Skip to main content

View Diary: Unalloyed Fear:  Technetium, an Element of "Dangerous Nuclear Waste" (Pt.2) (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More Tapdancing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Just get to the subject of how you would handle nuclear waste from the reactors you think we should build.

    I read your diaries carefully and I will honestly consider what you think might work to dispose of 'Dangerous Nuclear Waste' (your term).

    As far as I can tell nothing man does is perfect... but I can still recognize 'better' vs 'no change'.

    But if you proffer no solution, I will continue to consider nukes as no solution as well.

    Believe me, I'd like to shut down coal plants ASAP, but until we see a reasonable replacement, we all know that burning coal will continue.


    "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

    by LeftyLimblog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 09:58:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I actually don't care what you "consider." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you don't have a "solution" to climate change - and you don't, climate change being a problem of dangerous fossil fuel waste - I have no responsibility to convince you of anything.

      I would submit that if you insist that there is no solution to the problem of so called "dangerous nuclear waste," you ought to submit a case where the storage of spent nuclear fuel has failed fatally.   I remind you that all of the nuclear materials from the operation of commercial power plants in this country from 50 years of operations remain confined.   Is it your contention that the last 50 years of fossil fuel wastes are contained?  Is it your contention that the next 50 years of fossil fuel waste can be contained?   If so, you really should write about it.

      Until you can produce a plan to confine dangerous fossil fuel wastes - which actually kill people every damn day - I will continue to call for a ban on fossil fuels.

      My contention about dangerous fossil fuel waste is clear:  Every single death associated with air pollution represents a failure to deal with dangerous fossil fuel waste, likewise with climate change deaths.

      Let me make something clear and explicit, in case in the "careful" reading of my diaries you have somehow missed the point about which you skirt and, in fact, dance, albeit awkwardly:  Nuclear power's risks cannot rationally be divorced from the alternative, which is continued fatal reliance on unacceptably dangerous fossil fuels.   It is poor thinking, very poor thinking, deadly thinking in fact, to view spent nuclear fuel in isolation from, say, coal wastes.

      If you cannot understand that simple reality, I cannot help you to understand anything at all, an any attempt on my part would surely prove useless and pointless.

      In fact, nuclear materials are all recoverable, as I have discussed many times.   Maybe because of my prolix style you missed that, but it is there nonetheless with careful reading.

      •  I Buy Electrical Power (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I don't build power plants of any type. Therefore it will never be my job to sequester any waste products of any type. I will be paying for confinement of waste products as part of my power bill.

        Again, it is not my job to propose methods of handling 'Dangerous Nuclear Waste' (your term).

        And it is also not my job to decipher your 'prolix' writing style. If you want to write on DailyKos you are making it YOUR JOB to explain things clearly.

        Stop assuming I am your enemy, and answer the question, posed yet again.

        How do you suggest 'Dangerous Nuclear Waste' (your term) be managed, confined, sequestered, disposed of, or rendered non-dangerous?

        That's all many of us want to know. You might find that people will welcome a realistic believable solution. I would.  


        "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

        by LeftyLimblog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:39:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't build power plants of any type. (0+ / 0-)

          I simply suggest what types be built.  

          Of course, it would appear that I am better informed than you are about the issue, since you insist that only one form of energy needs to be perfect.

          Stop assuming that you are asking rational questions, or that I owe you some kind of answer simply because you "buy your electricity."  The purchase of a product implies some responsibility for its manufacture.

          When I am referring to "dangerous nuclear waste," I am being sarcastic.   I do not concede that spent nuclear fuel is "dangerous," since neither you nor anyone else can show a single incident of it actually injuring someone on a scale that is cause for concern comparable to climate change or air pollution.

          Therefore I propose the immediate solution to all energy waste problems is to insist that it can be contained on the grounds of the plants where it is generated.  

          If a form of energy cannot meet this requirement, I suggest it be banned.

          The fact is that the only form of exajoule scale energy that meets this requirement.

          Obviously you are substituting belief for observation and supposition for reality.  I submit, even as I see that you are ill prepared to acknowledge it, that the onus is upon you to show that the current status of spent nuclear fuel is "dangerous."

          You cannot, in fact, do anything more than insist that I ignore fossil fuel waste and pretend for the dubious benefit of satisfying your poor perceptual skills, that the nuclear situation be viewed in isolation from its alternatives.

          You will repeat yourself no doubt, and until you bore me to the point of insufferability, so will I.

          •  Good Grief! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I hope you are not on anybody's PR team as a technical consultant.

            Your dream of building nuclear power stations is damaged every time you come up with some smart assed non-response to reasonable questions.

            Like Bush, you destroy yourself.


            "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

            by LeftyLimblog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:21:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. I no problem with materials as dense as (0+ / 0-)

              uranium, but I do have problems with arguments that are dense.

              I am not a PR consultant, but I am a rationalist.   It is often the case that rationality and PR conflict, making the rationalist particularly unsuitable for PR work.

              PR work is for charmers, including snake charmers.  I am hardly charming.

              That said, I don't think pointing up the irrationality of your approach damages my position at all.   On the contrary, I believe it enhances my position.   You may believe that you speak for "everyone," and I must proceed in a way that gives you no offense to succeed at my aims.  However, there is no evidence to support this claim of your importance.  I regard it as somewhat inflated. Happily for the outcome of humanity, you speak for "Lefty," and "Lefty" alone. I am reasonably well convinced that you hardly speak for a nebulous group defined as "everyone."  

              I have been advancing my arguments for a long time, and I am always on the offense and therefore, unsurprisingly, I am often offensive.   I am reasonably satisified, based on feedback, that this approach works.  

              Often people wish to make the conversation about me.   However, I like to point out that my personality has no physical effect on, as an example, the complex ion behavior of the pertechnate ion in fish.   If I am nasty, the pertechnate ion will still behave the same way in a fish as it would if I was the most pleasant person in the world.   The ultimate question is therefore not about me, but about the risk of the pertechnate ion compared to, for instance, the mercury II ion found in fish that results from coal burning.

              To further penetrate the extreme density of your positions as I see them - and let's be sure that such opinions are hardly new to me - let me cut through your disingenuous representations about what I must "prove" to be worthy of writing on DailyKos:

              1.  You insist that "to be convinced," I must concede your point that I explain on your level the future status of nuclear materials for all time, while I agree to ignore the status of fossil fuel waste for all time.   I reject this arbitrary criterion.   No energy issue can be viewed in isolation from its alternatives.   Every form of energy can be shown to have difficulties and risks.   They can only be rendered sensible by comparison.   For instance, if I can show that someone has been killed in an ethanol explosion, this is not sufficient to prove a case for banning ethanol, since people are also killed by gasoline explosions.
              1.  You claim that you have carefully read my diaries, but clearly you have not, since my position on the approach to spent nuclear fuel can be summed in two words:   "Use it."   Of course, spent nuclear fuel contains a great many constituents, and I am moving deliberately through all of them, suggesting that even if particular constituents are not useful immediately, they may well prove so in the long term.   Since nuclear fuel is dense (although not as dense as the Greenpeace membership)  and compact (far more compact than my diaries), it is easy to contain it for sufficient time to investigate these potentials fully.  Only then should disposal be considered.   Such containment has been practiced for many decades.   I, for one, am particularly grateful that nothing like Yucca Mountain was built in the 1970's.   That would have been an awful waste.
              1.  You insist on overly succinct 30 second answers.  Regrettably, since the issues are somewhat more complex and subtle than can be addressed by marketeers in soundbites, an exhaustive examination will require time.   My meandering style is debatable in its merits, but it is my style.   It is what it is.
              1.  Now you claim that "public relations" should determine energy choices.   I submit that this approach has failed miserably over the last 50 years, since wonderful marketing and much positive press about renewable energy, many decades of it, has failed to prevent to accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste - specifically carbon dioxide - in the atmosphere.   Thus an approach to energy that is based on "making nice," is potentially fatal.  It is not about "making nice."  It is, in fact, about impending catastrophe which, I assure you, will not be "nice."

              The crisis before us will not be addressed by simplistic approaches such as those you seem to demand.

              •  Agree and Disagree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Agree: You are offensive.

                Disagree: Such offensiveness works. Rarely true.

                The old saying, "You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar" is still true.

                You assume far too much about me, as in all my motives, etc.

                And while I only represent myself, there are lots more like me who remain unconvinced by your tapdancing.


                "There is a time for compromise, and it is called 'Later'!"

                by LeftyLimblog on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 06:34:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site