Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)
From: wmbjk (wmbjk_at_REMOVE_THIScitlink.net)
Date: 08/03/04
- Next message: Bull Frog: "Re: Wind farms find unlikely foe in environmentalists"
- Previous message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: King Tut's burial at sea"
- In reply to: Karl Johanson: "Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)"
- Next in thread: Karl Johanson: "Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)"
- Reply: Karl Johanson: "Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:48:12 GMT
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:09:44 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
<karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote:
>The amount of spent nuclear fuel to be stored at Yucca was set to a
>specific amount for political reasons. Doubling it would be easy.
The rightwingnuts say that solving the middle east problem would be
easy with a few nukes. The gunnuts say that eliminating crime would be
easy if everybody carried a sidearm. The star struck say that heaven
on earth would be easy if we'd just elect Ahnowd pres. And Karl says
that doubling the size of Yucca would be easy. Seems everything is
easy on Usenet. :-)
Here's the reality of Yucca
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/jul/26/517234152.html
>The US's spent nuclear fuel hasn't hurt anyone sitting on the surface in
>pools of water (even as some of it is fresh out of the reactor). I don't
>know why all the hubbub about having 10 year old or older spent fuel in
>multilayered containers, surrounded by bentonite clay, in solid rock
You might want to read up on the cool, dry life those containers are
going to be living at Yucca. I suppose I could give you a link, but
why bother? Obviously the talk of titanium drip shields comes from
idiot engineers who don't have Internet connections, and therefore
haven't heard of the Tupperware solution. It's just as well those
people don't come around here anyway, they probably couldn't take
being told that they have jello for brains, and that their fancy
smancy calculations are standing in the way of motherhood and apple
pie.
>(especially as there's no hubbub about 'renewable' geothermal energy plants
>in California emitting up to 5 trillion picocuries of radiation (along with
>a host of chemical toxins) into the environment every day).
What, no scalded 5 year olds? You're getting mellow in your old age
Karl. :-) Sorry I didn't read the rest of the post. Did you cure
world hunger by the end of it?
Wayne
- Next message: Bull Frog: "Re: Wind farms find unlikely foe in environmentalists"
- Previous message: Tim O'Flaherty: "Re: King Tut's burial at sea"
- In reply to: Karl Johanson: "Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)"
- Next in thread: Karl Johanson: "Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)"
- Reply: Karl Johanson: "Re: King Tut's Nukes (back by popular demand)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]