On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:26:44 -0400, "http://www.boat-ed.com/"
www.boat-ed.com/ wrote:

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?

That seems like a great reason for the US not to build any of the US
Nuclear Power plants in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

I'm not sure we have the capability of stopping a plan of attack in
the US given that our weaknesses haven't been tested.