[WS:] It seems that this fear of nuclear energy is in a large part due to a 'telescoping' view of history , meaning that distant events are seen as close as one in closer proximity. The fact that radioactive waste remains radioactive for long time periods does not mean that we have to plan for the entire period of their radioactivity. We can safely assume that at some future point technology will be developed to deal with that radioactivity more effectively that is technologically possible today.
In that light, the main concern is storing the stuff in way that is least harmful to environment and society now - and that is primarily a social rather than technological concern. The storage technology already exists, the problem is deploying that technology in a way that does not harm the environment or people without political clout - which is social and political.
Another point, afaik nuclear power generation has been rather safe thus far. The only major disaster, Chernobyl, was due to human error rather than technological malfunction. So the fear of the nuclear power seems to based on irrational factors (akin to fear of water fluoridation - which combines weird conspiracism with right wing populism and paranoid hatred of institutions) rather than rational risk assessment.
Wojtek
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> I *am* needling my "organic" friends. We tend to needle each other. They
>> point out the problems with my technophilia and I detail the assumptions
>> behind their 'harmony with Nature' shtick. It evens out in the end.
>>
>
> I certainly have nothing against mutual identity assertion. Most social
> life is made of this. Heck, most private moments alone in our head are made
> of this.
>
> We should, in short, prepare ourselves to counter Exelon's lazy-ass
>> plans (to name a very specific example) with our own, insisting on
>> better, simpler, cheaper designs and mature oversight of the fuel/waste
>> cycle. (Ideally, radioactive waste management would be an international
>> affair.)
>>
>
> This seems to skip over my length of time point. Any solution to nuclear
> waste disposal that depends on social arrangements is not a solution because
> social arrangements cannot plausibly be expected to endure over even a tiny
> fraction of the relevant time frame. So the only conceivable solution would
> be purely technical solution, e.g., a means of making the stuff permanently
> non-radioactive and non-reactive.
>
> Michael
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>