Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:04:32 -0700, jps wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:37:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: jps wrote: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:47:35 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: John H wrote: A good article on nuclear waste disposal. The liberals continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses, but maybe the word is getting out. France has had the right idea for lots of years. http://tinyurl.com/czv338 Note also the Opinion Journal Forum. "Otherwise, great editorial and great message. Unlike its competition, fossil fuel combustion, heavy metal fission does not inherent produce a nasty waste product that needs immediate release into our common atmosphere. It produces a relatively tiny amount of very dense material with useful properties that can be easily stored until it can be recycled and reused. Canceling Yucca Mountain may have been the smartest decision yet by the new administration." Rod Adams Publisher, Atomic Insights Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm The liberals are scared to death of a few tons of Nuclear waste, while they want power plants to capture 3 billion tons/year of carbon dioxide gas and store it forever. (National Geographic figures) It gets worse if they store it as a metal salt, now they are storing 7 billion tons/year of hazardous materials with all of the regulated controls. Can you imagine the kill zone if a large container carbon dioxide ruptures and a few 1000 tons of carbon dioxide gas instantly was spread over a community? Everything, people animals, etc. would be dead for miles. Personally I would prefer a few thousand pounds of Nuclear waste, on container failure it would slowly leak from its containers and could be contained. Really? What if it were blown up by a nuclear explotion? In the 70 years since nuclear energy was developed, name one explosion of a nuclear power plant? Let's assume the nuclear device that explodes was not part of the reactor but delivered via any number of means... You know that Pakistan is on the verge of being a failed state? You know they have had nuclear technology and the means to deliver, right? You know that the Taliban and al Qaeda are quickly taking over territory in Pakistan and may eventually control the country? Is it hard to connect these dots? You think it's fantasy? If a nuclear bomb goes off on a nuclear power plant, the additional radiation due to material in the plant will be miniscule in effect. If that is your rationale for an anti-nuclear plant stance, it's really, really stupid. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/d3vxvm |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Repugs to “go nuclear” | General | |||
Repugs to “go nuclear” | General | |||
Nuclear Proliferation | ASA | |||
I have a nuclear-powered kayak | Touring |