Some questions are raised by Jim's posting. I'm not sure I want to be the defender of nuclear power on this list, I am merely inclined pro-nuclear rather than committed. My main point on this issue is that I feel underinformed.
No doubt this is a consequence of the aura of secrecy that surrounds military applications of nuclear fuels. It's really hard to see how democracy is supposed to cope with this, which is an interesting question in its own right. This report that Jim points us to > Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel > http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/11263.html reiterates the problem, since the parts that are of greatest interest are classified. I'm sure that's justified, but I'm not sure how the democratic process can make decisions about it, especially in the absence of trust that is brewing so vigorously these days. In particular, the report explicitly eschews comparing the present risk against other risks. I think this is a good idea. I will put my moderator hat on and squelch any discussion on this list about which targets the terrorists could most effectively attack. I don't want to help the lunatics and I don't especially relish a visit from the spooks either. However, what we can see is quite qualititative. It gives some detail on how to reduce the risks, but it gives little indication of what the risks actually are. What constitutes a "large" radioactive release? (How many Chernobyls are we talking about. A hundredth of one? A hundred of them?) What is the probability of the success of an attack? The most compelling argument against nuclear power is that we don't really have or even want the right to discuss all the implications. Without a great deal of trust in government operations conducted in secret (hardly an American tradition) not only at present but far into the future, not only in our own countries but also everywhere else, how are we to ensure that sound decisions are being made? Most importantly, how are we to weigh those risks against the risks of climate change? > By the way, the Senate Appropriations Committee is set > to vote tomorrow (June 29) on a new radioactive waste > plan that would give the Department of Energy authority to > put an "interim" high-level waste storage site anywhere > it wants, even over the objections of the state and local > government. This is an entirely separate issue and it seems like an easy one. It's interesting how people on both sides of the aisle in America go back and forth on the question of states' rights vs. federal rights as suits the question of the moment. This would certainly appear to be a case of a compelling national interest in eminent domian, whether or not the nuclear option is pursued in the future. As with a railway line or a highway, some place must be chosen and somebody has to be inconvenienced. Should nuclear opponents insist on reducing the safety of the existing nuclear enterprise? Do they really have the interests of the public in mind when they stir up opposition to finding a process for disposing of existing waste? Does the expense of this political effort reasonably apply to the costs of nuclear power? Shouldn't it rather be attributed to the costs of the alternative energy sources, conventional and otherwise? mt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
