Definitely subsidized as well but I think nuke is the most costly form of energy -- unless you wanted to power your house with flashlight batteries.
-----Original Message----- From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 8:45 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing Dear Kirk, What you are saying is true and in fairness even more so for the Oil industry than for the Nuclear industry. Hakan At 08:25 AM 4/1/2003 -0700, you wrote: >When they give the numbers for nuclear they usually don't disclose subsidies >and true costs. Nukes are favored because centralized power is the economic >paradigm. I think centralized power has a lot of liabilities and >inefficiencies. It is a good business model though if you are the seller. >And that is the problem -- the sellers control politics and industry. They >are industry. > >Kirk > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:26 AM >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > >Dear Bratt, > >The first real attempt on costs for energy has been done by the >EU commission and included the social costs to the environment >and society. One cycle nuclear ,came out among the cheapest >fossil power sources but with a R/P value around 60 years. If you >include recycling the R/P value would go up as well as the risk >problems, but it would be even cheaper. If it was a pure technical >issue, nuclear power make a lot of sense and I am for the peaceful >applications. In general I am against nuclear, but this is based on >my mistrust in that humanity can limit its use to peaceful >applications. But it is their and I do not know. I for sure do not >see any reason to trust US as guardian of the technology and >this is a question that must be solved. With the current disrespect >for UN and weapon use. I cannot really see any viable solutions. > >Hakan > > >At 10:52 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >It is as a result of the economics involved in building, running and > >decommision costs of nuclear power plants. Overall they are very > >expensive, when all factors including storage and disposal of radioactive > >waste is factored in. Income is bolstered by recycling waste. > > > >The search for uses for waste--re-cycling--has brought about several "new" > >industries. 1. Nuclear medicine 2. Irradiated food. 3. Weapons > >grade Uranium 4. DU weapons of war. > > > >Seems like the search for use of radioactive waste finds solutions each of > >which gets more deadly than the use before. > > > > > >.----- Original Message ----- > > From: paul van den bergen > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Dirty Bombing > > > > > > One could argue that the development of DU munitions was in response to > > the > > acumulation of a large amount of a heavy metal waste stream from the > > production of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel.... > > > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:31 am, Tom Tibbits wrote: > > > There are some people on this list who think they know it all, but > > > actually.... READ ON > > > references: > > > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=174&category=90 > > > http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199710/msg00053.html > > > > > http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=127&category=79 > > > http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm > > > > > > > > >http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DFE476A2-D7E9-4D77-9D16E6222FEA > > >F06D http://www.sundayherald.com/32522 > > > http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/du.htm > > > > > > > Depleted uranium, or DU, is a highly toxic heavy metal that > > continues > > > > to emit low levels of alpha radiation. It is a byproduct of >nuclear > > > > power plants and various military activities. > > > > > > > > The United States has hundreds of thousands of tons of DU lying > > > > around, and for the Gulf War it developed a new use for the >stuff: > > > > load > > > > > > it > > > > > > > into warheads. > > > > > > Lets get it right, DU, ammunition was not made for the Gulf > > War. It was > > > developed during the Cold War for dealing with heavy Soviet armor, >to > > > give a higher percentage of one shot tank kills, because it was heavy >and > > > hard, the right combination needed to penetrate thick advanced armor. >It > > > is not loaded into warheads, it is a solid peace of metal that is > > milled in > > > to a very precise shape. > > > > > > Yes, let's get it right. DU ammunition was developed because > > Uranium is a > > > remarkably dense metal, like lead, and thus has lots of inertia when > > fired > > > into someting at high speed. unfortunately it's also a toxic 'heavy > > metal' > > > and radioactive. It is designed to be incorporated into the tip of a > > > shell/warhead, to increase penetration efficiency. THe reason why DU >is > > > preferable to anything else is that it is a 'low level waste' which > > can be > > > got rid of by using it in weapons. Bear in mind that 99.3% of all >uranium > > > mined is DU (U238) and when the nuclear fuel cycle makes U235 (the > > fissile > > > isotope), 141kg of U238 is left over as process waste for every kilo >of > > > U235 extracted. So it's dirt cheap, and cheaper to dispose of in >weapons > > > that to get rid of properly. > > > > > > > Though not technically "nuclear," because the material is not >really > > > > fissionable, uranium is a heavy metal ideal for lethally >effective > > > > > > "warhead > > > > > > > penetrators" that can pierce through armored tanks and fortified > > > > > > positions. > > > > > > Generally fortified positions are going to be attacked with a HEAT >type > > > of round which is explosive, but, is not the SABOT ( non-explosive ) > > round > > > that is being talked about in conjunction with DU. > > > > > > Ah yes, but when something travelling 500 mph weighing several > > pounds is > > > stopped suddenly by a large sheet of steel, all that kinetic energy >turns > > > to heat, which vapourises the DU, creating clouds of Uranium oxide >dust. > > > This can travel large distances airborne, and is easily inhaled. See > > later. > > > > > > > When the munitions explode, the area is bathed in a fine dust of >DU > > > > that > > > > > > can > > > > > > > be easily inhaled. These aerosols also taint soil and water and > > > > pollute ground water. > > > > > > This DU SABOT ammunition type is not made to explode, but, just >punch > > > through the armor. On the other hand the Uranium is pyroic like >common > > > cigarette lighter flints, and when struck hard ( like when it hits > > armor > > > ), it will give off a spark in the same way ( just allot bigger >spark ) > > > this encourages fuel and ammo to burn, some alloys of zirconium do >the > > > same thing, in fact, other types of ammunition ( generally small > > caliber ) > > > is made with zirconium alloys because of this. Not all SABOT used in >the > > > Gulf War was DU, nor, were all tank attacks made with the SABOT, the > > > farthest confirmed tank to tank kill in the Gulf War was made by the > > > Brits., and it was made over 5 km, with 2 HEAT rounds. > > > > > > The dust is a by product of the hit, and is for the most part >uranium > > > oxide, and was never figured to be a factor in the attack. > > > > > > Whether or not hte dust was 'figured' to be in the attack, the fact > > > remains that the dust produced by these shells is highly toxic and > > > radioactive, and under geneva convention such weapons are actually > > illegal, > > > due to the toxicological side-effects.... The fact that it is pyroic >is > > > neither here nor there. Napalm is a much more effective incendiary. > > > > > > > DU warheads are essentially dirty bombs -- not very radioactive, >but > > > > poisonous, and this is why there is an increasing global outcry > > > > against using DU in combat as tips for armor-piercing rounds as > > well as > > > > in > > > > > > artillery > > > > > > > shells and Tomahawk missiles, among others. > > > > > > The last part is pure propaganda BS. DU has only been used ( and > > is only > > > useful ) in defeating armor and in making tank armor. DU has no > > place in > > > Tomahawks, artillery shell or any other exploding ( chemical > > explosion ) > > > type of munitions, because, despite this persons claims, DU is not >an > > > explosive. > > > > > > No DU is not an explosive, and it is not being claimed to be an > > explosive > > > by Hoagy, he correctly states that it is employed in the tips of >shells, > > > rounds and in missiles. DU is also used as a counterweight in some > > > missiles, and even some aeroplanes (cruise is an example). It is used > > > bcause it is so dense, so lots of inertia can be packed into a small > > shell. > > > > > > > Such warheads were used very successfully by the U.S. in the > > Gulf War, > > > > when more than 350 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on > > Iraq, and > > > > > > later > > > > > > > in Kosovo when about 13 tons of DU were exploded in the conflict > > > > there. > > > > > > To claim that "350 tons of DU was dropped on Iraq", and "about 13 >tons > > > exploded in Kosovo" when DU in not used by dropping or is exploded, >is > > > cast doubt on some of the other "research" this person has done in >this > > > area > > > > > > Indeed I doubt that the US even had 350 tons of DU Sabots in the >entire > > > theater, let alone in the was able to drop on Iraq. Consider that >each > > > Anti-Tank round weighs under 100 lbs. and only a portion of that is >the > > > DU Sabot. If you take divide 100 lbs ( for each Anti-Tank Sabot >round ) > > > into 350 tons, and figure in each attack had better than a 80% first >shot > > > tank kill, this means that a hell of a lot of BS is being passed >around, > > > because Iraq never at any time had enough tanks for 350 tons to be >used ( > > > let alone the tanks that got away ), especially when you consider > > that many > > > of the tanks were killed with conventional explosives. > > > > > > The PENTAGON figure is 325 tons, and some agencies put the figure > > as high > > > as 900 tons. I know who I'd rather believe. Conventional explosivces > > > contain DU, unfiortunately!! and the hit rate is about 25%. All in >all, > > > there is plenty of DU in Iraq. As i demonstrated before, there is > > plenty of > > > DU around in the world, look at our nuclear programs.!! USA alone has > > > 500,000 tons DU stockpiled. > > > > > > The "Balkan syndrome" that emerged among the military and civilians > > > > > > > after the U.S. bombing there bears a similarity to the Gulf War > > > > syndrome. > > > > > > > > Though the findings are controversial, many scientists now see >these > > > > afflictions as the result of heavy metal poisoning and possibly > > > > exposure > > > > > > to > > > > > > > very low levels radiation. > > > > > > While heavy metal poisoning is a possibility, the Alfa rays that DU > > gives > > > off are the weakest of all radiation, and a piece of paper can block > > > them, let alone the clothing that people wear. As to DU causing Gulf >War > > > syndrome, consider that some scientist have been finding similarities > > of GW > > > syndrome with symptoms of Vets from other wars including the US Civil >War > > > > > > Another myth: someone who claims to understand nuclear science, but > > > clearly doesn't. Greg, are you a physicist? Alpha radiation may be >the > > > most short ranged, it is true that paper stops alpha particles in >their > > > tracks. However, alpha radiation is actually the most energetic. It > > is its > > > particle size which means it is short ranged. Helium nuclei (alpha > > > particles) are massive in comparison to electrons (beta radiation) or > > > photons (gamma radiation). Hence they are more likely to hit another > > > molecule in a short distance. The energy of the particle is several >mega > > > electronvolts (MeV) - and this is where the mutagenic effects manifest > > > themselves. If you inhale an alpha source, which lodges in your > > lungs, all > > > the radiation is absorbed by you lung tissue, whichis quickly >irradiated, > > > changing the DNA (ie cancer). If you inhale a gamma source. 99.9% of >the > > > radiation passes through your body and back out again, so it is a lot > > less > > > damaging. Also, heavy metal poisoning is a reality. The fact that it >is a > > > heavy metal means that body can not metabolise it out easily. Talk >about > > > BS....... > > > > > > in respiratory and kidney problems, rashes and, > > > > > > > longer-term, bone cancer, as well as damaged reproductive and > > > > > > neurological > > > > > > > systems. > > > > > > As are other things. > > > As is DU > > > > > > > Iraqi civilians -- many more than the 100,000 who died in the > > conflict > > > > or as a result of the war -- also suffer from a range of similar > > > > health problems. > > > > > > > > Families of soldiers should be very worried. > > > > > > > > A huge amount of ordnance has already been unleashed in Iraq, and > > > > there is no way of knowing how many thousands of tons of depleted > > > > uranium will find "permanent storage" in the rubble of Iraq, its >soil > > > > and the > > > > > > bodies > > > > > > > of its people and U.S. occupying forces. > > > > > > The only use, for DU, is Tank to Tank fighting, the 25 mm chain gun >on > > > the Bradley and the 30 mm gatling gun on the A-10 Warthog, and DU is >not > > > the only option for those uses, other metals are available and have >been > > > used for making SABOTs. Since the majority of the fighting and >ordinance > > > is not being used on Anti-Tank fighting, then it is more than safe to >say > > > only a fraction of it may be DU, even if the US even is using it. > > > > > > Plenty of DU is being dropped on Iraq. Each Cruise missile has some >in > > > it, and shells of all diameters have DU in them. Any 'piercing' > > ammunition > > > will probably contain the metal. The DU weapons used in the Gulf War > > > included 120, 105, 30, 25 and 20mm rounds for use by tanks, aircraft, > > naval > > > cannon and machine guns. > > > > > > > The rosy fantasies of a democratized Arab world might make for >good > > > > sound bites. But the reality of widespread DU use brings to mind >the > > > > > > epitaph > > > > > > The only known wide spread use of DU in this war so far, has been > > in the > > > e-mail that this post is responding to, and much of it, is fiction. > > > > > > Hmm, I wonder where you get your fiction from, Greg. > > > > > > > Susanna Hecht is a professor in the School of Public Policy and > > Social > > > > Research at UCLA. She is head of the environmental analysis and > > policy > > > > program. > > > > > > A professor knows to do research. If she had checked her facts > > about DU, > > > how it is used, and the type of ordnance used in both Gulf wars, she > > > could not have made as many phony/fake claims as she did. > > > > > > So, Prof Greg, where did you get your research from?? I have at >least > > > provided references to my claims. To suggest that an eminent scientist >is > > > making it up is a serious allegation! > > > > > > Greg H. > > > > > > Tom T > > > > > > -- > > > Tom Tibbits > > > PG, EXSS, > > > The Blackett Laboratory, > > > Prince Consort Road, > > > London > > > SW7 2BW > > > http://www.sc.ic.ac.uk/~q_pv/ > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/25/2003 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
