From: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Subject: Re: NEWS: UN Convenes Special Meeting on Nuclear Transports
Originator: rlaltsta@c00325-2114bl.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: rlaltsta@eos.ncsu.edu (RICHARD L ALTSTATT)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:26:21 GMT




> 
> In article <JMC.92Dec14161859@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
> >A very ingenious press release, interspersing what the IMO and IAEA
> >said with Greenpeace propaganda and lies.  For example, referring
> >to the plutonium being extracted from the used fuel elements as
> >waste is an intentional lie.
> >--
> 
> Rather than tell us it is a lie, back up your claim. What do the processing
> plants do? Where does the plutonium Japan is now shipping coming from? Why
> the uproar if these plants are as safe and unpolluting as you think they are?
> Why does England need a new plant?

>  All we ever seem to hear from you are knee jerk, antagonistic reactions
>  which show how shallow your opinions really are. Explaining your comments
>  will help to stop you from looking like a radical.
> 
> 			Dale (a 'moderate' greenie)

	You are the one who is making the antagonistic knee-jerk reactions
in order to make his statements seem incorrect or biased.  The heat extracted
from fission processes is only a small amount of the total energy of the 
reaction.  The fuel elements that are removed are usually removed for several
reasons.  The first is that the design of a plant which burns Uranium or 
enriched Uranium is significantly diferent than the design of a plant which burns
Plutonium. Politically, for the reason of ready availability of plutonium,
those reactors are not used in most countries, however, many rector designs
use mixed uranium and plutonium rods.  Spent fuel contains some reactor poisons
such as Xenon which will decay or must be removed chemically, but this does
not make the majority of the rod "waste".  The purpose of reprocessing plants
and breeder reactors is to burn this "spent fuel " and produce more fuel of the
kind used in the initial reactor.  To say that there is some devious motive
behind increased reprocessing is silly at best.  Japan and England both want
more independence from external control.  Green peace and other organizations
show a specific bias toward solar and wind power which are unlikely to create
the power density necessary.  I agree that more development should occur in 
those power sources to enhance their effectiveness.  However, to deny nuclear
power in spite of a good record of relibillity and less health hazzards than
those caused by conventional power generation methods is to deny a significant 
asset in our conservation goals.  I would like to restate that nuclear fuel 
and true wastes are harmfull and must be stored carefully, but this can be done
at current technology.  Fossile fuels are harmfull and their wastes are killing 
people daily.  The tower of Herculese was a great vacation spot, Hemmingway
went there to look at the sea.  No one will fish there for years. When will
Greenpeace go after the real killers?
	No, I don't think that anyone who buys the party line without doing
some research into the full situation is a Moderate.  I think they are a fool.
			Richard L Altstatt  MS ES  fuel economy research
Xref: sparky sci.energy:6107 talk.environment:4995