Gordon Liddy was also an enthusiast for "will"

Friedrich von Blowhard again attempts to connect Political Will and Nuclear Waste Storage.

Is this more faith-based science? Bending of spoons with a steely-gaze? I don't know yet.

Comments

[Person of Choler]

France generates approximately 80% of its electricity in nuclear plants. So help me out on this: Have the French been observed to be dying early in inordinate numbers? Do large mutant cheeses stalk Franche-Comté? Does the bottle of Gigondas you picked up at Trader Joe's glow in the dark? Do the French stage massive public demonstrations against nuclear waste transportation? Are the French also dabbling in faith based science?

[David Sucher]

As I stated: "I don't know yet." That means I have not yet read carefully (as opposed to scan) Friedrich's post. Moreover, as the post is posed as an explicit response to my concerns, I would hope to find an explicit discussion of the problem of the storage/protection etc etc of nuclear wastes over the thousands of years they will need to be protected. If it is not there I will be disappointed.

And what you might also ask -- and I notice that you are asking questions but, to my mind, not the key one -- is "How do the French handle nuclear wastes?"

[Person of Choler]

For an answer to how France handles nuclear waste, start here:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

It is a complex subject, requiring more than a perusal (careful of not) of Friedrich's post.

[David Sucher]

I took a look at that link (in the comment immediately above.) I am not sure how one is supposed to find it in any way reassuring. The French don't seem to know what to do with nuclear wastes either.

[Person of Choler]

The French know what to do with nuclear waste, as do others: seal it in very old, very stable water-free rocks. The problem is that an intractably anti-nuclear protest movement jerks every political and media wire and lever to prevent safe long term management of nuclear waste.

[Brian Miller]

But, too often, those "stable" storage sites turn out to have water nearby...or seismic activity....or cracks and holes that allow venting. The Nevada site is not as clearly safe as its advocates protest, for example.

[Person of Choler]

The hard-core opponents of nuclear power will never consider anything about the industry to be "safe".

What is meant by "safe", anyway?

[Brian Miller]

Perhaps not having nuclear waste leaking into your water supply?

Not depending on perfect security for 100,000 years-longer than any human civilization has lasted by a factor of 20.

[Person of Choler]

Brian, (1) put the waste where there isn't water and hasn't been any for a very long time.

(2) I've never understood the hundred thousand year thing. I don't believe that the anti-nukes are really concerned about humanity that far in the future. I think it is a case of "any stick will do to beat a dog". There are large populations in considerable danger right now from catastrophic events and nobody seems particularly excited about the situation. For example, Western Washington State. (See, for example, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/coast/waves/fault.html) There is a nasty earthquake with an associated whopping big tsunami waiting to happen, perhaps relatively soon.

It would seem to me to make more sense for the protectors of humanity to prioritize the "unsettlement" of Seattle, and those areas to be affected by Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Rainier (which blew about 400 years ago and will do so again) and quit worrying for a while about the folks who may or may not be here in 100 millennia.

[David Sucher]

Person.
Why do you bring things down to casting aspersions on other people's motivations? I don't get it. Is that necessary to your argument?
Unless the issue of motivation is important, I will have to ask you to cease.

[Person of Choler]

I am asking why it is important to be worried about theoretical problems for people 100,000 years in the future why nobody seems to be interested in very similar problems facing many people right this minute.

I think one could be forgiven for "casting aspersions" after reading your cracks about spoon bending and Liddy; neither of which or whom is particularly germane to the topic. It is hard to mistake this for a sarcasm-free zone.

However, this is your own operation and, if it pleases you, I will happily cease and throw in a desist as lagniappe.

[Brian Miller]

Versus the purely altruisic goals of the shills for the nuclear power industry?

I am actually closer in my position to David's: I don't know. But, I am extremely distrustful of the "Trust Us, We're the Nuclear Power Industry" people-or French bureaucrats' decisions made with little public input, for that matter.

David: he does have a point about de-settling the Pacific Ring of Fire :) But then, we have so destabilized the climate (oops-I forgot, scientists working for the coal industry have concluded that global warnming is not real) that almost anywhere one would move will be facing some degree of climate based danger

[David Sucher]

Big difference, Person. (And btw, I really don't find anonymous posters to be particularly respectable.)

Sure I was sarcastic; and I thought it was nicely-put and not offensive at all. (Hey are you right-wingers such wusses that you can't take a little ribbing? Don't be so sensitive. We are all just having fun here. Right?)

But my sarcasm was not oriented to anyone's motivation (which I assume is either irrelevant or in good faith.)

My sarcasm was oriented to the basis -- not the motivation -- of their argument.

[Person of Choler]

Some anonymous posters simply don't want to be inundated with spam, which I think is a perfectly respectable position to take.

[gorkis]

I am asking why it is important to be worried about theoretical problems for people 100,000 years in the future why nobody seems to be interested in very similar problems facing many people right this minute.

--------------------
http://www.bromastelefono.com/

[David Sucher]

"...nobody seems to be interested in very similar problems facing many people right this minute."

I challenge that assertion.