[pp.int.general] Environmentalists and pirates, free information perspective

[Andrew Norton]

2009/10/27 Félix Robles <redeadlink at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Andrew Norton <ktetch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Radioactive waste seems bad, but it can be reprocessed, to make new
>> fuel from high-level waste. Also, it seems that a lot of the time,
>> people over-hype the danger of nuclear waste, and how bad
>> radioactivity is. I worked, a few years back, on some systems for a
>> company, concerned with telepresence in a nuclear environment. I spent
>> time at Sellafield and THORP (the associated reprocessing plant) and I
>> don't glow.
>>
>
> Perhaps you spent time at those places and you don't glow, but remember that
> it's only because the radioactive material was very controlled. No one can
> assure that the radioactive waste will be under control in 10 thousand
> years, or in 1 million years.
>

100 years ago, we were ignorant about radioactivity. Radium was often
sold as a balm, put it on your lips, your scalp, eat it, it's 'good
for you'.
Today we can control reactions and keep materials separate and 'safe'.
Imagine what will be 100 years from now.

> So we are risking the lifes of future generations: you don't glow, but will
> your descendants glow in  50 thousand years?

The risks are generally over-exaggerated by many. We naturally grew up
in a radioactive environment. In fact, there's strong evidence that
it's due to radioactivity that life actually evolved (through
encouraging genetic mutation)

Look at Chernobyl, right now, the area around it has life, it's not a
luna-esque landscape. In fact, it was designated a wildlife sanctuary
in 2000.

>
>>
>> There have also been other projects, such as a proton-based
>> accelerator. the idea was to fire at waste, either making new fuel, or
>> at least making it safer (either by converting gamma producers to
>> alpha/beta or to shorter hl isotopes, if not to stables in general)
>> Needless to say, funding was cut before even theoretical models could
>> be properly developed (I only heard about it because I know the people
>> behind the Distributed Particle Accelerator Design project at RAL, aka
>> muon1)
>
> So instead of 1 million years we'll just have to wait 240 thousand years
> until it's safe? How nice... I'd support the idea of making nuclear waste
> safer, but I'd only support Nuclear Power Plants when the radioactive waste
> they produce is safe in less than 100 years (for example).
>

There's no 'safe', half lifes are not "this is when it all is gone"
it's a statistical approximation saying that approximately half the
material has decayed. It's all statistical, not fixed. Even
radioactive exposure is again, statistically based. I'll try and get
some more info on that - one of my friends has just become a
Radiologist (he got bored with being a surgeon)

> On the solar technology, well, I hope that as of now the technology is
> energy efficient enough to produce more energy that it consumes! And on that
> calculation it should be added the energy it takes to clean the polluted
> water  through the creation of solar panels.
>
> Good night,
>
> Félix Robles
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>