Friday, March 25, 2011

Its not the Nuclear Reactors we need to worry about... Its the Nuclear Waste

Nuclear Power has proven to be incredibly safe and effective. To be convenient and carbonless.

Under no circumstance is Nuclear Power "clean". The simple fact is this:

The United States has put off its nuclear waste problem for 4 decades, and we are now simply a disaster waiting to happen.  While it might be 1 in 10,000 that the Indian Point Power Plant will experience any kind of catastrophic outcome in any given year (and I doubt that probability calculation greatly), the odds that America will suffer a significant crisis due to its unattended nuclear waste approaches the proverbial "sure thing".

Get googling. Read.

How did this come to pass? Given Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Budget Deficit, etc... I think that's a f&%$&*ing dumb question.  Our governments - federal and local - are dominated by wordsmiths (lawyers), not engineers, mechanics, mathematicians, and scientists. As our society's complexities have grown exponentially, the ability of the people minding the store to understand the critical issues facing that complexity has not grown to meet our needs.

I hope to good heavens that the American people come around to the real Nuclear issue - and it isn't earthquakes or tsunamis.

More soon.


dennis said...

Just think of all those ponds of spent fuel rods with no water in them and no one to refill them because the company went belly up and the govenment collapsed due to a bad tax stream.

Anonymous said...

It always takes a damn good disaster to wake people up.

Collect fuel rods.

Reprocess fuel rods and store at Fort Whereverthehell (97% of fuel remanins)

Take remaining nuclear waste and store at FortSomewhereElse.

In forty years the best possible plans and locations have been whittled down to two or three. Pick one and tell the protesters to F-off.

Not only are TPTB wordsmiths, they are gutless wonders that think the rest of us are gutless too. There is a real dearth of leadership. No one will make a hard decision and rally support. We need someone to lead. Times are getting harder. Pandering to the "I want it now!" crowd, and encouraging self indulgence will not work in a world of diminishing resources.


Coal Guy

Dextred1 said...

coal guy,

What lack of leadership? NATO is going to take control of the "time limited, scope limited military action" in Libya. Are you saying we might have the big wet noodle as dope and cheif? Nah! :)


Anonymous said...


I'm glad for NATO to take it over. I'd be gladder if it were entirely run and funded by the EU. With the exception of the UK, they've been giving us the finger for years. They enjoy the benefits of the very policies that they object to. It is somebody else's turn to have their sons killed and maimed and their treasuries depleted.


Coal Guy

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Amen, Coal Guy.


Anonymous said...

Jeffers and coal guy,

You know I agree with you, but it is humorous to say the least that O’Bum went to war without consulting congress. There is no way this is justifiable under the war powers act. The best part is the jerk campaigned against this type of tactic. If we use his humanitarian reason to go to war, we will soon be in Russia, China, North K, Iran, Saudi Arabia and half the other 3rd world crap holes. At least if you’re going to have a "time limited, scope limited military action" in Libya, not a war you know, hahahah, come up with goals, a exit strategy, decide if you want Q to stay or go.

Those founders told us not to get into entangling alliances, just trade and protect our merchant vessels. Those guys might have known what they were speaking of.


Anonymous said...

No sooner than we settle on a Canadian general to lead NATO his government collapses. Shish.