[MadIvan]

Give this to a Green. The screaming and fainting that will ensue will provide endless amusement.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Ping!

[backhoe]

Ivan, here in the states, the safe disposal of nuclear waste is tied up in politics, and obstruction from noisy pressure groups.

In actuallity, it is an engineering problem which has already been solved by recycling- a process efficiently & safely used for decades by other countries. Thanks to a muddle-headed Executive Order by Jimmy Carter which still stands, it is blocked here.

We have a nuclear power plant- Plant Hatch- about 60 miles west of here, and for 30 years, all it has produced is clean, cheap electricity. The local paper mill is far more dangerous in terms of pollution, worker injuries, and deaths. Far as I recall, Hatch has never had a fatality, but the pulp mill averages about one a year- falls, burns, crushing. Frankly, I would rather have Hatch nearby, and the paper mill farther away.

[inkling]

I was stationed on a nuclear sub as a reactor operator. When we were underway, I received less radiation than I would have if I was on shore, nowhere near a reactor. The sun and soil generate more radiation than the submarine did. People have been made so irrational about nuclear power, the industry is almost beyond hope. Sad.

[Tribune7]

A disproportionate number of Hiroshima survivors do seem to live unusually long. .

[Tribune7]

Thanks for posting, btw. The pro-nuke message must be spread.

[Billthedrill]

Environmental activists don't oppose nuclear power out of fear of radiation, they oppose it because they oppose technology, period, and for two reasons: first, because it is an artifact of man, who they hate, and second, because it is an artifact of capitalism, which they hate. There isn't actually a great deal of science behind the issue from their point of view.

[Dog Gone]

Given that we can expect global demand for energy to grow at a huge pace as population increases and more nations become developed, it's inevitable that we will face a global energy shortage unless something is done. Ramping up production of oil and gas will not be sufficient.

That something will be nuclear, and every nation will have to have that internal debate within 30 years. Their decision will determine whether they can continue to develop or whether they will decline.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[nmh]

Radiation is a good friend of cancer.

[technomage]

Enviro-whackos and many others are afraid of nuclear power because of three reasons:

1. The term "nuclear" drums up images of Nagasaki and nuclear tests in Nevada and elsewhere. So, they equate a nuclear power plant with nuclear explosions (thank you media!)

2. The movie The China Syndrome is still having an impact (thank you again media AND Hanoi Jane).

3. The enviro-whacko leaders telling us for decades how nuclear power is evil and will destroy us all.

Pure insanity. Nuclear power could start to wean us off of crude. Not a great deal, but enough to make a start.

For quite a while my personal belief has been that W would lose the election due to only two reasons:

1. Republicans doing something(s) really stupid, which they seem to have a knack for.

2. Crude prices. $50.00 a barrel is not far off and most of the major producers are maxed out at production. Plus the fact that here in the USA refining capacity is maxed out. Crude prices could have a catastrophic effect on the world economy except for the oil producing nations.

[punster]

Some examples:

1. Kerala, India. High background area because the soil is largely monazite sand (which contains significant amounts of uranium and thorium). The Kerala province has a lower incidence of cancer than other areas of India (areas which have lower background levels. The background levels are about 15 millisievert.

2. Guaparaj, Brazil. The beaches are also monazite sand. No excess incidence of cancer has been observed.

3. Ramsar, Iran. High background area, with background levels in some places as high as 100 millisievert. No excess cancer incidence has bee observed.

[jennyp]

Energetic PING & BUMP.

[Carry_Okie]

Yet, why, with the notable exception of James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, do the world's environmentalists reject nuclear power, which emits almost no greenhouse gases?

Very simple. The World Wide Fund for Nature was started with funds from Prince Bernhard and the British Royals, both heavily invested in oil. The Pew Charitable Trusts are founded from Sunoco money. The Rockefellers founded the Environmental Grantmakers Association. Maurice Strong (of UN Rio Summit fame) was a biggie in Dome Petroleum.

See a pattern? They don't want the competition from nuclear so they fund environmental NGOs to do their dirty work. They don't want a plentiful supply of oil either because that would depress the price.

[snooker]

Isn't it odd that France gets 80% plus of its electricity from nuclear power and the greens don't let out a peep.

[chaosagent]

Ping

[aruanan]

Hormesis bump!

[ApplegateRanch]

Maybe when I start laying the foundation for the new house, I should substitute crushed pitchblende for the usual gravel in the concrete???

[ApplegateRanch]

I notice "they're" at it again:

Today's headlines, everyone I've seen, has been like "4 Killed in accident at Japanese NUKE plant".

Only when getting down aways, does it state that it was a STEAM leak that scalded them to death, and NO radiation was involved.

An honest headline (and how many papers would THAT sell?) would be "4 Killed by Steam Leak at Power Plant". that, however, does not serve the anti-nuke agenda.

[RadioAstronomer]

Actually, I do not think we would be here without the natural background radiation. IMHO, it helped "push" evolution.