brian
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: Nuclear waste and Us vs. the Government (was: Radium) [some |
 |
|
Valkyre1 wrote:
| Quote: | OK Yakkers, fair warning right here that Brian and I are going to
begin a fun verbal sparring match that does have something to do with
keeping our warbirds flying, but will likely stray off onto another
philosophical tangent. Let's start with remembering that our concern
here is with the Feds basically grounding our aircraft due to "parts no
longer available." They are killing off previously legal businesses that
supply us with the parts at an affordable price and damaging these good
people who have been providing them.
|
I agree with you 100%.
| Quote: | The point of my last posting was to provide what I thought might
be potential legal ammunition in our arsenal to fight this battle should
the membership choose to do so. We may want to do this before the whole
thing spins out of control and gets too big to fight.
|
I agree with you 100% on this too.
| Quote: | Brian, if you're right about the recycling of nuclear waste into
a viable form of energy independence in our lifetimes, then I will
apologize and owe you a nice steak dinner.
|
Then you owe me a nice steak dinner.
| Quote: | I don't think that the states
that are reaping the benefits of producing it or the Japanese believe
that or they would be keeping it in their own back yards as we speak.
|
The problem with nuclear "waste" is not technical but rather political
and security. But let me deal with the technical part of it first.
One of the byproducts of Uranium fission is Plutonium. (Where do you
think the Plutonium comes from for nuclear weapons?) The real problem
with Plutonium is that it is one of the most poisonous materials in the
world, let alone its radioactivity. As we don't have Plutonium reactors
to use the Plutonium "waste" we are forced to store it along with the
other fission products. (The direct fission products are Barium-144 and
Krypton-89 but you get all sorts of trace nasties from the further decay
of Barium, Krypton, and other stuff.)
Also, the fuel used in light-water reactors (the type we use in the US
to provide electrical power) requires some level of enrichment
(chemically concentrating the fissionable U-235), typically to something
like 20%. As the fuel is consumed, as soon as it drops below a critical
mass (sustaining level) the nuclear reaction will not proceed and the
fuel rods are "spent". Still, the rods contain lots of Uranium-235. All
you need to do is to reprocess the rods to remove the fission products
and to extract the unconsumed U-235 to make new rods.
But we aren't allowed to reprocess spent fuel rods in the US.
So, yes, there is a lot of useful "fuel" left in "waste" fuel rods. If
you go to the trouble of building reactors that produce fuel (breeder
reactors) and reactors that will "burn" plutonium, you can have power
almost forever without having to mine more Uranium.
Still, there will be some fission products that are long-lived,
poisonous, and radioactive that are not usable for anything else and
must be stored somewhere.
So you get back to the political and security issues. First you have a
lot of people who would rather die than think who are convinced that
nuclear power is dangerous and will fight to the death to prevent anyone
from bringing anything near them. The solution is education but how do
you educate people who a) think science is for jerks, and b) would
rather die than think?
The second problem is security. If someone can lay hands on all that
nuclear waste, they have a source of plutonium from which they can build
nuclear weapons. All they have to do is to process the spent fuel to
extract the plutonium.
| Quote: | We
object to taking the risk for their profits. Where did you say you
live? I'll tell them that you're anxious to live next to the stuff and
you can take the goodies.
|
Well, I live in Folsom but would not have any trouble living next to a
railroad track where they are transporting nuclear waste nor would I be
averse to living next to a nuclear waste repository. Should a train
derail and the spent fuel rods end up in my front yard I calmly walk out
my back door and walk to safety. They pick up the fuel rods and I go
back home.
OTOH, I *would* be concerned living next to a railroad track where they
are transporting industrial chemicals like chlorine. If a train derails
near my house, the tank is ruptured, and I am downwind, I am most likely
dead right then and there.
| Quote: | I prefer the, "catch them, shoot them, drop their bodies in a
ditch and
throw dirt on them," approach to dealing with terrorists instead of
running, hiding, or pretending that we are actually dealing with
terrorist effectively. (The latter is the Bush administration's
approach.)
My position, again, is that the city that stirred up the bear
should keep it in their own back yard instead of chasing it into ours. I
just don't believe in stuffing a nice juicy steak down my britches while
trying to outrun the bear. I personally believe that any decisions that
are made out of fear or anger will be bad decisions.
|
My point there had to do with terrorists. You want to solve the problem?
You attack the source. You don't make yourself a less attractive target
and hope that will keep them from wanting to make an example of your
domicile.
And virtually every decision in the US having to do with either nuclear
power or terrorism has been a bad decision made in fear and/or anger.
| Quote: | No, I'm not afraid to confront terrorists, and this is not what's
running my mouth. On the contrary, that's why during the years following
911 I voluntarily was chosen and went to the first class of Federal
Flight deck Officers trained at the Law Enforcement Academy in Glynco
Georgia. We were specifically taught how and when to responsibly "stop"
(kill) terrorists in the act. I deliberately chose to fly the "bad
guys missiles of choice (Boeing 767/757) to their targets of choice (
NYC/ LGA/BOS/EWR/DC/and LAX). Not because I was "looking for trouble",
but because with this training and 19 years of martial arts, I felt that
I was best equipped to handle it successfully and identify it before it
happened again.
|
Martial arts are good (I did TaeKwanDo myself) but it is hard to beat a
good blaster at your side when you want to "reach out and touch
someone." (This reminds me of that scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
where Indiana Jones is confronted by a scimitar-wielding martial-arts
expert and he dispatches his adversary with his revolver.)
| Quote: | You also mentioned the thousands of people in India that were
killed and affected by the transport and spills of dangerous chemicals
through populated areas. Point granted and we are all well aware of
this.
|
You might be but it is a stretch to say "we are all well aware ..." Most
people are NOT aware. They choose not to be aware. There is no question
in my mind but that normal industrial chemicals pose a much greater
threat to life and limb than do nuclear wastes. It is just that people
don't react emotionally to industrial chemicals the way they do to
radioactivity. (I think it was all those B-grade movies back in the
1950's that did it. The fear of being attacked by giant ants or giant
men in rubber dinosaur suits is pretty terrifying.)
| Quote: | In this case it's a nationwide battle here that none of us are
likely to win, so we pretty much have to fight small issues and live
with it. Nuclear waste presents a very real potential to not only kill
thousands immediately, but to render that area uninhabitable for
hundreds of years with no viable clean up recourse that I know of. Dead
is dead.
|
Pardon me but the word "horsehockey" comes to mind here. We have
actually seen a worst-case scenario resulting from a nuclear accident --
Chernobyl. That is why I chose to compare it to Bhopal which was a
straight ahead industrial accident. The thing everyone feared actually
*happened*. But it did not kill thousands. It killed 42. Bhopal killed
thousands.
No I do not want to see a Chernobyl happen again but I am not going to
live in abject terror of nuclear power over it as I know that the threat
is pretty darned small compared to all the other things around me that
are a LOT more likely to kill me. And economic decay is going to kill a
lot of people too but no one will be able to measure its death toll so
it will be ignored.
| Quote: | In aviation, waiting until you have a body count before you
address a problem is not an acceptable means of handling it.
|
But that *is* how we handle it in aviation. It usually takes a "body
count" before we realize we even have a problem. But that aside, flying
is darned safe even if there are still threats we haven't recognized.
| Quote: | You are
exactly right in posing the question of "Are you willing to Handle it?"
when referring to the huge amount of cash and legal governmental backing
that we may be going up against. That was the question that I posed to
the list as to whether this particular battle had enough long term and
far reaching consequences to justify the sacrifices. Then, what do we
have in the way of an effective arsenal to fight with?
|
Ah, now we are getting back to the productive discussion. And you have
hit the nail on the head. You have to pick a point and make a stand and
then fight to the last man (or woman). Bureaucrats are not notorious for
standing their ground when faced with a serious threat but there are a
hell of a lot of them and they have a hell of a lot of money. And they
have the rest of the government on their side.
How do you get thousands or tens-of-thousands of people to protest and
fight? There are a few who will fight but the bureaucrats are pretty
good at focusing energy on the few. They just need to get rid of the
activists a few at a time. The rest of the population will then meekly
knuckle under. They win; we lose.
| Quote: | All I know is that it's a sure bet that the societies that live
in fear of standing up to the wrongs their governments attempt to
perpetrate on them are no longer in existence. As I said before, let's
choose our battles carefully, all things reviewed, and make our
decisions based on those facts.
|
But you have to make a stand somewhere. I am prepared to make a stand
but I want to have as much leverage as possible and I sure as hell don't
want to stand alone.
| Quote: | For anyone who has managed to slog through Brian and my
philosophical rants, I hope that your coffee is still warm and that you
had fun too. I'm out now because I have a lot to learn about CJs and
Yaks from those of you who are putting out some good stuff about the
machines. Brian included, he always has a wealth of information to
impart.
|
Thank you. That is far and away the nicest anyone has ever told me that
I am full of it. 
| Quote: | (The rants really are kind of fun though aren't they? I always
learn something there too, even if I may not agree. Dissent is good.)
|
Yes, but I do it too much. <sigh>
| Quote: | Thanks Brian. By the way, where do you want me to send that stuff
again? You live in California don't -cha? (LOL)
|
Yeah, like the Unthinking People's Republic of California (UPRC) is
going to go along with that? Dreamer.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
