Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: The Safest Way Message-ID: <5986@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 17:29:21 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.5986 Posted: Thu Sep 19 17:29:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 17:29:21 EDT References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 71 > >By any measure (even radioactivity released to the environment), nuclear > >power causes less environmental damage than any of its major competitors. > > This, I presume, is another well established "fact". As a matter of fact, it is. If you ignore the propaganda (from both sides) and dig out the numbers instead. > Considering that we have been operating nuclear power plants for > less than fifty years, and storing waste for even less, > I would be most interested in the evidence for this claim. We haven't been operating large power plants of *any* kind for all that long. Nuclear is not much worse off than (say) coal in this regard. Note that we have one limited data point for waste storage for two billion years, the Oklo natural reactor. Its wastes appear to have been trapped quite effectively despite water trickling through constantly. Difficult to be sure about the details after this long, but it's a hopeful sign. > Bearing in mind that we will be charged with safely storing nuclear > waste for tens of thousands of years, such evidence is something > I would be reluctant to bank on. We will be charged with safely storing hundreds of times as much toxic waste from coal for the rest of eternity, if we don't go nuclear. > >All other major sources of power create mutagens, and mutagenicity is > >the main reason for fearing radioactive leakage. > > None approach the longevity of the most virulent nuclear wastes. Most chemical mutagens are stable, i.e. permanent. Nuclear wastes do eventually decay! > I don't consider the Pacific Ocean, where there are at this > moment leaking waste cannisters, a local aquifer. Nobody contends that all existing nuclear waste has been handled properly or disposed of safely. Nobody in his right mind talks about using the oceans for waste disposal any more. > Q: What would be the effects of such contamination? > A: We don't know. Provided it's not concentrated, we do know: not much, since life on Earth has been coping with natural radioactivity for its entire existence. > I wasn't aware that the mutagenetic "superiority" of > say, dioxin, had been established over say, plutonium. Plutonium is severely dangerous only when inhaled. Many natural substances are more dangerous when taken into the body in more orthodox ways. The numbers on toxicity are in the public literature, not that hard to find. > ... we aren't comparing chemical dumpsites and > nuclear power. We are comparing the potential effects > of wide-spread use of nuclear power with alternative sources. Since the major alternative to nuclear power is coal, we *are* worried about chemical dump sites. Where do you think stack-scrubber waste from coal-burning plants goes? > Let's WORRY about ALL waste materials, and let's not jump > on a nuclear bandwagon before we know where it's going. Let's not jump OFF it until we know where the alternative is going. Other forms of power production have waste problems too, remember. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry