Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?...

[Clifford Heath]

On 01/03/23 02:27, bitrex wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:11 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
That\'s millions of tons of dirt that happens to contain radioactive
material. That\'s not to be confused with millions of tons of
radioactive fallout.

As you like. Ronald Reagan is recorded to have once quipped something
like \"_I_ didn\'t have cancer, my colon had cancer and they removed the
cancer from my colon\"

Leading to the riddle

\"Why is Ronald Reagan like an old typewriter?\"
....
\"Both have no memory and no colon\"

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs, it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.
But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:23:12 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There is shampoo for that. It\'s called \"Nuclear Warhead and Shoulders\".

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 10:54:40 AM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:23:12 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
You\'ll never know from reading that crap article written by an airhead who obviously lacks any sense of organization whatsoever.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..
Modern bombs are clean, there\'s not much fallout. Nuclear bombs aren\'t all they\'re cracked up to be. They only appear to be devastating when used on high density population centers- mainly because they are, but, outside that particular scenario, the destruction is not so much.

Sometimes, people really show their ignorance. Other than \"dirty bombs\", nuclear bombs of all types are clean if exploded far enough above the ground, letting the shockwave do the real work. The fallout comes from irradiating things in the immediate vicinity of the blast, which is then sucked up in the mushroom cloud and dispersed widely. Higher airbursts don\'t create so much radioactive debris, so less fallout.

It\'s not the weapon that makes so much radioactive \"filth\".

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:14:58 AM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 05:42:38 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
c20c9597-cc02-41fa...@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:23:45=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff
wrote:
On 2/28/2023 13:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:23:12=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/


Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

The long-lived stuff stays dangerous for about 100,000 years or so. Continental
drift moves chunks of rocks around quite a bit in that kind of time
scale.

Australia is moving north at 7 cm per year at the moment. That\'s 7 km in
100,000 years

The Pacific plate under western Californian is moving northwest with respect
to the American plate by 4.6 cm per year. That\'s 4.6 km in the same period.
Not a lot, but it can mess up the rocks in the vicinity.

Why not worry about the end of the universe as well then.
Or, on a shorter timescale, stop breathing so we don\'t exhale CO2.

Ignoring problems doesn\'t make them go away.

As if antinuclear talk has not done enough damage to energy production already.

Nuclear reactors make sense in space-craft and submarines. In the grid they
produce excessively expensive electricity, and take much too long to build.

Only take long to build because the cold war songs scared people resulting in too many regulations.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima weren\'t \"cold war songs\".

In fact nuclear energy is cheap, France has 70% of electric power from nuclear reactors.
here in the Netherlands 2 more nuclear reactors will be build.

That doesn\'t mean that it is cheap.

Pronuclear talk is essentially produced by people who want to build atomic bombs.
Too cheap to meter was lie from the start.

Sure plutonium can be made with those.
Uranium enrichment, also radioactive isotopes to kill cancers can be produced in those reactors.

Reactors for producing radioactive isotopes for medical applications aren\'t used for power generation.

EVERYTHING is dangerous, cars, trains. (!), planes,
Tens of people just died in a mine in China I did read.
Inhaling smoke from coal plants and diesel cars has likely shortened the life of millions.

Nuclear waste keeps on killing people for hundreds of thousands of year. It\'s a different kind of danger.

Compared to all that, nuclear is really safe, in the eighties I think it was we got exposed to Chernobyl
fallout here, well I am still around, the airco filers where I worked had to be replaced as those were hot.
so inhaling it outside and at home all day long! You were warned not to eat stuff from your garden,
Life must have evolved and been exposed to much higher levels of radiation than we have now.
DNA has a repair mechanism.

Not a very good one.

> Wildlife is flourishing in the forbidden zone around Chernobyl.

Up to a point. There\'s a lot of mutations.

> Paranoia ..

Anybody who wants to think about stuff you prefer to ignore looks paranoid to you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs, it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no less vocal. There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed to extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-perservation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 01/03/23 12:05, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:23:12 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There is shampoo for that.

Thanks, but I\'d rather use real poo

 

[RUKHMANA RAM GODARA]

none albert ने मंगलवार, 28 फ़रवरी 2023 को 10:28:53 pm UTC+5:30 बजे लिखा:

In article <bubsvh99p21j730ge...@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <x...@yy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs, it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.
No it doesn\'t. It is not cost-effective. All costs were extracted
from the defense budget, because France wanted to have their
atomic bomb.
Same situation applies to the oil-drenched Iran.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.
Reprocessing fuel, especially plutonium, is a boon for terrorists.

Groetjes Albert

https://arringtones.co.in/



--
Don\'t praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn\'t make spring.
You must not say \"hey\" before you have crossed the bridge. Don\'t sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 09:42:17 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<c98edbd4-e802-4914-a257-543908081685n@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:19:48=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 06:54:36 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs

bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote in
0091cbd5-c357-4e70...@googlegroups.com>:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:23:12=3DE2=3D80=3DAFAM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?

You\'ll never know from reading that crap article written by an airhead who
obviously
lacks any sense of organization whatsoever.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/



Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

Modern bombs are clean, there\'s not much fallout. Nuclear bombs aren\'t all
they\'re
cracked up to be. They only appear to be devastating when used on high

density population centers- mainly because they are, but, outside that particular

scenario, the destruction is not so much.
More than 4000 on each side in a US Russia exchange
just Where does the population go?

Most of them get burned beyond help. There is not enough medical supply in the
world to help them. Burns, as in 3rd degree, are one of the most resource
intensive injuries to treat- it cannot be done on the scale they will see
in modern times. They\'ll all be dead for sure in a few days.

Main thing is FEMA has a plan:

https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nuc-detonation-planning-guide.pdf

Wow! some document, 250 pages with nuke pictures and all..
I will go through it.
As to over here, I am about 20 km away from the mil airport (F16 F35 base) so they may well target that.
But wind is mostly from the west here, so I will watch the mushrooms and film it with my smartphone?
eeeh will it stilll work?

I know from the cold war time media jive to hide under the table.
From the Chernobyl and modern times we have iodine pills.

I may, once I hear that doomsday clock\'s first boing, sail way south and land in?
There is a Bob Dylan song \'talking_world_war_III_blues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYtVc56o9oo

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 17:35:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<36bba3c0-7991-4568-b0db-71bba50dfcaan@googlegroups.com>:

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:14:58=E2=80=AFAM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 05:42:38 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony

William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
c20c9597-cc02-41fa...@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:23:45=3DE2=3D80=3DAFPM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff

wrote:
On 2/28/2023 13:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:23:12=3DE2=3D80=3DAFPM UTC+11, Jan
Panteltje
wrote:
Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/



Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

The long-lived stuff stays dangerous for about 100,000 years or so. Continental

drift moves chunks of rocks around quite a bit in that kind of time
scale.

Australia is moving north at 7 cm per year at the moment. That\'s 7 km
in
100,000 years

The Pacific plate under western Californian is moving northwest with
respect
to the American plate by 4.6 cm per year. That\'s 4.6 km in the same period.

Not a lot, but it can mess up the rocks in the vicinity.

Why not worry about the end of the universe as well then.
Or, on a shorter timescale, stop breathing so we don\'t exhale CO2.

Ignoring problems doesn\'t make them go away.

As if antinuclear talk has not done enough damage to energy production
already.

Nuclear reactors make sense in space-craft and submarines. In the grid they

produce excessively expensive electricity, and take much too long to build.


Only take long to build because the cold war songs scared people resulting
in too many regulations.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima weren\'t \"cold war songs\".

In fact nuclear energy is cheap, France has 70% of electric power from nuclear
reactors.
here in the Netherlands 2 more nuclear reactors will be build.

That doesn\'t mean that it is cheap.

Pronuclear talk is essentially produced by people who want to build atomic
bombs.
Too cheap to meter was lie from the start.

Sure plutonium can be made with those.
Uranium enrichment, also radioactive isotopes to kill cancers can be produced
in those reactors.

Reactors for producing radioactive isotopes for medical applications aren\'t
used for power generation.

EVERYTHING is dangerous, cars, trains. (!), planes,
Tens of people just died in a mine in China I did read.
Inhaling smoke from coal plants and diesel cars has likely shortened the life
of millions.

Nuclear waste keeps on killing people for hundreds of thousands of year. It\'s
a different kind of danger.

Compared to all that, nuclear is really safe, in the eighties I think it was
we got exposed to Chernobyl
fallout here, well I am still around, the airco filers where I worked had
to be replaced as those were hot.
so inhaling it outside and at home all day long! You were warned not to eat
stuff from your garden,
Life must have evolved and been exposed to much higher levels of radiation
than we have now.
DNA has a repair mechanism.

Not a very good one.

Wildlife is flourishing in the forbidden zone around Chernobyl.

Up to a point. There\'s a lot of mutations.

Paranoia ..

Anybody who wants to think about stuff you prefer to ignore looks paranoid to
you.

Yea, your glowball worming fear does it too!!!

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs, it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.
And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.

But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no less vocal.

Not true.


> There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed >to>extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-perservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co
sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to
expose you to danger.
Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 1:11:12 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs, it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.

They look pretty credible to me.

And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.

Don\'t be silly. Windmills work fine when the wind is blowing, and it blows most of the time. Coping with the statisticially predictable periods when it isn\'t is a design exercise, not some kind of incipient disaster. The Australian utility companies are making money out of their windmills, and solar farms and losing it on coal fired power stations. The previous government got a lot of political contributions from big mining companies, and tried to pressure the utility companies to build more coal- and gas-fired power stations, but they would have been expensive white elephants.

But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no less vocal.

Not true.

You haven\'t been paying attention. There\'s at least one thorium reactor enthusiast who posts nonsense here at regular intervals.

The thorium has to gets converted U-233 before it will fission, and it fissions into much the same range of radioactive isotopes as U-235 and P-239, but he imagines that a thorium reactor is walk-away safe.

There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed to extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-preservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to expose you to danger.

No idea. I gave one of them what was left of my carefully purified bromine after I completed my experimental work - I\'d reduced the chlorine contamination enough that when he irradiate his hydrocarbons when it was around he got bromides rather than chlorides, but I stayed well away. The shield around the source was bigger than I was.

> Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

Sure. Phobias are sort of insanity. Being careful is perfectly sane.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 3/1/2023 9:11 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje
al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only
problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste
dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in
their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by
now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs,
it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to
lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.
And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.


But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no  less vocal.

Not true.


There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed
to>extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-perservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co
sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to
expose you to danger.
Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

This guy I\'m acquainted with who lived in the area and was complaining
about the decommission of Pilgrim Nuclear plant also liked to complain
that they had sirens to warn the public in case there was a release of
radiation, and tested them from time to time. \"They didn\'t need any of
that stuff, waste of money. Just scares people\"

He also naturally believes Covid vaccines are a secret deep state plot
to \"damage my DNA\"

 

[bitrex]

On 3/1/2023 11:06 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 1:11:12 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs, it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.

They look pretty credible to me.

And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.

Don\'t be silly. Windmills work fine when the wind is blowing, and it blows most of the time. Coping with the statisticially predictable periods when it isn\'t is a design exercise, not some kind of incipient disaster. The Australian utility companies are making money out of their windmills, and solar farms and losing it on coal fired power stations. The previous government got a lot of political contributions from big mining companies, and tried to pressure the utility companies to build more coal- and gas-fired power stations, but they would have been expensive white elephants.

But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no less vocal.

Not true.

You haven\'t been paying attention. There\'s at least one thorium reactor enthusiast who posts nonsense here at regular intervals.

The thorium has to gets converted U-233 before it will fission, and it fissions into much the same range of radioactive isotopes as U-235 and P-239, but he imagines that a thorium reactor is walk-away safe.

There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed to extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-preservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to expose you to danger.

No idea. I gave one of them what was left of my carefully purified bromine after I completed my experimental work - I\'d reduced the chlorine contamination enough that when he irradiate his hydrocarbons when it was around he got bromides rather than chlorides, but I stayed well away. The shield around the source was bigger than I was.

Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

Sure. Phobias are sort of insanity. Being careful is perfectly sane.

A few hundred rads straight to the gonads has a good chance of giving
your kids super powers. What you really have to watch out for is mRNA
vaccines which are entirely a leftist plot to corrupt pureblood Aryan
DNA, like fluoridation of the drinking water.

Too many of those shots and you will be pretty much guaranteed to give
birth to a BLACK baby, no matter how white you are.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:04:31 -0500) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <3W2ML.1624969$vBI8.1031700@fx15.iad>:

On 3/1/2023 9:11 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21 AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje
al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only
problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste
dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in
their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by
now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs,
it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to
lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.
And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.


But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no  less vocal.

Not true.


There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed
to>extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-perservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co
sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to
expose you to danger.
Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

This guy I\'m acquainted with who lived in the area and was complaining
about the decommission of Pilgrim Nuclear plant also liked to complain
that they had sirens to warn the public in case there was a release of
radiation, and tested them from time to time. \"They didn\'t need any of
that stuff, waste of money. Just scares people\"

He also naturally believes Covid vaccines are a secret deep state plot
to \"damage my DNA\"

The deep state plot was to have the US Military Industrial Complex create COVID
and let an overseas (in this case Chinese) lab play with it as it was too dangerous to do it in the US,
(backfired however in a big way) and then to have the US Medical Industrial Complex sell vaccines against it.
Overseas because their experiment on their own people with HIV went totally out of control.

 

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-02-28 17:07, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 05:42:38 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <c20c9597-cc02-41fa-b669-01aa83a78dc8n@googlegroups.com>:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:23:45=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 13:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:23:12=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/


Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

The long-lived stuff stays dangerous for about 100,000 years or so. Continental
drift moves chunks of rocks around quite a bit in that kind of time
scale.

Australia is moving north at 7 cm per year at the moment. That\'s 7 km in
100,000 years

The Pacific plate under western Californian is moving northwest with respect
to the American plate by 4.6 cm per year. That\'s 4.6 km in the same period.
Not a lot, but it can mess up the rocks in the vicinity.

Why not worry about the end of the universe as well then.
Or, on a shorter timescale, stop breathing so we don\'t exhale CO2.

Ignoring problems doesn\'t make them go away.

As if antinuclear talk has not done enough damage to energy production already.

Nuclear
reactors make sense in space-craft and submarines. In the grid they
produce excessively expensive electricity, and take much too long to build.

Only take long to build because the cold war songs scared people resulting
in too many regulations.
In fact nuclear energy is cheap, France has 70% of electric power from nuclear reactors.
here in the Netherlands 2 more nuclear reactors will be build.

Yes, they built them in order to be able to make bombs. Electricity was
a byproduct. Didn\'t you know?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:36:22 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:04:31 -0500) it happened bitrex
us...@example.net> wrote in <3W2ML.1624969$vBI8.1...@fx15.iad>:
On 3/1/2023 9:11 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21â ¯AM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje
al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/

Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only
problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more
enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste
dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in
their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by
now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the
externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs,
it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be
even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to
lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.
And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.


But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd
are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no less vocal.

Not true.


There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed
to>extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-perservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co
sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to
expose you to danger.
Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

This guy I\'m acquainted with who lived in the area and was complaining
about the decommission of Pilgrim Nuclear plant also liked to complain
that they had sirens to warn the public in case there was a release of
radiation, and tested them from time to time. \"They didn\'t need any of
that stuff, waste of money. Just scares people\"

He also naturally believes Covid vaccines are a secret deep state plot
to \"damage my DNA\"
The deep state plot was to have the US Military Industrial Complex create COVID
and let an overseas (in this case Chinese) lab play with it as it was too dangerous to do it in the US,
(backfired however in a big way) and then to have the US Medical Industrial Complex sell vaccines against it.
Overseas because their experiment on their own people with HIV went totally out of control.

They\'re brewing up the H5N1 right now. It\'s spreading fast in the mammalian world. 70% mortality is no joke, maybe wipe out 2/3 world population.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:29:46 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<8a4e8ea6-b569-4777-a2eb-2c90c5039933n@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 10:36:22=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:04:31 -0500) it happened bitrex
us...@example.net> wrote in <3W2ML.1624969$vBI8.1...@fx15.iad>:
On 3/1/2023 9:11 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 3/1/2023 3:43, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 10:29:21=C3=A2 =C2=AFAM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff
wrote:
On 2/28/2023 18:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 11:26:50 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:


On 2/28/2023 10:57 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:33:18 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:


On 2/28/2023 10:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:15:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje
al...@comet.invalid
wrote:

Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/


Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..


There are lots of ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Their only

problem
is political.


Citizens in \"red states\" out west historically haven\'t been any more

enamored of land in their states being used as nuclear waste
dumps, than
anyone in Vermont or Rhode Island would be about it being put in

their
backyard.

Then let them freeze in the dark.


If fission nuclear had so much going for it, it would be popular by

now,
nobody could stop it, certainly not NIMBYs.

Its biggest enemy has been itself, in that once you factor in all the

externalities, potential long-term liabilities, and startup costs,

it\'s
just not that cheap a way of generating power.

It works in France.

If we had rational regulation and we reprocessed fuel, it would be

even cheaper.

Of course it works and of course it is cheaper. Here they publish
the cost per MWh from the only NPP and the rest and it is much
cheaper than coal, gas, anything.

But you haven\'t posted the numbers. and governments have been known to

lie about the costs of prestige products.

In the West nuclear power isn\'t cheap.

I am sure you can find some figures to support this.
None of which are credible.
And please no windmills nonsense. These will leave us all in
the dark eventually, not that I am young enough to worry about
this, I don;t have many decades left and it will take some
until we exhaust the resources built last century.


But I am sort of giving up on arguing sense, the antinuclear crowd

are stoneheads without even basic knowledge on the subject but
as voicy as they come. It is a religion, if it were not they
would not be half as fuming.

The pro-nuclear crowd are no=C3=82 less vocal.

Not true.


There\'s no religion involved in being unhappy about being exposed
to>extra ionising radiation. That\'s pure self-perservation.

I am sure you think so. So what was the activity of those 60Co
sources your radiochemistry colleagues were negligent with to
expose you to danger.
Having a phobia and self preservation are very different, you know.

This guy I\'m acquainted with who lived in the area and was complaining

about the decommission of Pilgrim Nuclear plant also liked to complain

that they had sirens to warn the public in case there was a release of

radiation, and tested them from time to time. \"They didn\'t need any of

that stuff, waste of money. Just scares people\"

He also naturally believes Covid vaccines are a secret deep state plot

to \"damage my DNA\"
The deep state plot was to have the US Military Industrial Complex create
COVID
and let an overseas (in this case Chinese) lab play with it as it was too
dangerous to do it in the US,
(backfired however in a big way) and then to have the US Medical Industrial
Complex sell vaccines against it.
Overseas because their experiment on their own people with HIV went totally
out of control.

They\'re brewing up the H5N1 right now. It\'s spreading fast in the mammalian
world. 70% mortality is no joke, maybe wipe out 2/3 world population.

Yes, typing H5N1 in google shows some human death caused by a variant.
Many birds and chicken farms here were hit by the \'bird flue\' and all their chickens killed
as a precaution.
Was it a US made virus? I dunno.
In case of COVID I have read papers online that warned about how dangerous the experiment
was but that US professor Fauci? who later advised presidents pushed ahead with it.

Problem with all this is that soon any kid with a \'Walmart make your own dino kit\'
can make life, any virus they want,...
Just like I as a kid tinkered with electronics.

Well universe is filled with life forms, even though NASA keeps denying the Mariner 9 test for
life experiment on Mars was positive.
http://www.gillevin.com/
Religious forces in the US will deny it... NASA depends on their funding.

So, we are just a transient, like ants walking on earth in a much bigger thing
we know shit about and never will with our few neurons.
OTOH all is connected, an electron moved here will affect ones everywhere else.
So all part of a greater thing.
Its all right!

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 2 Mar 2023 19:21:35 +0100) it happened \"Carlos E.R.\"
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in <f267djxmlv.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>:

On 2023-02-28 17:07, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 05:42:38 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <c20c9597-cc02-41fa-b669-01aa83a78dc8n@googlegroups.com>:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:23:45=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 13:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:23:12=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Could deep boreholes solve our nuclear waste problem?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/could-deep-boreholes-solve-our-nuclear-waste-problem/


Of course it does not solve the radioactive fallout from WW3..

The long-lived stuff stays dangerous for about 100,000 years or so. Continental
drift moves chunks of rocks around quite a bit in that kind of time
scale.

Australia is moving north at 7 cm per year at the moment. That\'s 7 km in
100,000 years

The Pacific plate under western Californian is moving northwest with respect
to the American plate by 4.6 cm per year. That\'s 4.6 km in the same period.
Not a lot, but it can mess up the rocks in the vicinity.

Why not worry about the end of the universe as well then.
Or, on a shorter timescale, stop breathing so we don\'t exhale CO2.

Ignoring problems doesn\'t make them go away.

As if antinuclear talk has not done enough damage to energy production already.

Nuclear
reactors make sense in space-craft and submarines. In the grid they
produce excessively expensive electricity, and take much too long to build.

Only take long to build because the cold war songs scared people resulting
in too many regulations.
In fact nuclear energy is cheap, France has 70% of electric power from nuclear reactors.
here in the Netherlands 2 more nuclear reactors will be build.

Yes, they built them in order to be able to make bombs. Electricity was
a byproduct. Didn\'t you know?

Oh yes humming beans are a byproduct of processes in stars
Didn\'t you know?

++
Cheers, Carlos.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 5:33:33 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 2 Mar 2023 19:21:35 +0100) it happened \"Carlos E.R.\"
robin_...@es.invalid> wrote in <f267djx...@Telcontar.valinor>:
On 2023-02-28 17:07, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Feb 2023 05:42:38 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in <c20c9597-cc02-41fa...@googlegroups.com>:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:23:45=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/28/2023 13:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:23:12=E2=80=AFPM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

Yes, they built them in order to be able to make bombs. Electricity was
a byproduct. Didn\'t you know?

Oh yes human beings are a byproduct of processes in stars,
Didn\'t you know?

Human beings do rely on atoms heavier than iron, but we aren\'t a by-product of supernova - we evolved after supernova had seeded our stellar environment with heavy atoms, and we exploit a few of them,

Nuclear reactors are an excellent excuse for building up the technological base which allows you to make nuclear bombs. Claiming that nuclear reactors provide cheap electric power - they don\'t - is the sort of lie that politicians produce nonstop.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney