Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:37:26 -0500, Vic Smith penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:58:41 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 13 May 2007 11:25:49 -0500, Vic Smith penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


No different in many respects than folks not wanting a nuke power
plant down the street.
Trust me, you don't want one. We have one, here, and besides (with
current technology) being a dirty source of energy, it is just plain
expensive.

What's dirty about it, besides fuel disposal?
Dirty is..... nobody wanting the spent fuel to go through their city
or state, so...... now, they are stockpiling it on site.

So, now I am living next to a toxic waste dump, which is next to the
largest ammunition port in the nation, which is about 2 miles from an
airport and is adjacent to a deep water shipping lane.

(Wyoming might be a good repository of spent fuel.)
If you could get Scotty to beam it there, we're good!

Is it releasing as much radiation as a coal-fired plant?
100% of everything "released" from a nuclear plant is radioactive.

I've read coal is anywhere from 3 to 100 times worse than nuke plants
in releasing radiation to the atmosphere.
A specious argument from the "figures don't lie, but liars can figure"
crowd. So what, nuclear plants deposit 100 times less radioactivity
into the atmosphere than coal plants..... BUT *everything* that a
nuclear plant releases is radioactive. Marie Currie started sweeping
radioactivity under the rug in about 1894... nothing has changed,
since.



I believe all toxic waste should be shipped to Texas, where it belongs.
Anything leftover, ship it to Wyoming.