RE: Hazards of Coal Burning was RE: Hydrogen as SCAM?

From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 10:56:07 MST

  • Next message: Lee Daniel Crocker: "Nucyaler "bunker busters""

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Kai M. Becker [mailto:kmb@kai-m-becker.de]

    Chuck Kuecker schrieb:
    > The proper way to dispose of high-level waste is to irradiate it inside
    > the reactor vessel to promote it's decay to stable isotopes.

    "Such a cycle would have to process the high-level waste as fast as it
    produces it. Have you calculated this? What about the medium and low
    active wastes? "

    "And can we assure that this technology, power plants and such, will
    always be properly maintained and in the hand of responsible persons?
    There're dozens of nuclear driven ships and subs of the FSU rotting in
    their habors."

    Um, Kai, what about the 3 million people who die, every year, right now,
    from atmospheric pollutants? You talk on and on about potential this and
    risk factor that, but what about the people dying, right now, 3 million of
    them, every year? Have you been factoring them into your risk assessments?
    Youre talking about nuclear powers *potential* to kill thousands or millions
    in a single catastrophic event. *potential*. What about the millions that
    ARE dying, *right now* from fossil fuel combustion? The thousands who die
    from CO inhalation, natural gas explosions, coal mining accidents. There
    are 10's of thousands of miles of explosive natural gas lines cris crossing
    dozens of nations. Temperature increases from global warming could cause
    millions of deaths in developing nations that are very dependant on existing
    climates.

    "Until then, the remaining risks are too high for my personal measure of
    safety. If that makes me an "enviro-wacko" in your eyes, I'll
      return this with a friendly "techno-loony" :-)"

    The fact that you readily condemn a technology because it has a *chance* of
    killing thousands or millions as a replacement for one that is ALL READY
    killing MILLIONS *every year* paints you as a 'enviro wacko' in my eyes
    because you value your pre-concieved idealogies over the lives of human
    beings. Unless you dispute the claim that pollutants from fossil fuel
    combustion cause this intollerable number of deaths, then the chance of
    nuclear power causing similar numbers in individual incidents still far
    outwieghs coal, as it is here now killing millions. There is 100% chance it
    will kill millions every year.

    Michael Dickey

    LEGAL NOTICE
    Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 10:59:27 MST