Protesting for the Fun of It

[rubato]

I check the facts. You spew crap out of your mouth.


"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_po ... processing
...Reprocessing

US policy forbade nuclear reprocessing inside the country from 1976 to 1981. Since the GNEP was proposed, several reprocessing proposals have been made. Most recently an environmental review initiated under the terms of the GNEP was cancelled, maintaining the status quo in the US for the time being.[19] ... "

How stupid do you have to be to blame the lack of reprocessing on Carter?

Bone-stupid? Rock-stupid? Republican-stupid?

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Andrew, you are simply wrong. The "competent entities" you refer to have uniformly started with the conclusion they wished to reach. The people who know the science - those who work in the field - have no hesitation to work or live in or near these facilities because they understand the risks and the measures that have been taken to manage them. If you actually read the science and listen to those who are most technically competent, these issues were resolved a couple generations ago.

Of course many people do not hesitate to work or live in or near nuclear facilities, because they have assessed both components of the "risk" -- how likely it is that the bad thing will happen and how bad the bad thing is -- and concluded that although the the bad thing is very bad, the likelihood of the bad thing's happening is so small as to outweigh its badness.

We make such decisions all the time. I drive on the freeways. I know that there is some possibility that my vehicle will malfunction, that another driver will screw up, etc., with the result that I end up dead. I continue to drive on the freeways, not because I do not recognize the possibility that I will end up dead, but because I also recognize that the likelihood that I will arrive safely at my destination is overwhelming.

I wrote:

The fact remains that numerous assessments by reputable, competent entities have concluded that in a worst-case-scenario, the negative consequences would be catastrophic.

I don't think that that is seriously disputed. In the extremely unlikely event that everything which could possibly go wrong were to go wrong -- which is what "worst-case scenario" means -- the negative consequences would be catastrophic.

That, by itself, does not mean that we should forego nuclear power, just as the fact that if everything which could possibly go wrong were to go wrong, I would end up dead does not, by itself, mean that I should stop driving on the freeways. It does mean, however, that simply saying "it can't happen" is not a competent analysis of the risks and benefits involved. It can happen. It very probably won't, but it can. And any competent analysis of the risks and benefits involved must take into account, one way or another, the unlikely but not out-of-the-question possibility of total catastrophe.

The general public has not yet been persuaded, at least not enough so that objections to nuclear power are not carrying any weight, that the minuteness of the likelihood of total catastrophe is sufficient to outweigh the negative consequences in the very unlikely event that total castrophe were to occur. That is especially true because of the public perception of available alternatives.

Why take even a very small likelihood of mass death in order to get nuclear power, when we can get solar power or wind power or geothermal power or whatever -- not just alone but in combination -- without taking any perceptible risk at all of mass death? Why is it unreasonable to say that although the likelihood of total catastrophe is very small, total catastrophe is so bad that it is not worth hazarding even on extremely good odds?

[dgs49]

Yes, Andrew, but that's the rub. We are experiencing mass deaths. The pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is prematurely ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of people every year. And if you buy the global warming nonsense, it is accelerating our slide to the precipice of whatever it is they think we are going to suffer.

My whole POINT is that the public has not been persuaded. We have a cottage industry of people who, either through ignorance or egotism, continue to sound the alarms about risks that are quite manageable, and the threats of "catastrophes" that are so overblown as to be dangerously stupid.

Just last week, a report comes out of the European Union, "The European Commission has adopted a ten-year strategy for energy, underlining the role nuclear plays as the continent's largest source of low-carbon power." These folks are, to put it mildly, risk averse. They have investigated the science and come up with the correct conclusion. If they had any inkling that an "accident" could cause massive casualties like you have mentioned in your postings, they would be running - not walking - away from commercial nuclear power, but the opposite is true.

As for the rubato person, he has again done 30 seconds of half-assed research into the subject of fuel reprocessing. President Carter shut down a COMMERCIAL reprocessing facility, on which hundreds of millions of private dollars had been spent, leaving the investors in the lurch. NO PRIVATE INVESTORS WILL EVER TOUCH THIS AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS DONE. Who could ever go to their stockholders and propose such a venture now, with this dabacle on record? He killed reprocessing in this country until such time as the federal government is willing to fund or guarantee financing of a reprocessing plant.

See this site for some eminently readable, reliable information on the subject. Though it is dated, it is still 99% accurate.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html

[rubato]

"...

As for the rubato person, he has again done 30 seconds of half-assed research into the subject of fuel reprocessing. President Carter shut down a COMMERCIAL reprocessing facility, on which hundreds of millions of private dollars had been spent, leaving the investors in the lurch. NO PRIVATE INVESTORS WILL EVER TOUCH THIS AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS DONE. Who could ever go to their stockholders and propose such a venture now, with this dabacle on record? He killed reprocessing in this country until such time as the federal government is willing to fund or guarantee financing of a reprocessing plant.

See this site for some eminently readable, reliable information on the subject. Though it is dated, it is still 99% accurate.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html

Still waiting for evidence.

Waiting waiting waiting. Waiting.


yrs,
rubato