Re: Confused Logic 101

From: Dan Bloomquist (EXTRApublic21_at_lakeweb.com)
Date: 11/09/04 

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:33:35 GMT

Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
> Sorry about that first one.
>
>
> "Dan Bloomquist" <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
> news:418FC596.4080108@lakeweb.com...
>
>>
>>Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>>
>>>And the evidence is clear, nuclear proliferation is a serious threat.
>>
>>As long as you agree, the threat is human.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Something Tim failed to
>
>>understand.
>
>
> I understand that your statement is nonsense, a semantic exercise that puts
> solutions to a very real problem, nuclear weapons proliferation, out of
> reach since "the threat is human" and we can't do without them now can we.

You keep claiming nuclear power as the source of weapons. I'd call that
nonsense.

>
> Nuclear comes from a Pandora's box. It would be seriously
>
>>difficult to put it back.
>
>
> You don't have to put it back, you need to use it where it makes sense.
>
> One example of nuclear technology that doesn't make sense is reprocessing
> spent reactor fuel to yield stocks of Pu. Your (and R.B.'s) claims of the
> value of this as a fuel are belied by the fact that as reprocessing
> continues the amount stored only grows larger. If it was so desirable
> buyers would be purchasing it. They are not. Why not?

Where did I ever make this claim? If reprocessed fuel is not used or
stored for future use, Something is wrong with the use of the
technology. I'd call that political, yes, again.

> As that is most likely, there is no good
>
>>reason not to use it as a source of peaceful energy.
>
>
> The unresolved issue of waste is a damn good reason.

We could dump it in the ocean and you know that.

> Nuclear weapons and
>
>>nuclear energy are distinct applications of nuclear. Ending nuclear
>>energy would likely have a 'negative' effect on weapons.
>
>
> Reducing stocks of separated Pu would have a negative effect on terrorist
> opportunities. Continuing to reprocess increases those opportunities.

We have been through this before and you _don't_ address it from what I see.

> Regards,
> Tim O

Get a decent newsreader.

Best, Dan. 

-- 
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Confused Logic 101
    ... >> Nonsense. ... >> Something Tim failed to ... > You keep claiming nuclear power as the source of weapons. ... claim that reprocessing spent fuel from power reactors is creating a growing ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Confused Logic 101
    ... >> Nonsense. ... >> Something Tim failed to ... > You keep claiming nuclear power as the source of weapons. ... claim that reprocessing spent fuel from power reactors is creating a growing ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Confused Logic 101
    ... Tim O'Flaherty wrote: ... > I understand that your statement is nonsense, ... You keep claiming nuclear power as the source of weapons. ... > One example of nuclear technology that doesn't make sense is reprocessing ...
    (sci.energy)
  • @@ Americas 30-year pledge not to take bomb-usable plutonium out of spent fuel is broken @@
    ... Jimmy Carter helped design nuclear reactors for submarines. ... Mr. Carter banned the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract ... President Bush has proposed a new version of reprocessing. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • @@ America violates its own non-proliferation rule @@
    ... Jimmy Carter helped design nuclear reactors for submarines. ... Mr. Carter banned the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract ... President Bush has proposed a new version of reprocessing. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)