening to the managers
and watching the "trained" people for a couple of months, I changed my
mind.



Ever think it might have been the software? :~)

Sounds more like the problem was wetware at several stages of the decision
making process.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:07:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 6/8/2013 2:25 PM, PV wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 6/8/2013 10:09 AM, PV wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre
nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.

The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude
of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.

The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to
industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked
without submitting to the certifying process.

They were finally brought into submission.

To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people
living with in 50 miles of San Onofre.

Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear
waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.

There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the
waste
material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to
become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.

SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.

Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.

Off the stump.

Lew


Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of
Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in
a safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing
clean, environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds,
creating noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres
and acres of sunbaked land with no trees.

We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in
a pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and
restarted it.

Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it
affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the
cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with
waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the
best fishing lakes in the area.

It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our
air conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is
not dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a
hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move
my small sailboat.

So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?


Probably ends up in NM or Washington State.

It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can pawn
the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a long long
time.

I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
space.

Cause rockets blow up

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem
I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
space.

Cause rockets blow up

Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be
an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.

On 6/10/2013 3:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.


It would be like a famous land mark. If you permit the tourist to take
part of it with every visit, eventually it no longer exist.

If we call all of the earth potential energy, waste, and shoot it into
the sun it no longer exist on earth. When we give our scientist the go
ahead to develop methods to recover, it will no longer be available.

It took a little over four years to separate uranium in the Manhattan
Project, what could we have done in the last 50 years if our scientist
had been encouraged to develop methods to reuse our nuclear waste.

On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.



Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you
have your answer.

On 6/10/2013 7:17 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem
I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
space.

Cause rockets blow up

Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be
an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.



The cargo could be secured in a safe container, even the shuttles had
parts that survived the crashes and blow ups.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.



Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you
have your answer.

Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it takes too much fuel. To eject
something from the solar system completely, you need to speed it up only a little bit, but to
make it fall into the sun, you have to slow it down A LOT. (I used to work with a guy who was
a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer -- and once asked him
exactly the same question: why don't we dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the
sun? and that was his answer.)

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:10:28 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 6/10/2013 7:17 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem
I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer
space.

Cause rockets blow up

Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be
an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.



The cargo could be secured in a safe container, even the shuttles had
parts that survived the crashes and blow ups.

But it would be containment built by the lowest bidder, cutting cost
increase profits.

On 6/10/2013 9:22 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.



Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you
have your answer.

Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it takes too much fuel.

Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how much
would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think that maintenance
of the materials forever might be more expensive than sending some one
to the moon. I am talking on a 1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might
be the real number and in that instance I totally agree that would
probably be way too much trouble and expensive.


To eject
something from the solar system completely, you need to speed it up only a little bit, but to
make it fall into the sun, you have to slow it down A LOT.

I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the waste in
that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct shot at the sun.


(I used to work with a guy who was
a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer -- and once asked him
exactly the same question: why don't we dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the
sun? and that was his answer.)


Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun
would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed
but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that
otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.

Well, for one practical reason, how about the fact that a certain
percentage of space craft launches fail and return their payload to the
ground?


--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 6/10/2013 9:22 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon
wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to
be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously,
the sun would make a great trash burner, but it's something
often discussed but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some
practical reasons for that otherwise I'm guessing it would
have been done already.



Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above
and you have your answer.

Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it
takes too much fuel.

Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how
much would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think
that maintenance of the materials forever might be more
expensive than sending some one to the moon. I am talking on a
1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might be the real number and in
that instance I totally agree that would probably be way too
much trouble and expensive.


To eject
something from the solar system completely, you need to speed
it up only a little bit, but to make it fall into the sun, you
have to slow it down A LOT.

I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the
waste in that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct
shot at the sun.

That takes even more fuel. (I asked about that, too.)


(I used to work with a guy who was
a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer
-- and once asked him exactly the same question: why don't we
dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the sun? and that
was his answer.)


Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL