Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site utecfc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!utecfc!dennis
From: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <40@utecfc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 19:16:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: utecfc.40
Posted: Mon Sep 16 19:16:11 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 22:26:37 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> <793@lsuc.UUCP> <5960@utzoo.UUCP> <2182@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: dennis@utecfc.UUCP (Dennis Ferguson)
Organization: Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto
Lines: 87
Summary: 

In article <2182@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes:
>
>    The real problem with nuclear reacors on subs is the same problem
>as with nuclear reactors on land; *waste materials*!  I don't believe
>that products from coal burning power plants are more dangerous. If
>I am wrong on this count, then I can at least state that they will
>not remain that dangerous for thousands of years. High grade radio-
>active wastes do!  They will be around, and still be deadly, long after
>Canada, the US, and the USSR are long forgotten.
>
>    Also note that we have been storing the nuclear wastes for about 
>40 years now. Already we have many cases of leaking dump sites,
>*AFTER ONLY FORTY YEARS*.

To deal with the above out of order:

While I am aware of some relatively minor problems with uranium mine
mill tailings, I have not heard of any problems being encountered with
the storage of nuclear waste in Canada (the U.S. I don't know about, I'd
be interested in any specific information you might have).  I do know
without a doubt that there are no leaking dump sites containing wastes
from Canadian reactors in commercial power generating stations since
there are no dump sites for this waste, period.  The waste created by
all Candu reactors is stored at the generating station in a big swimming
pool, waiting for someone to figure out what to do with it.  The point
is, though, that there has yet to be, to my knowledge, a case of serious
environmental damage attributable to Canadian nuclear power production.

I wish the same could be said of the waste products of burning coal.  For
starters, coal-fired generating stations, particularly those burning Eastern
North American coal (i.e. in Ontario and most of the Eastern and Mid Western
states), emit tremendous quantities of sulphur dioxide into the air, most
of which returns to us as acid rain.  Already the most environmentally
sensitive part of the eastern continent, the Canadian Shield, has sustained
massive damage.  The number of lakes which no longer support life is
in the thousands, and will soon number in the tens of thousands if the
situation does not improve.  The PH of the soil is also dropping, to the
point where, in some areas, the forests are thinning.  What is the value
of a lake, or a forest?  How many billions of dollars of environmental
damage has already been caused, in no small measure, by power production
from coal?  What will happen when the problem extends further south to
the farm lands of southern Ontario and Quebec?  The inevitable consequences
should we continue on like this are not pleasant to think about.

Of greater long term impact is the production of carbon dioxide by
combustion processes and, as such, coal-fired power plants are major
producers.  The effect of an increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere is to raise the temperature of the planet by making reducing
the reradiation of heat back into space.  The amount of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere has already increased drastically from preindustrial days
(I think 100%), much of this in the last 30 years.  I have read a number of
opinions concerning the effect on polar ice of a 5 degree rise in the world's
average temperature, with estimates of the increase in sea level ranging from
30 to 250 feet.  Look at a map and see what would be gone, in Toronto we're
1000 miles from the ocean but only 260 feet above sea level.  And this within
between thirty and not more than seventy years at the present rate of
increase.  Not to mention the effect on the land that is left.  A 5 degree
average temperature rise would probably make Canada quite a bit more pleasant,
but would not be so nice for countries nearer the equator, some of which have
large populations and a fragile agricultural economy at best even now.

Yes, if we reduce our reliance on coal for power production the situation
will worsen at a lesser rate, and maybe if we eliminate this altogether (along
with INCO and cars and ...) and wait long enough the forests and lakes
will recover from the damage already caused.  And certainly even if we
shut down all nuclear reactors tomorrow we will still be stuck with caretaking
large quantities of waste already produced for the next fifty thousand years
or so, and be faced with a finite *probability* that a major disaster involving
this waste will occur.  But I see no signs of our reducing coal usage in
any way, in fact just the opposite.  Every time construction of a new
nuclear reactor is halted, whether by public pressure or by cost or whatever,
we simply replace the power which would have been generated over the 30 year
life of that reactor by another coal-fired station belching more crud into
the atmosphere.  The way things are going now, given the record of the
nuclear industry versus the already proven damage in great measure due to
coal power generation, I'd be willing to bet you that the coal kills most
of us long before the nuclear waste does.

Don't get me wrong, I have *alot* less faith in the people that run nuclear
reactors than you seem to, and the future prospects scare me.  I just don't
think we should stop building them while there's a coal-fired plant left to
be replaced.  Better to take a chance on nuclear power than to face the
certainties associated with coal.

---
					Dennis Ferguson
					...!utcsri!utecfc!dennis