Re: [Marxism] Artificial radioactivity increasing mass of radioactivematter on Earth

[dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Luko wrote:
[in regards to nuclear reprocessing]  "Which is wrong. There 
is more radioactive material coming out of the process."

No, you are wrong, Luko. There is less. You are taking 
that 'radioactivity' (by which you mean spent fuel, radioactivity 
not being a 'thing' but a 'process') and burning it up in 
reactors which reduces it's volume and weight. The more 
you reprocess, burn up for power, the less there is of it.

Luko:
"or tens of thousands of years. A huge burden for future generations, 
and a difficult task to guard the deposits of the newly produced 
radioactive material. "

I am far more optimistic than you are Luko. I even think, given 
the development of engineering going on now, that most of 
this stuff, almost it's entirety, can be burned up for power 
leaving a few thousand tons at best. But think about what 
you are saying. Why are you so *afraid* of something that 
is so small in volume, so small in weight, completely and 
totally accounted for? I do not think this is rational. There 
is far WORSE stuff out there in magnitudes of weight and 
volume that are far more deadly from a practical point of 
view. Mercury...which never ever decays, Benzenes, 
Fluroides and every manner of chemical that one can't 
even imagine, whose potential deadliness simply by it's 
existence and will never go away, exists in such great 
volumes yet you are concerned about the most managed 
waste in human existence?

Part of the anti-nuclear movements decades long obsession 
with radioactivity has instilled an irrational fear of something 
no human has any reason to come into contact with. It is this 
reason WHY we burn so much fossil fuel and poison the planet 
with above mentioned hazardous waste. We...those of who 
had been active in the anti-nuclear movement, are directly...
and I use my words carefully, responsible for the hundreds 
of thousands of dead due to our desire to chose coal (and 
other fossil) over nuclear. It was a HUGE error on our part 
that we ought to correct.

I would simply ask Luko what he things ought to be done 
with the waste that is now under lock-and-key. What would 
he like to see?
----

As Rod pointed out, and others, no one here likes the idea of 
capitalism running nuclear energy or even being charge of 
our energy future. I agree. But Rod avoids the big political 
question. It's very easy, as a few on the left do, to say, "well, 
I'm for nuclear energy but only after the revolution". I noted 
in a previous post that this is essentially avoiding the 
question. Mostly because revolution is not quite on the 
agenda, is it, in most places. I am very open that it is in the 
interest of the working class and the future of humanity to 
support nuclear energy now, so long as it's well regulated 
and, to push for more public ownership of the entirety of the 
electrical system. We don't stop science and technological 
development "until socialism". In Luko's country, the 
Greens have succesfully enforced a "phase out" of nuclear 
energy. In it's place they are going to build at least 8 brand 
spanking new COAL PLANTS that burn brown coal from 
Poland and S. Africa. I would say that this is a *reactionary* 
position and socialists should oppose the introduction of 
new fossil fuels to replace the largest source of non-CO2 
emitting power on the planet.

David

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism